Public hearings show support for land expropriation – parliament

However written submissions from the public were a different matter, with 65% opposing the change, 34% in favour and 1% undecided.
The land issue has unnerved ratings agencies, investors. Picture: Shutterstock

South Africans overwhelmingly support changing the Constitution to allow land to be expropriated without compensation, parliament said on Thursday, announcing the findings of a draft report that followed public hearings on the issue.

President Cyril Ramaphosa’s ruling African National Congress has made the acceleration of land redistribution a key issue ahead of 2019 elections, unnerving investors despite pledges to do so in a way that does not threaten food security or growth.

Most private land remains in the hands of the white minority more than two decades after apartheid’s demise, making it a vivid symbol of wider disparities.

“According to the draft report, there was overwhelming support in the public hearings for a Constitutional amendment on expropriation of land without compensation,” parliament’s press office said in a statement.

“It further states that those opposed to a Constitutional amendment argued that the rejection of expropriation without compensation did not mean that (they) did not support land reform,” it said.

Public hearings on land redistribution were held earlier this year across South Africa, attracting large crowds and often emotional testimony. Written submissions from the public were a different matter, with 65% opposing the change, 34% in favour and 1% undecided.

Parliament’s Constitutional Review Committee on the issue began its consideration of the draft report on Thursday. It did not say when it would conclude its review.

Ramaphosa has also appointed a panel of experts to advise him on land reform. The panel is expected to make recommendations to the president in March next year.

South Africa’s sovereign rating risks being downgraded due to concerns about the lack of clarity around land expropriation, a senior S&P Global Ratings analyst said earlier this week, underscoring investor concerns about the matter.

Attempts to redistribute land from whites to blacks since the end of apartheid in 1994 have often failed. The ruling ANC faces an election challenge next year from a far left party saying all land must be nationalised.

Get access to Moneyweb's financial intelligence and support quality journalism for only
R63/month or R630/year.
Sign up here, cancel at any time.


Sort by:
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Top voted

You must be signed in to comment.


Literate people are opposing, illiterate ones are supporting expropriation 🙂

Exactly the same division over support for the ANC government.

Yes, and sadly with the same catastrophic result.
We have seen this movie before I’m afraid!

Yip. Same supporters voting for ANC regardless. Guess who will win.

Now the question is – are the written submissions also regarded?

Perhaps the votes should be given to taxpayers with more voting rights based on the higher tax you pay!
After all it’s the big taxpayers who will have to bail out those that end up not being able to sustain their desire for land? Just a thought.

To lessen the cost and soothe the conflict of the expropriation,the government might compensate the land owners with shares of stocks,state-owned companies.

The farmers should pay a cheap rent,for reference 10% of the annual harvest.Meanwhile,the farmers have the privilege to buy the land at a low price.

It sounds great when you say 65% of written submissions oppose land expropriations, what you are not saying however, is that the number (the raw number of people who wrote in are more than those who showed up at these events). So, you can have say, for arguments sake 100 people write in with 65 of those opposed, and then have on the other hand have 10 000 people who showed up at these events the vast majority of who support the objective, so you cannot really compare these two things properly. Unless you break them down by raw numbers and disaggregate the numbers accordingly so that they make sense. Doing otherwise if wasting time at best and or conflating issue at the least, to make it seem like the two things are equal. This method of reporting on sampling is problematic and misleading.

End of comments.





Follow us:

Search Articles:Advanced Search
Click a Company: