...restitution grants the political elite no new power or control over society, but simply brings about justice.
The first of the FMF’s constitutional land reform recommendations is therefore that Parliament should repeal the Expropriation Act and enact an Expropriation Control Act to uphold section 25 of the South African Constitution.
was unjustly dispossessed. If this is proven, they are entitled to receive the property back, or to be financially compensated by the state for the loss. Of course, the current owners of the property, as a matter of right, are required to be compensated if they must part with the property. Their hands are clean, and for
for land’. It is doubtful that it would be pursued to the fullest extent, however, given that unlike expropriation without compensation, restitution grants the political elite no new power or control over society, but simply brings about justice. Since 1998, shortly after the restitution programme began, some 64,354 claims have been settled in favour of the complainants, compared to 5,755 in favour of respondents. Of these successful claims, only 11.8% of complainants chose to take possession of the land, compared to 88.2% opting for financial reparation. So much for land hunger! Those who specifically want the government to have the authority to seize property at random in exchange for nothing are to be found exclusively in the halls of government power and the universities, not in the townships or suburbs. The supposed ‘need’ for expropriation without compensation the state seeks to achieve with the Expropriation Act is nothing more than dangerous political theatre. True land reform The first of the FMF’s constitutional land reform recommendations is therefore that Parliament should repeal the Expropriation Act and enact an Expropriation Control Act to uphold section 25 of the South African Constitution, ensuring property owners are treated with the respect and deference they deserve. This Act must prohibit compensation-less confiscation, except in those cases recognised by common law (criminal asset forfeiture, for instance), and state-owned property needed by another government sphere, property
Descendants of historically dispossessed owners were granted necessary relief in the form of the Restitution of Land Rights Act. This Act, rightly premised on the common law rei vindicatio remedy, simply requires that anyone (including descendants) who believes they are entitled to a certain piece of property, must prove in law that they are the rightful owners and that the property
law to punish them for conduct they never engaged in would be profoundly unjust. Restitution (to be firmly distinguished from ‘redistribution’), in other words, has been successful to the degree that it has been capacitated by the state’s meagre budget allocation. This programme has the potential of satiating any real ‘hunger
Parliament sought to amend the Constitution to enable property confiscation between 2018 and 2021, but mercifully failed.
October 2025 | Issue 141 | Asset Magazine 323
322 Asset Magazine | Issue 141 | October 2025
Made with FlippingBook Ebook Creator