Die mosie van die EFF wat ‘n paar jaar gelede al ingedien is om die liberaal verligte grondwet (kommunisties) te wysig, is steeds hangend en daar word hard gewerk om alles te implementeer. Vorige besware wat ingedien is, is nooit in aanmerking geneem nie, dus, kan die ANC, EFF en ander partye die grondwet wysig soos hul lus het. Selfs voor die mosie, was daar sprake van wysiging.
Die liberaal verligte blankes het met Kodesa (1991-1994) almal ingesit met hierdie eiendomsartikel en selfs met die huidige artikel, kan enige eiendom “vervreem” word, want daar is al heelwat wetgewings daarvoor ingestel deur die meerderheid van die party.
Ons enigste opsie is om ons ou Boere republieke, wat onafhanklike status gehad het voor 1910, terug te kry, waar ons in die gebiede ons ons eie leiers kan kies en oor onsself regeer soos wat dit was.
Gebiede sonder enige Trust-CPA-Reservate-Tuislande en Britse Kroongebiede van ander volke, waaroor ons in elk geval geen seggenskap oor het nie. Grondeise is CPA of Trustgebiede (ou Tuislande of Reservate / Britse Kroongebiede).
Nog altyd was dit so, internasionaal, dat hulle die reg het om oor hulself te besluit en tans gebeur net die teenoorgestelde waar ons blankes stelselmatig uitgewis word. Daar word ander volke ook vermoor, maar dis nie nou ter sprake nie.
Ons as Boere en Afrikaners, het ook regte, wat ons misgun word, waar ons vandag onderdruk word met verskeie wetgewings.
Selfbeskikking was nie met Kodesa onderhandel nie – moontlik wel op die tafel.
In 1994 was daar ‘n ooreenkoms aangegaan, waarna dit ondersoek was en daardie aanbevelings is duidelik waar ons gebiede is (en selfs ander wat bygevoeg kan word.
Indien die Zoeloes, Khoi san en ander volke hul gebiede kon behou het, het ons net soveel reg as hulle. Daar is oor die 8840 tradisionele Khoi san en swart leiers wat erkenning geniet het – en hulle dit ook voor 1994 gehad. Tuislande het almal stemreg gehad 1961-1994. Suid-Afrika bestaan uit verskillende minderheidsvolke en die Khoi san en Swartes is nie almal verbonde aan net een etniese volk nie. Ons is almal verskillende op alle vlakke.
Government – ANC do have most of the land in SA
State-owned land – 25 years later
Expropriation of land – Violation of international rights
Parliament SA: Expropriation without compensation – Constitution
Expropriation of properties
SA Expropriation Bill March 2021
This plan is already in place …
Development of One Plans – Ramaphosa
If the ANC change their liberal communist constitution, they can do what they want, without compensation – not only land, ALL properties, as well as shares, everything. March 2019 – Farmers union TLU SA has accused President Cyril Ramaphosa of implying farmers are land thieves and demanded that he provide proof.
Ramaphosa : “Farmers/Whites are thieves” – accusations > expropriation
WHERE ARE THE PROOF FOR THIS?
It was on 21 March 2021 that the Expropriation Bill of 2020 was published, which was gazetted on 9 October 2020. It has since been introduced as part of the Parliamentary process in the National Assembly. In his address, Ramaphosa said that government would release around 700 000 hectares of state land for agricultural production this year in addition to the 44 000 hectares of state land for land claims.
By the end of May, the ad hoc committee on land expropriation is expected to finalise the Bill on amendments to Section 25 of the Constitution to allow for the expropriation of land without compensation. Section 25 outlines the requirements that the state has to comply with if it wants to expropriate property. It must be for a public purpose or in the public interest and “just and equitable” compensation must be paid.
Government bought agricultural land (more than 5000 farms) since 1994 with tax money, why did they not give that out to those that are alread farmers? The ANC, EFF and other supporters sang liberals songs that whites stole all the land – that is impossible. Millions of hectares of land were claimed since 1994, old tribal land (Reserves – Homelands or Crown land since 1840 until 1961). Most Reserves changed to Homelands (to receive full independence) after 1961.
