LAND EXPROPRIATION BILLS: The final lap?
Updated: 5 days ago
Copied below, in reverse date order, are summaries of parliamentary committee meetings on the remaining Constitution 18th Amendment Bill development and revised Expropriation Bill finetuning process. They were first published in Legalbrief Today under 'Policy Watch'. Juta Law owns the copyright to these summaries, which is why several days are allowed to lapse before they appear here (with Juta’s permission).
9 April 2021
The separate draft Constitution 18th Amendment Bill and revised Expropriation Bill parliamentary processes are ‘complementary’, ‘not mutually exclusive’, and Parliament will determine their outcomes. This, notes Legalbrief's Pam Saxby, was the gist of Friday’s response from Public Works & Infrastructure Minister Patricia de Lille to concerns that the revised Expropriation Bill may have been introduced prematurely. She was presenting her department’s oral submission on the draft Constitution 18th Amendment Bill to members of the ad hoc committee responsible for preparing it – and it was the EFF’s Floyd Shivambu who raised the issue. Interestingly, his reservations about the revised Expropriation Bill process and its implications for the work of the ad hoc committee were endorsed by FF Plus representative in the committee Corné Mulder, albeit without any explanation.
However, as Legalbrief Today has already reported, when the committee issued a media statement on the matter it did so in the context of last month’s parallel oral submissions on the two proposed new pieces of legislation. At the time, members appeared to be of the view that, in conducting public hearings on the revised Expropriation Bill – which includes a clause proposing the circumstances in which land expropriation for nil compensation might be deemed just and equitable – the National Assembly’s Public Works & Infrastructure Committee may have ‘put the cart before the horse’. This was noting that the ad hoc committee has yet to consider the merits or otherwise of locating a list of these circumstances in the amendment to section 25 of the Constitution.
Drawing a distinction between the draft Constitution 18th Amendment Bill as framework legislation and the revised Expropriation Bill as a general law of application, Minister De Lille nevertheless avoided expressing a view on the list’s most appropriate location – and since neither Shivambu nor Mulder questioned her further on the matter, as a procedural issue it may well have been laid to rest. Tentatively scheduled for Friday, this week’s meeting will focus on considering and adopting a final report on the public participation process. It will then be the task of parliamentary legal services to propose any changes to the draft Bill deemed appropriate in the light of oral and written submissions, which is when mandates from the principals of political parties represented on the committee will come into play.
During last week’s meeting, members also heard oral submissions from Justice & Correctional Services Minister Ronald Lamola and Mineral Resources & Energy Minister Gwede Mantashe – with a presentation from the Department of Justice & Constitutional Development focusing on the draft Land Court Bill recently tabled in Parliament. Neither Minister raised any issues of concern regarding the draft Constitution 18th Amendment Bill. However, in responding to a question from committee chair Mathole Motshekga about a perceived disregard among mining companies for traditional religious rights and practices, Mantashe referred to a tendency for community consultation processes to be dominated by groups with agendas of their own and the extent to which this complicates the negotiations process. It was in that context that he drew attention to the importance of ‘educating people’ about the ‘complexities’ of land reform.
1 April 2021
Mandates on policy and legal issues arising from last week’s oral submissions on the draft Constitution 18th Amendment Bill will be sought from the principals of each political party represented in the ad hoc committee concerned before proceeding with the process of finalising the Bill. This, notes Legalbrief's Pam Saxby, was agreed at yesterday’s meeting, when parliamentary legal advisers Telana Halley-Starkey and Charmaine van der Merwe briefed members on the possible implications of concerns and alternative wording proposals articulated during the hearings. According to their presentation, policy decisions are required on whether expropriation for nil compensation should apply to land improvements; if the final Bill should include circumstances in which land might justifiably be expropriated for nil compensation (and/or circumstances in which certain land would be exempt from being expropriated for nil compensation); the role of the courts in the process of determining the amount of compensation for expropriated land (and when this should be nil); and whether the term ‘public interest’ automatically includes and is understood to serve ‘community interest’ in the context of land reform.
