OPINION | 10 reasons why the Expropriation Bill is potentially unconstitutional

accreditation
Share your Subscriber Article
You have 5 articles to share every month. Send this story to a friend!
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
0:00
play article
Subscribers can listen to this article
The Expropriation Bill goes beyond the ambit of the Constitutional property clause, say the writers.
The Expropriation Bill goes beyond the ambit of the Constitutional property clause, say the writers.
iStock

The Expropriation Bill goes beyond the ambit of the constitutional property clause and permits nil compensation in certain circumstances, deviating from the compensation-based nature of the Constitution, say Bulelwa Mabasa and Thomas Karberg. 

South Africans have recently been presented with the Expropriation Bill B3-2020 ("the Bill"). While it has drawn vociferous criticism from various voices, it is crucial to view the bill in the broader context of the land reform project. In our view, a unified system of expropriation and compensation is to be welcomed, as the compensation mechanisms in the Expropriation Act No. 63 of 1975 ("the 1975 Act") and the Constitution have been inconsistent since the inception of the Constitution.

Support independent journalism
Get 14 days free to read all our investigative and in-depth journalism. Thereafter you will be billed R75 per month. You can cancel anytime and if you cancel within 14 days you won't be billed.
Subscribe
Already a subscriber? Sign in
Rand - Dollar
16.15
+0.1%
Rand - Pound
19.90
-0.7%
Rand - Euro
16.85
-0.4%
Rand - Aus dollar
11.26
-0.6%
Rand - Yen
0.13
-0.2%
Gold
1,822.54
+0.6%
Silver
21.60
+2.3%
Palladium
2,025.00
+4.0%
Platinum
946.50
+0.2%
Brent Crude
111.22
+3.4%
Top 40
62,496
+0.8%
All Share
69,212
+0.8%
Resource 10
71,854
+1.5%
Industrial 25
77,093
+0.1%
Financial 15
15,933
+1.2%
All JSE data delayed by at least 15 minutes Iress logo
Company Snapshot