Khoi san and Blacks are not LANDLESS.
16 Junie / June 2021
The 7.5 million black ownership in SA
They all complained they are landless – that is not the truth. Khoi san and ethnic blacks are not landless, they still live on their tribal lands that belong to only them, to nobody else. White people can not buy any of their tribal land or areas . They changed legislations to CPA and most of landclaims are today either CPA or trustland.
The question is – are they then part of South Africa or still under the British jurisdiction? White people in South Africa can not buy any land in the CPA or Trustland areas.
Khoisan and different black groups only
Traditional houses – South Africa
Khoi san areas
Richtersveld – KHOISAN AND CPA
Khoi san areas
Richtersveld – Diamonds
Zulu areas (Ingonyama trust is more than 9 (18) different tribal areas)
Zulu people – Ingonyama Trustland
Zulu kingdom – Ingonyama Trust
Agreements and legislation
Ingonyama Trustgebied (en andere)
Indigenous land (old homelands) – Trustland – CPA – landclaims
Onteiening ‘n tydbom – geen voedsel
Swart bemagtiging wetgewing – Black economic empowerment legislations
Inhoudsopgawe B-BBEE Index
Fifteen key points on the ANC manifesto
Dis nie in publieke belang nie
Is this really Land expropriation?
Regstellende aksie het reeds voor 1990 begin
Regstellende aksie – Affirmative Action – Dakar 1989
Sonder ons medewete is daar gekonkel met kommuniste
Dakar 1986 – Notes of H Giliomee
SA is nie ver weg van Zimbabwe nie
Unemployment – SA communism – bolshevism
Wat is Bolsjevisme
Communism: Bolshevisme – Kalergi
Zimbabwe – farmland
Zimbabwe – food insecurity disaster
Zimbabwe – “bread basket” into a “basket case” ~~~ No farmer – No food
Back in South Africa.
Who can expropriate?
According to the Bill, expropriation is a “compulsory acquisition of property by an expropriating authority”, which means any organ of state or a state department may expropriate.
What could be expropriated?
Any form of “property” may be expropriated and it is not limited to land, which includes all movable property (such as equipment or belongings) and immovable property (such as buildings and infrastructure).
What is the purpose for which expropriation could be done?
Expropriation could be done in two instances, if the expropriation is required for a public purpose or that it is in the public interest.
According to Section 25, public purpose is defined as “…any purposes connected with the administration of the provisions of any law by any organ of state”.
Public interest is “the nation’s commitment to land reform, and to reforms to bring about equitable access to all South Africa’s natural resources”.
The history of land in South Africa
The 1913 Natives Land Act saw thousands of black families forcibly removed from their land by the apartheid government. The Act restricted black people from buying or occupying land and the apartheid government underwent mass relocation of black people to poor homelands and to poorly planned and serviced townships.
Who removed whom during 1854 under British Control? Who made war with the Boere republics? We were all forced to live under the UNION of South Africa. The British ANNEXED ALL areas , inclusive the mineral rights. There were already separate areas under British control and also legislations (Rhodes and Shepstone).
1854 (Sir Shepstone – involved in the wars, annexations and segregation (apartheid)
Shepstone – Natal, roots of segregation
Apartheid – 1854
Gold and diamonds -1886 – Griqualand West
Jan Smuts – Churchill – Rhodes – apartheid : British rules
The Boere also lost their independent countries.
The two independent Boer Republics came under British control – the Orange River Colony and Transvaal Colony.
Two independent Boer republics
The Land Act was repealed in 1991 with the Abolition of Racially Based Land Measures Act. When the so-called apartheid government was abolished, government made concerted efforts to restore the rights of dispossessed land owners.
No – it was already theirs if you read the 1910 Constitution. They are still living on their tribal land (Reserves-Homelands-Crownland).