The committee’s attention was also drawn to the ‘basic structure doctrine’, in terms of which ‘certain features or principles (are) so engrained in the fabric of the Constitution that even if a supermajority, or indeed, every member of Parliament, were to decide to interfere with that feature or principle, it would be unconstitutional’ (De Rebus). In the context of objections from the EFF’s Floyd Shivambu to certain recommendations in the presentation document, members were reminded that it is parliamentary legal services’ duty to flag wording proposals that might be challenged and found not to pass constitutional muster – thus further hindering the land reform programme implementation. The document also noted the draft Bill’s interconnectedness with a revised Expropriation Bill now before the National Assembly’s Public Works & Infrastructure Committee. However, no discussion took place on procedural concerns arising from last week’s parallel oral submissions on both proposed new pieces of legislation. Perhaps the Department of Public Works & Infrastructure will clarify the status of oral evidence received on the revised Expropriation Bill, as well as plans for provincial public hearings on its contents. The department is expected to appear before the ad hoc committee next week.
Meanwhile, Agriculture, Land Reform & Rural Development Minister Thoko Didiza has assured the committee that her department is addressing institutional and capacity constraints widely perceived to have undermined the effective, efficient implementation of existing land reform programmes. No details or timeframes were provided. Instead, the Minister’s briefing and a presentation from her department focused on various enabling statutes either already in place or being amended to respond to Constitutional Court rulings. In that context, the presentation referred to a ‘Bill to regulate communal land’ (which is expected to be introduced in Parliament ‘this year’); and the 2020 Upgrading of Land Tenure Rights Amendment Bill (a ‘B’ version of which is now before the NCOP committee concerned). The Minister also noted the importance of amending section 25 of the Constitution to ‘clarify the issue of compensation’ by addressing the ‘challenge’ of ‘weighting factors’ in sub-section 25(3) as it is presently worded.
With the aim of avoiding any further misunderstandings about the extent to which the ad hoc committee may or may not have overstepped its mandate, Vusumuzi Xaba was asked to refresh members’ memories in the context of the 2018 Constitutional Review Committee report, the work of the previous Parliament’s ad hoc committee and the report of the advisory panel on land reform and agriculture. This was noting that Xaba had already been tasked with assisting committee support staff should they require clarity on certain aspects of the public participation report now being finalised. He is one of several ANC representatives on the committee and holds an LLM from the University of KwaZulu-Natal. Committee chair Mathole Motshekga expressed confidence that – once Xaba’s written summary of the mandate has been circulated – members will be ‘reading from the same page and singing from the same hymnbook’ as they proceed with finalising the Bill, which is now expected to be ready by 31 May for tabling in the National Assembly. Any committee meeting minutes yet to be read and signed off as accurately reflecting the proceedings concerned will be considered next week.
29 March 2021
Blame for a procedural blunder allowing oral submissions on the draft Constitution 18th Amendment Bill and revised Expropriation Bill to run in tandem last week – possibly compromising the entire parliamentary process – was apportioned to National Assembly committees chair Cedrick Frolick in a media statement issued on Thursday and quoting Public Works & Infrastructure Committee chair Nolitha Ntobongwana. It was published on Parliament’s website on Friday. One issued the previous day by the ad hoc committee responsible for preparing the draft Constitution 18th Amendment Bill drew attention to the implications of simultaneous oral submissions for the work of the committee ‘in its attempt to find the correct wording to allow for the expropriation of land without compensation in the Constitution’, reports Legalbrief's Pam Saxby.
As Legalbrief Today has already reported, a draft programme for the remainder of the ad hoc committee’s work was submitted to the National Assembly in support of a request for more time to fulfil its mandate. The programme envisaged at the time included dates on which oral submissions have since been heard. Presumably, it was approved by Frolick – who had already authorised the revised Expropriation Bill project timeline. Its dates for hearing oral submissions have featured in the committee meetings schedule since 11 March and were clearly going to create a clash in interests, as Legalbrief Today has pointed out on at least one occasion. Regardless of who may or may not be to blame, the damage has been done. Yet the Public Works & Infrastructure Committee appears determined to proceed with its plans to ‘visit regions in each province to listen to … wider public input’. The parallel process of hearing oral submissions on two inextricably linked pieces of proposed new legislation is described in its statement as ‘an unfortunate incident’, the likes of which ‘should be avoided at all cost’ lest ‘unnecessary confusion’ ensue.
