The Free Market Foundation (FMF) says the President of the United States, Donald Trump is right about the risks of expropriation without compensation (EWC).
On Sunday evening, president Trump said on Truth Social that the United States will be cutting off funding to South Africa, pending an investigation into the recently signed Expropriation Act.
“South Africa is confiscating land and treating certain classes of people VERY BADLY (sic). It is a bad situation that the Radical Left Media doesn’t want to so much as mentioned,” he said.
“A massive Human Rights VIOLATION (sic), at a minimum, is happening for all to see. The United States won’t stand for it, we will act. Also, I will be cutting off all future funding to South Africa until a full investigation of this situation has been completed!”
In response, The South African government said it is “looking forward to engaging” with United States of America (US) President Donald Trump’s administration on bilateral relations and other issues.
It said that the new Act states that property may not be expropriated arbitrarily or for a purpose other than a public purpose or in the public interest. The Presidency has also refuted any allegations that land has been confiscated by the state.
The FMF noted with concern the spread of misinformation among South African commentators that the Expropriation Act does not allow for property confiscation, as pointed out by Trump.
The Expropriation Act, the FMF said, does provide for property confiscation, in particular section 12(3) where it allows government to take property for “nil” compensation.
“Section 25 of the Constitution is clear that there must always be payment of an amount of just and equitable compensation,” said FMF head of policy, Martin van Staden. “Concealing the absence of compensation in appeals to ‘nil’ compensation does not cure the Expropriation Act of its confiscatory nature or unconstitutionality.”
He said that the approximately $400 million in foreign aid that South Africa reportedly receives from the US does not compare to the immense damage that property confiscation will do to South Africa’s economy and its people.
“The patriotic thing for South Africans to do is to oppose the government’s attempts to implement expropriation without compensation, not to get upset when foreign actors point it out,” said Van Staden.
“All successful countries follow the model of market-based compensation upon expropriation. This must be the only standard. The developed world’s resistance to the course chosen by the South African government can therefore not shock or surprise us.”
The state’s pursuance of confiscation also threatens the preferential trade access South Africa has to US markets through the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). South Africa need simply respect its own constitutional values to remain compliant with AGOA.
Property owners in South Africa have never been accorded the respect they are due.
“Prior to 1994, the majority of South Africans were told where they may and may not own property. After 1994, owners were subject to further abuse when the state nationalised privately owned water and mineral rights. Now it has its eyes on all fixed property, primarily agricultural land,” said Van Staden.
“Trump saying that this class of people – property owners – have been treated terribly by the state is therefore also not incorrect.”
Minister of International Relations and Cooperation, Ronald Lamola, has urged Trump’s advisors to deepen their understanding of South Africa’s constitutionally guided and democratic policies as they investigate the Expropriation Act.
Lamola on Monday told SAnews, expropriation laws are not unique to South Africa.
“We trust President Trump’s advisors will make use of the investigative period to attain a thorough understanding of South Africa’s policies within the framework of a constitutional democracy. This approach will promote a well-informed viewpoint that values and recognises our nation’s dedication to democratic ideals and governance.
“It may become clear that our Expropriation Act is not exceptional, as many countries have similar legislation, commonly referred to as eminent domain in the United States and governed by various acts in the United Kingdom,” Lamola said.