British rules – related
British colonial empire in Africa (SA) Rhodes and BSAC
Ian Smith – South Africa and Rhodesia-Zimbabwe
British rules, Commonwealth, Trustlands
British Empire and their colonial rules/flags
Racism and Discrimination
Agreements and Traditional leaderships
* * *
The Constitutional Court approved South Africa’s new Constitution on December 4, 1994. Section 25 of the Constitution states that:
“1. No one may be deprived of property except in terms of law of general application, and no law may permit arbitrary deprivation of property.
2. Property may be expropriated only in terms of law of general application”.
The first attempt at an Expropriation Bill was in 2008, however, it was shelved because of the concern that it obscured the role of the courts in expropriation and would therefore be declared unconstitutional.
In 2018, the National Assembly adopted a motion to amend the Constitution so as to allow for the expropriation of land without compensation. South Africa now awaits final amendments to Section 25 of the Constitution to allow for the expropriation of land without compensation.
What you need to know about the South African expropriation bill
On 4 June 2021 it was stated on moneyweb that the mandate of the Ad Hoc Committee is limited to making explicit what is already implicit in the current Constitution.
Ramaphosa has drawn a line in the sand against blanket state custodianship of land in South Africa.
Later during “negotiations”, the ANC and the EFF’s members of the parliamentary Ad Hoc Committee discussed the issue to amend Section 25 (the property clause – ANY PROPERTY)) of the Constitution have become locked in negotiations on an EFF proposal to allow state custodianship of all land, with citizens granted land-use rights for limited periods.
Later Ramaphosa said that the negotiations between the ANC and the EFF were not exclusive and that the ANC remained open to negotiating with other parties. According to him, state custodianship equals nationalisation, and that is not what the dispossessed want.
Another question is, who of those living in South Africa are real citizens or immigrants from Africa or even other countries? How many millions are living in cities today, with no work at all, expect grants, free schools, medical services, houses, but they all wanted land, and they do have their own countries. We as citizens of South Africa can not go to any African or Asia and demand land for free !! Some are already took over huge areas in cities, like the Witwatersrand. Is that fair to the citizens? How many of those living next to mines are real citizens today?
A reason was explained – Because of the “dispossession of the past” (under British colonial rules), there is a hunger for land. It is a need to have a title deed, to own land, not just to be granted use of the land by the state. Farmers want to be able to use the land as collateral to borrow money from banks, and they want access to water rights.
He referred to discussions he has had with farmers in the remote rural area of Tafelkop in Limpopo Province, who recently obtained title deed to the state-owned land they have farmed upon for a decade and their explanations of how state custodianship had throttled their ability to succeed financially. He was of the opinion that nationalisation would dampen or even kill off people’s entrepreneurial abilities, as is clear from the experiences from people on the ground. He rallied against the option of granting tenure to communities rather than individuals, saying that no one took responsibility for decisions in such a case. South Africa required a hybrid system of property rights to allow, for example, communal property rights in areas under traditional leadership such as the Ingonyama Trust.
The question is – who will get the Title deed for such land areas? CPA or Trustland?
Traditional leaders South Africa: 8840
Reiterating the importance of title deed and ownership, he said the politicians had to listen to the preference of the people, not the other way around. Regarding efforts to remove the courts as an arbiter on property rights (and locating those powers in the executive) Ramaphosa said South Africa is a constitutional democracy, and no one can gainsay the role of the courts.
In reaction, the EFF issued a statement saying it “strongly condemns Ramaphosa’s deliberate and malicious misrepresentation of the EFF position on land and state custodianship. The EFF said he “maliciously indicated that the EFF position on land custodianship is equal to the nationalisation of land. This is part of a coordinated and desperate attempt to mislead people and downplay the significance of the process in its final stages in Parliament to amend Section 25 of the Constitution to allow for expropriation of all land without compensation into the custodianship of the state.” According to the EFF “[it] has firmly articulated its position to the Ad Hoc Committee tasked with amending Section 25 of the Constitution and the members of the ANC delegation during bilateral meetings. We are not going to compromise and vote for a sellout amendment that still speaks of compensation. Ramaphosa thinks he can implement a successful land redistribution programme that will address historical injustices through land donated by beneficiaries of land obtained through theft and genocide. This is a sign of how little Ramaphosa thinks of land hunger amongst black people and the need for restorative justice.