Over the years, Legalbrief Today has repeatedly drawn attention to a tendency on the part of many MPs across party lines not to read documents circulated to them in advance of meetings, not to do the homework necessary to fully understand the legislation before them – and not to communicate with their colleagues in other committees. It became clear during the early stages of Public Works & Infrastructure Committee discussions on the revised Expropriation Bill that members, regardless of party affiliations, had either overlooked the Bill’s implications for the work of the Constitution section 25 amendment ad hoc committee or simply did not understand the purpose of the complex piece of proposed new legislation and its sub-clause 12(3) – which seeks to prescribe the circumstances in which it might be justifiable to expropriate land for nil compensation. Yet its chair, Nolitha Ntobongwana, is also a member of the ad hoc committee.
It also became clear when the ad hoc committee met towards the end of 2019 (before the draft Constitution 18th Amendment Bill was gazetted for comment) that members were either unaware of why the 2015 Expropriation Bill was being revised and its implications for their work – or chose to ignore that part of the broader process. This despite parliamentary legal adviser Charmaine van der Merwe’s regular, painstaking explanations of the role of framework and enabling legislation. Not once during debates on the most appropriate location for a list prescribing the circumstances in which land might reasonably be expropriated for nil compensation was the Expropriation Bill mentioned by name. Yet it was obvious from input made at the time by the DA’s Glynnis Breytenbach and Werner Horn that their party’s preference would be to include the list in the draft Bill then before them. This was noting that any amendment to the Constitution requires the support of two-thirds of the House, whereas an amendment to national legislation only requires the support of 50%. At the time, the DA position was that, should the list be located in national legislation, this could result in the piecemeal erosion of property rights by governments less inclined to take cognisance of its economic consequences. Similar sentiments had already been expressed by FF Plus representative Corné Mulder. Eventually, it was agreed that this matter would be flagged for deliberations after the public participation process.
The revised Expropriation Bill was tabled in Parliament in October 2020, at which point provincial public hearings on the draft Constitution 18th Amendment Bill were in their final phase. Are members of the ad hoc committee still unaware of its contents? Have they ever read the revised Expropriation Bill? If so, have they never wondered about the implications of sub-clause 12(3) for their work? Have they ever communicated on the matter with their colleagues in the Public Works & Infrastructure Committee? Did nobody in either committee notice the significance of each piece of proposed new legislation for the other? Or was it decided, long ago, that the revised Expropriation Bill would prescribe the circumstances in which land might justifiably be expropriated for nil compensation – and that any discussion on the inclusion of a list of these circumstances in the Constitution 18th Amendment Bill would simply be a formality (effectively making a mockery of the entire public participation process on the wording of amendments to section 25)?
Before last week’s revelations, parliamentary observers and commentators might have been reasonably justified in assuming that the committees concerned were working together on a mutually agreed approach to fulfilling their public participation obligations and that – despite the logistical challenges, for stakeholders, of presenting their perspectives in two sets of hearings being held simultaneously – the process was running as planned. This appears not to have been the case. It will be interesting to see how the fallout is managed.
26 March 2021
Given concerns raised about the implications of public hearings on the revised Expropriation Bill, ‘running concurrent’ with the work of the National Assembly ad hoc committee responsible for preparing the draft Constitution 18th Amendment Bill, clarity is needed on the status of oral submissions heard this week by the Public Works & Infrastructure Committee, notes Pam Saxby. The ad hoc committee issued a media statement yesterday drawing attention to these concerns and, specifically, on the impact of Expropriation Bill oral submissions on the work of the committee ‘in its attempt to find the correct wording to allow for the expropriation of land without compensation in the Constitution’. A separate Legalbrief Policy Watch report provides more detail on the proceedings concerned.
Meanwhile, a submission to the ad hoc committee from the South African Research Chair in Property Law has drawn attention to the importance of ensuring that any amendment to section 25 intended to ‘make explicit what is implicit … is clear that in any expropriation … there is always a duty to compensate’. In that context, the amendment should expressly provide that ‘the amount of compensation must be determined on a case-by-case basis, on the standard of justice and equity, and may sometimes be an amount of nil’. This is noting that ‘expropriation without compensation … in principle means that there is no obligation at all to compensate when property is expropriated’. ‘The expropriatee can in other words not question the payment of no compensation, because there is no per se duty to compensate’.
