Eiendomsreg in die 1996 Kodesa kommunistiese grondwet van Suid-Afrika was nog altyd ‘n risiko, veral vir blankes, maar ook vir ander etniese volke. Watter waarborge is daar vir een van ons blankes? Swart bemagtiging duur voort. Afskaffing van Afrikaans duur voort. Verskeie ander wetgewing word in plek gestel dat almal moet dink is “wettig” terwyl rassisme en haatspraak voortduur om blankes uit te wis. Die strategiese planne is egter van belang.
Die Wet op Eiendomswaardasie sal geskrap of gewysig word na “geen kompensasie”. Dit sluit alle eiendomme in. Hoekom hiervan melding gemaak word is die aantal diskriminerende en rassistiese wetgewings en selfs wetgewing voor 1994 wat hierby betrokke is.
After an extended process of public consultation, the Act was finally passed by Parliament in 2014 and came into effect on 1 August 2015.
1 AUGUST 2015
PROPERTY VALUATION ACT, 2014 (ACT 17 OF 2014)
Regulation of valuation of properties that has been identified for land reform as well as the establishment, functions and powers of the Offices of Valuer-General
WET OP EIENDOMSWAARDASIE (WET 17 VAN 2014)
Regulering en waardasie van eiendomme wat vir grondhervorming ge-identifiseer is asook instelling, werksaamhede en bevoegdhede van die Kantoor van die Waardeerder-Generaal
Refer to the “Strategic Plan of Office of the Valuer-General, dated 31 March 2018, they they are accountable to the Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform. Various other Acts, even some before 1994, are also applicable to this Act.
Note all the racist Acts mentioned in the document (and municipal regulations as well) , are against specific the white population in South Africa (i.e. Black Economic Empowerment Acts), National Development Plan (NDP) – affirmative action.
Interesting the Motion was discussed and adopted by the National Assembly of South Africa during its meeting on 27 February 2018.
Parliament has opened a public participation process on how to implement land expropriation without compensation. The process will open until the end of May. Land expropriation without compensation a key policy decision taken at the ANC’s national conference in December. The EFF also tabled a successful motion in the National Assembly to support the proposed policy. President Cyril Ramaphosa has made is clear that the policy will be implemented after undertaking a public participation process. He’s however emphasised that the policy will not be implemented in a reckless manner of threaten food security. Detractors of the policy insist that it is unnecessary. They believe the government must improve efficiency in the land reform programme. Parliament’s high level panel of legislative review, headed by former President Kgalema Motlanthe, has also cautioned against the amendment of the Constitution to implement land expropriation without compensation. The panel also insisted that the land reform is being delayed by corruption and efficiencies need to be addressed. The Joint Constitutional Review Committee has called for written public submissions on the review of section 25 of the Constitution in order to effect the expropriation of land without compensation in the public interest. Parliament spokesperson Moloto Mothapo says: “The constitutional review committee has called for public submissions and other sections where necessary to make it possible for the state to expropriate land in the public interest without compensation.”
This is where the Constitution clarifies its stance on property rights, relevant to the first clause regarding dispossession.
Property may be expropriated only in terms of law of general application:
(a) for a public purpose or in the public interest; and
(b) subject to compensation, the amount of which and the time and manner of payment of which have either been agreed to by those affected or decided or approved by a court.
Interestingly, this notes the ‘willing buyer, willing seller’ methodology, which the ANC and EFF have both blasted as impractical. The populist rhetoric goes: why pay for stolen land? The government has been criticised for lowballing landowners in willing negotiations. The ANC has caught even more flack for failing to distribute farms already expropriated with compensation.
Again, following on from the ‘willing buyer, willing seller’ policy, the Constitution now points to the finer details of expropriation. It’s supposed that this specific clause is being closely studied by the ANC as they embark on a trial run of reform without compensation.