Each people do have a right to rule themselves, the Boer and Afrikaner people as well. Why is there still separate Trustlands and CPA’s (Landclaims), but they bought millions of hectares of land, while they said they are landless? If there is still separate lands like CPA (land claims) or Trustland for Zulu, Pedi or Khoi san, the Boer and Afrikaner (conservatives) people have the same rights as other people do the same rights to rule themselves. The Boer people also have internationally recognised independent land areas before 1902 – annexed by the British empire. And B-BBEE is racism and discrimination against the Boer, Afrikaner and all whites of South Africa.
People’s international right to self-determination
Self-determination for the oppressed people
Statelessness – Violation of Human Rights and international crimes
Inhoudsopgawe B-BBEE Index
Ramaphosa’s position and the EFF’s reaction to it make for interesting days ahead, given the situation within the Ad Hoc Committee, where the six largest political parties hold vastly different positions on the issue. Whereas the EFF has been consistent in its preference for state custodianship, the other three large opposition parties (DA, IFP, Freedom Front Plus and ACDP) have been consistent in their views that no change to the Constitution is required.
The ANC holds 57.5% of the seats, the DA 21%, the EFF 11%, the IFP 3.5%, the Freedom Front Plus 2.5% and the ACDP 1%. Eight smaller parties jointly have 3.5% of the vote.
Therefore, it seems that a stalemate is developing if Ramaphosa’s view holds true in the ANC, if the EFF is consistent in its unwillingness to compromise and if the DA persists in its refusal to negotiate with the ANC. In such a case, it will be practically impossible for the ruling party to get to the two-thirds of votes in the National Assembly required to change the Constitution.
But it is early days yet. The Ad Hoc Committee has until August 30 to finalise its proposal on the constitutional change, and all eyes will be on the negotiations to determine what is placed before Parliament.
ALL PROPERTY RIGHTS – OPINION
Reported on 31 May 2021 that property rights can sometimes become a political football, pitching those with assets against those without. In the heat of the argument, we can lose sight of the fundamental role they play, not in how assets are distributed but in how they are created. It has arguably never been as important as it is now to encourage investment in the kinds of assets that will transform our economy into a greener, more digital one that is fit for the future.
As we continue to debate amendments to the property clause of the Constitution and the Expropriation Bill, we must not lose sight of one undeniable fact: people don’t invest in assets they aren’t confident that they will have the rights to own. And if people don’t invest, economic growth doesn’t happen.
The Expropriation Bill is perhaps the most consequential of the legislation and amendments being considered. It goes far beyond the main driver of the reform: land reform. Indeed, my biggest issue with the Expropriation Bill is that it explicitly defines property as “not limited to land”. This means everything is up for grabs: from moveable and financial assets to intellectual property. While the bill puts in place several principles underpinning justice and equity in its application, for an investor considering a jurisdiction for investment, it creates uncertainties that add to the risks.
Reading the bill makes clear that its creators have land reform in mind. The overly wide broadening of the definition of property appears arbitrary. There is no example of the conditions under which it might be appropriate to expropriate intellectual property or financial assets like shares. So why create uncertainty for investors?
There is a battle on to attract investment into start-ups, a battle that South Africa has been losing. Despite the relative sophistication of our economy, several studies have shown we are losing the battle to raise funding for venture capital investment. A report by Partech Africa ranked South Africa fourth behind Nigeria, Kenya and Egypt on the continent for investment in new start-ups that focus on digital technology in both 2020 and 2019.
SA’s economy is changing profoundly. The assets that matter in the future will be intangible – software and other knowledge assets that companies invest in to develop, with long-term payoffs that are difficult to predict. The entrepreneurs who will create such companies are globally mobile. Countries like Rwanda and Kenya are building highly attractive policy environments to drive software start-ups in an effort to ensure they are homes to future African Googles or Facebooks.
South Africa has produced world class tech companies and continues to do so. But to turn that trickle into a torrent of innovation, we need a legislative environment that entrepreneurs can completely trust to protect the intellectual property that they will spend their lives creating. The Expropriation Bill fails to support such an environment.