With that as its point of departure, the submission proposed wording the South African Research Chair in Property Law believes would not only clarify what is already implicit in section 25 but could also ‘expedite’ the process of expropriation for land reform purposes. According to the submission, ‘there is no need for the courts to be the only institutions clothed with the authority … to decide … that nil compensation is appropriate in a particular case’. This should be determined administratively on the understanding that, ‘should the expropriatee disagree, the dispute may … then be taken to court’. In the event of a dispute, the courts would retain the ‘ultimate authority’ to determine whether nil compensation is just and equitable – but ‘would not be the initial decision-maker in this respect’. It would nevertheless be left to the enabling legislation (the upcoming new Expropriation Act) to provide for ‘sufficient internal and affordable mechanisms to hold … decision-makers accountable’ and to ensure that only disputes that cannot be resolved between the parties ‘end up in court’.
In that context – notwithstanding concerns about the timing of the revised Expropriation Bill public participation process – a joint oral submission from Business Unity SA (Busa) and Agbiz heard yesterday by the National Assembly’s Public Works & Infrastructure Committee provided food for thought. Focusing on the ‘potential omission’ of certain provisions in the Expropriation Bill, the submission confirmed that, while neither constituency believes nil compensation is ‘required’ as an instrument for accelerated land reform, each nevertheless agrees with ‘90%’ of the Bill’s contents. Although most proposals in the Busa-Agbiz submission have already been discussed in the National Economic Development & Labour Council, one apparently fell outside its mandate.
26 March 2021
This week’s parliamentary hearings of oral submissions on the revised Expropriation Bill may have been conducted prematurely. This emerged yesterday during a meeting of the ad hoc committee established by the National Assembly to prepare and table legislation amending section 25 of the Constitution to explicitly allow expropriation for nil/without compensation for land reform purposes. What may well have been a procedural blunder in organising parallel hearings on the draft Constitution 18th Amendment Bill and revised Expropriation Bill could derail the entire process if not sensitively managed – pointing to serious shortcomings in inter-committee and intra-party communication, notes Legalbrief's Pam Saxby. It remains to be seen how it was possible for House chair Cedrick Frolick, National Assembly Programme Committee chair and Speaker, Thandi Modise, and the chief whips’ forum neither to consider nor even notice the possible implications of what was planned. Legalbrief Today has regularly reported on the matter.
What can only be described as a glaring lack of foresight and management capacity on the part of senior MPs (across party lines) and their presiding officers finally became apparent when representatives of the Department of Public Works & Infrastructure attempted to respond to their brief from the committee and were dismissed for being perceived to have misunderstood it. When representatives of the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform & Rural Development were found to have received the same brief, committee support staff explained that it had been communicated in keeping with the requirements of National Assembly Rule 275(b). This makes it mandatory for a committee preparing draft legislation to provide any ‘relevant’ national department with ‘sufficient opportunity’ to make a submission to the committee before introducing its Bill.
Against that backdrop, the Department of Public Works & Infrastructure had approached Advocate Uday Naidoo for advice. However, only when that advice drew attention to the draft Bill’s implications for provisions in the revised Expropriation Bill (which was prepared by the department and tabled by Minister Patricia de Lille) did committee members become aware that parallel hearings had been held the previous day and were continuing. Only then did it dawn on them that the National Assembly’s Public Works & Infrastructure Committee was already hearing oral evidence on a piece of proposed new legislation featuring a list of circumstances in which land expropriation for nil/without compensation might be justifiable in the public interest. Only then did members realise that, in doing so, their colleagues in the other committee may have ‘jumped the gun’ (to quote ANC representative in the ad hoc committee, Dibolelo Mahlatsi) since it had yet to be determined whether the draft Constitution 18th Amendment Bill should prescribe these circumstances. Yet, as ad hoc committee chair Mathole Motshekga confirmed, National Assembly Public Works & Infrastructure Committee chair Nolitha Ntobongwana is also a member of his committee – and, according to Parliamentary Monitoring Group committee attendance records, was present at most of its meetings this year.
Interestingly, EFF representatives in yesterday’s meeting of the ad hoc committee (Floyd Shivambu and Mbuyiseni Ndlozi) were the first to notice this – tending to suggest that only they had already read Naidoo’s advice, which was apparently circulated to members well in advance of the meeting. Whether other opposition parties representatives in the committee had done so is not clear. Whatever the case, yesterday’s unfortunate proceedings once again drew attention to intra committee alliances and tensions that may not necessarily be in the best interests of this complex process or the country. Surely silence on the part of any opposition party on possible procedural and administrative shortcomings is inappropriate, especially on matters as contentious as land expropriation without compensation?