The amount of the compensation and the time and manner of payment must be just and equitable, reflecting an equitable balance between the public interest and the interests of those affected, having regard to all relevant circumstances, including:
(a) the current use of the property;
(b) the history of the acquisition and use of the property;
(c) the market value of the property;
(d) the extent of direct state investment and subsidy in the acquisition and beneficial capital improvement of the property; and
(e) the purpose of the expropriation
This subtext not only provides an outline for fair compensation but also brings adds a number of variables into the discussion of expropriation, namely, historical uses and acquisition, along with the purpose of state involvement.
Arguably the most contentious clause held within the Constitution in regards to property rights. The Bill of Rights addresses the issue of land reform, directly, and goes further to add that property is not limited to land.
For the purposes of this section:
(a) the public interest includes the nation’s commitment to land reform, and to reforms to bring about equitable access to all South Africa’s natural resources; and
(b) property is not limited to land.
It’s undoubtedly on this basis that the ANC believes the Constitution does allow for the expropriation of land without compensation.
In fact, ANC executives, including President Cyril Ramaphosa, have directly cited public interest and access to resources as grounds for ‘land affirmative action’.
The state must take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to foster conditions which enable citizens to gain access to land on an equitable basis.
This puts onus on government to enact sustainable land reform.
This clause deals directly with redress – aimed at righting the wrongs of oppressive apartheid land laws.
A person or community whose tenure of land is legally insecure as a result of past racially discriminatory laws or practices is entitled, to the extent provided by an Act of Parliament, either to tenure which is legally secure or to comparable redress.
Thursday, 19 June 1913. The Natives Land Act (No. 27 of 1913) was passed to allocate only about 7% of arable land to Africans. This act is essentially regarded as the fundamental precursor to apartheid – which literally means ‘separateness’
This law dispossessed and displaced the majority of South Africans. It’s addressed directly in the Constitution, which has formed the basis for post-apartheid land claims.
A person or community dispossessed of property after 19 June 1913 as a result of past racially discriminatory laws or practices is entitled, to the extent provided by an Act of Parliament, either to restitution of that property or to equitable redress.
Ultimately the Constitution’s trump card, and a fact which has no doubt been scrutinised by the ruling party; this clause prioritises government’s duty to enact land reform. In fact, it ranks redress, through appropriate legislative measures, above provisions allowed for in the Bill of Rights.
No provision of this section may impede the state from taking legislative and other measures to achieve land, water and related reform, in order to redress the results of past racial discrimination.
Grondhervorming op grond van die kleur van vel, en regstellende aksie is ‘n internasionale misdaad en skending van menseregte.
Violation of human rights are an international crimes – Black economic empowerment and affirmative action against whites are international crimes.
Read also all related articles inside the following:
If you take land from a productive farmer, next to nothing and give that to the Chinese people to build their own province or area in this country – China do have a country of their own, why must they take ours? This situation is on the whole continent, not only in southern Africa.
Is this really Land expropriation?
Swart bemagtiging Wetgewing
Land expropriation and discussions in parliament
Grond eienaars: ANC regeringsplase
Following its adoption by cabinet last week, lawmakers have provided the first clue for how and when the new Land Expropriation Bill will apply.
While the bill has not yet been made available to the public, the Rapport claims to have seen an unpublished copy of the legislation.
According to the paper, the bill introduces a new section which explicitly states when it would be fair and equitable to withhold compensation.
These circumtances include:
- Land occupied by a labour tenant as under the Restitution of Land Rights Act;
- Land that has been purchased for ‘speculative’ purposes;
- Land owned by a state-owned enterprise;
- Land which has been abandoned by a landowner;
- When the market value of the land is equal or less than the present value of direct state investment or subsidisation for the purchase of beneficial capital improvement of the land.
Speaking to the paper, an unnamed ANC source, who is reportedly involved with the development of the legislation, said that different rules will also apply to land which have buildings or structures attached.
In these cases, compensation will still be mandated under the legislation, they said.
5 gedagtes oor “Eiendomsreg – property rights”
[…] Eiendomsreg – property rights […]
[…] Eiendomsreg – property rights […]
[…] Eiendomsreg – property rights […]
[…] Property rights are a human right Eiendomsreg – property rights […]
[…] Property rights are a human rightEiendomsreg – property rights […]