SACP hails expropriation

2005-09-22 22:10

Pretoria - The SA Communist Party has welcomed moves toward the first expropriation of a commercial farm for restitution, while the Democratic Alliance cautioned against the use of this option.

The SACP said on Thursday: "This action underlines that the willing-seller, willing-buyer principle constitutes the major impediment to the government's land reform programme."

The DA said it would watch developments in the matter closely.

"Expropriation should be used only as a method of last resort, and only in cases where it can be proved that a landowner is unreasonably rejecting market-related compensation."

Earlier in the day, North West land claims commissioner Blessing Mphela said an expropriation notice would be served on the owner of the 500ha Leeuwspruit farm in the Lichtenburg district.

He said the decision followed 2½ years of inconclusive negotiations on the value of the property - with owner Hannes Visser wanting R3m and the government offering R1.75m.

Reasonable prices

The SACP said a key requirement for accelerated land reform was the acquisition of new land.

This could only be realised through expropriation and at reasonable prices set by the government.

"(This case) illustrates the extent to which farmers have overpriced land in our country, either to frustrate accelerated land reform or to become the major beneficiaries of government's land-reform programme at the expense of the landless."

DA spokesperson Martin Slabbert said the value of the compensation offered to landowners was of critical importance.

The onus was squarely on the state to prove that the compensation was fair and market-related, he said.

Visser said he intended contesting the move.

'Seeking to make an example'

"I do not recognise the (restitution) claim on my land and can't be forced to sell at the government's price," he said.

Farmers' union AgriSA said it appeared the government was seeking to make an example of Visser.

Land affairs spokesperson Annelize Crosby said that if Visser was correct about the invalidity of the claim, it would mean the minister was acting beyond the scope of her powers.

The union said it also believed that alternative avenues had not been exhausted.

- SAPA