Motshekga has asked support staff to ‘redefine the brief’ to departments being invited to make oral submissions to the committee. Among other things, the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform & Rural Development will then have an opportunity to respond to concerns voiced during this week’s hearings regarding ‘incompetence, corruption and mismanagement’ in the context of land reform programme implementation. With that in mind, next Wednesday and Thursday have been set aside in a revised committee programme that originally earmarked 19 March for departmental presentations. Meanwhile, Motshekga has undertaken to approach Ntobongwana with the aim of allowing his committee to complete its work before hers resumes its public participation process on the revised Expropriation Bill.
25 March 2021
A second round of oral submissions on the draft Constitution 18th Amendment Bill and the first leg of hearings on the revised Expropriation Bill conducted virtually yesterday, in tandem, drew attention to cross-cutting issues already articulated by several key stakeholders many times before, reports Pam Saxby. This is noting public participation processes conducted in 2018 by the Constitution Review Committee and reflected in its report; and presentations heard by the National Assembly’s Public Works Committee and its NCOP counterpart when the 2015 Expropriation Bill was being processed by SA’s fifth democratic Parliament. Against that backdrop, oral evidence heard yesterday by both committees tended to fall into two categories. One focused on the importance of effective land redistribution by fully functional institutions capable of providing the necessary post-settlement support. The other based its arguments on ideological positions either supporting or opposing one or both pieces of proposed new legislation. This is noting that the draft Constitution 18th Amendment Bill seeks to amend section 25 of the Constitution to explicitly provide for expropriation without/for nil compensation for land reform purposes; and that the revised Expropriation Bill proposes a list of circumstances in which land expropriation for nil/without compensation might be justifiable.
Presenters in favour of effective land reform aimed at sustainably improving the quality of life of SA’s most needy citizens included the Legal Resources Centre (LRC) and the Council for the Advancement of the South African Constitution (Casac). Focusing on faster, cheaper processes for addressing the plight of dispossessed people and inequitable ownership patterns, the LRC expressed support for land expropriation without compensation – favouring administrative decisions in that regard. This was noting a tendency for the courts not to understand customary law. Possibly related to this, the centre called for a shift in the focus of the land reform debate towards vulnerable people daily dispossessed by infrastructure and other developments, including mining, and compensated at far below the market value of the land concerned. At the time of writing, the LRC’s written submission on the draft Constitution 18th Amendment Bill had yet to be made electronically available. By contrast, lack of institutional capacity was the focus of an oral presentation from Casac. In the council’s view, only ‘institutional reorganisation’ will address ‘the pain of landlessness’ – especially since the Constitution already implicitly provides for expropriation without compensation. A submission from the University of Cape Town’s Land & Accountability Research Centre also tended to suggest that no amendment to section 25 is necessary – arguing that the changes proposed in respect of section 25(3) will serve only to place ‘an unconstitutional limitation of the power of the state to take the steps necessary to achieve land reform’.
In a written submission on the draft Bill, Banking Association SA (Basa) provided a different perspective on why, in its members’ view, ‘amending the Constitution to give effect to land reform is unnecessary’. Drawing attention to the importance of land reform policy that is not perceived as potentially undermining financial and economic stability, in presenting its views the association called for ‘quick, effective, sustainable’ interventions. The courts should determine on a case-by-case basis where compensation with nil compensation might be justifiable, with disputes mediated in that context. Given the myriad permutations of circumstances possibly requiring expropriation without compensation in the public interest, there should be no predetermined list in either framework or enabling legislation. In addition, noting widespread concerns about opening the door to arbitrary property deprivation on a grand scale, the association referred to the importance of adhering to international capital and liquidity standards in the context of mortgages and loans against property. Against that backdrop, Basa’s oral presentation on the revised Expropriation Bill included concrete proposals addressing specific clauses. A presentation on the Bill from Minerals Council SA did the same, nevertheless noting that – since the draft Constitution 18th Amendment Bill has yet to be finalised – in the council’s view, clauses in the revised Expropriation Bill relying on an amended section 25 are ‘misplaced’ and premature.
Expressing AfriForum’s opposition to any amendment to section 25 of the Constitution, in presenting the organisation’s oral submission Ernst Roets argued that its preamble is ‘misleading’; that it is in breach of the Constitution’s sections 2 (supreme law of the land) and 36 (the limitation of rights); that it ‘flouts’ international law; and that it could lead to SA’s ‘expulsion’ from the US African Growth & Opportunity Act. In AfriForum’s view, ‘if the Bill of Rights is changed … to allow for expropriation without compensation, there is no guarantee that, in future, this power won’t be abused by those who inherit the law from those who made (it)’. Noting the ‘range of different political parties who may use (expropriation without compensation) in all sorts of ways’, the submission pointed to the possibility that it may not ‘always be the noble who expropriate’ and that the amended section 25 may be used as ‘a weapon to punish people … who don’t share their political views or … ethnic backgrounds’.
In opposing the revised Expropriation Bill, AfriForum’s Ernst van Zyl expressed concern that it would open the way to the widespread confiscation of land, associated improvements, moveable property and intellectual property. He also mentioned the Bill’s negative implications for the banking sector and investment. At the time of writing, his presentation was not available. However, much of what Van Zyl said was endorsed and expanded upon in an oral submission from the Institute of Race Relations (IRR) and one from AgriSA. In her presentation on behalf of the IRR – noting and elaborating on the Bill’s ‘numerous defects’ not only in respect of land expropriation but also regarding other forms of property – Anthea Jeffrey nevertheless agreed on the need for ‘better’ legislation ‘in line with the Constitution’. AgriSA’s presentation included a critique of several clauses in the Bill.
Summarising the Black First Land First submission, Andile Mngxitama described the draft Bill as a ‘monumental betrayal’ of black people – calling for the confiscation of all land held by white people for redistribution to black South Africans, whom he defined as ‘black in pigmentation’ and ‘subscribing to the interests of the African majority’. With that in mind, in his organisation’s view, by entertaining both pieces of proposed new legislation Parliament is involving itself in ‘massive fraud’. Simply providing for the expropriation of ‘unproductive land’ not valued by white people, neither the draft Constitution 18th Amendment Bill nor the ‘premature’ revised Expropriation Bill meets the expectations of black South Africans since neither seeks to fundamentally change prevailing ‘land ownership patterns’.
Oral submissions on the draft Constitution 18th Amendment Bill included one from the Southern African Catholic Bishops Conference, whose presentation called for a more nuanced approach to land reform. This was noting the potential for any attempt at addressing ‘an historic injustice’ to ‘end up doing more harm than good’. The presentation also ‘strongly’ supported the involvement of the courts in determining when nil compensation should be paid. A submission from Freedom of Religion SA proposed a clause excluding from expropriation without compensation any land owned by a religious community and used to exercise the constitutional right to religious freedom. This presentation also proposed that the draft Bill should include ‘a closed list of criteria’ for determining whether land might justifiably be expropriated for nil compensation.
In its submission on the revised Expropriation Bill, the National House of Traditional Leaders (NHTL) expressed concern about the likelihood of communal land being ‘expropriated and … turned over for other purposes to organs of state, with no redress’ – thereby explaining its opposition to the draft Constitution 18th Amendment Bill, which was articulated in a separate presentation to the committee concerned. While the NHTL’s submission on the draft Bill has yet to be made electronically available, its input on the revised Expropriation Bill focused on clauses unrelated to expropriation for nil compensation. By contrast, the Congress of Traditional Leaders of SA expressed unreserved support for land expropriation without compensation in principle, without referring expressly to either piece of proposed new legislation.
Free State Agriculture’s presentation on the revised Expropriation Bill focused on its member’s fears – elaborating in considerable detail on these and their implications for the agricultural sector, the broader economy and the livelihoods of farmers deprived of their property. The organisation rejected outright both pieces of proposed new legislation and any other draft Bill that ‘diminishes and threatens property rights’. Possibly in that context, Sakeliga’s comprehensive analysis of the revised Expropriation Bill’s perceived shortcomings described the expropriation of property without compensation as ‘an act of confiscation’, and nil compensation for expropriated property as ‘a denial of … remedy’. On that basis, Sakeliga’s view is that the Bill’s proposals in that regard constitute ‘a violation of the South African Constitution as well as … international law’.
Public hearings on the revised Expropriation Bill are scheduled to continue today when oral submissions on the draft Constitution Amendment Bill are expected to be concluded.