summary

Section 235 is the provision that recognises the right to self-determination for any community sharing a common cultural and language heritage. It allows for the possibility of such a community pursuing self-governance within a “territorial entity” in South Africa, provided this is determined by national legislation.

The Bill proposes the total repeal (abolition) of Section 235. If passed, the explicit mention of a community’s right to self-determination would be deleted from the Constitution.

According to the MK Party, Section 235 has become a source of “confusion, contradictions, and ambiguity”. Their primary arguments include:

• • Redundancy: The MKP asserts that the Bill of Rights (specifically Sections 30 and 31) already provides sufficient protection for everyone to use their language and enjoy their culture.
  • National Unity: The party argues that the section is being “misappropriated” to justify “racially exclusive enclaves” like Orania and to promote “secessionist narratives” that threaten the integrity of South Africa as a single, sovereign state.
  • Lack of Use: The MKP points out that the section has remained “dormant” and has never been turned into actual law in the 30 years since the Constitution was adopted.

Opponents of the Bill, including the Cape Independence Party and the Freedom Front Plus, argue that the repeal is a politically motivated strike against minority rights. Their concerns include:

• • Breach of the 1994 Deal: Section 235 was a cornerstone of the negotiated settlement that allowed for a peaceful transition to democracy; removing it is seen as a breach of that foundational promise.
  • Collective vs. Individual Rights: Opponents argue that while the Bill of Rights protects individuals, Section 235 is the only provision that protects a community’s right to sustain itself and its heritage.
  • Closing Democratic Paths: Critics warn that by removing constitutional avenues for autonomy, the government may unintentionally fuel more radical demands for independence rather than fostering unity.

As a constitutional amendment, this Bill requires significant public input and a two-thirds majority in Parliament to pass. Your participation ensures that Parliament hears the collective will of the people before deciding whether to move forward with this fundamental change to our supreme law.

Deadline for Comment: Sunday, 26 April 2026.

The relationship between these two sections can be understood through a simple metaphor of defense and action:

• • Section 235 is the Shield: This section recognizes the right of communities to seek self-determination and territorial autonomy. It acts as a constitutional safeguard, providing a legal framework for communities to protect their local governance, heritage, and territorial interests.
  • Section 25 is the Assegai: The proposed amendment to Section 25 seeks to legalize Expropriation Without Compensation (EWC). This is the tool intended to allow the state to seize land and property.

By moving to repeal Section 235 first, the constitutional “shield” that might allow a community to claim a right to its territory or local governance is removed. This is a strategic move to “clear the deck” before the introduction of EWC.

Without Section 235, the legal hurdle of community-based territorial defenses is eliminated, making it significantly easier for the state to exercise the powers of expropriation. Essentially, the removal of the right to be a distinct community (the Shield) is the necessary precursor to the state’s ability to seize land and property (the Assegai).

This sequential approach suggests that the two amendments are not isolated “technical” changes but part of a unified plan to shift power from the community to the central state.

• • Phase 1 (Now): Repeal Section 235 to remove community-based territorial rights.
  • Phase 2 (Commencing April 27): Amend Section 25 to allow for the seizure of property without compensation.

By participating in the campaign against the repeal of Section 235, you are not just defending a community’s right to identity—you are defending the first line of constitutional protection for property rights in South Africa.

It is the section of the Constitution that recognises the right of “any community sharing a common cultural and language heritage” to pursue self-determination within a territorial entity, provided it is determined by national legislation.

They claim it is being “misappropriated” to justify “racist enclaves” and that it creates “confusion” within the legal framework. However, critics argue the timing is linked to the growing movement for Western Cape independence.

No. Your individual rights to language and culture are protected under Sections 30 and 31 of the Bill of Rights. The repeal would specifically remove the community’s right to seek territorial autonomy or self-governance.

While often used interchangeably in casual conversation, they have distinct legal meanings:

• • Amending: To “amend” means to change, update, or add to existing text. It is a modification of the current law.
  • Repealing: To “repeal” means to completely abolish or cancel a section or an entire law. In this case, the MK Party is proposing to repeal Section 235 entirely, effectively removing the “right to self-determination” from the South African legal framework.

Amending the Constitution is a rigorous process designed to prevent any single party from making changes without broad consensus. The typical steps for a PMB like this one are:

• 1. Notice of Intention: The MP (in this case, Mzwanele Manyi) must publish a notice in the Government Gazette at least 30 days before formally introducing the Bill, inviting the public to comment.
  2. Introduction & Tabling: The Bill is formally introduced in the National Assembly (NA) and referred to the relevant Portfolio Committee.
  3. Motion of Desirability: The Committee must deliberate on whether the Bill is “desirable.” This involves a briefing by the sponsoring MP and a response from the relevant government department.
  4. Public Participation (Parliamentary): If deemed desirable, the Committee may conduct further public hearings and consultations to gather more input.
  5. The 30-Day Wait: By law, a constitutional amendment cannot be put to a vote until 30 days have passed since it was tabled in the National Assembly.
  6. The National Assembly Vote: To pass, the Bill must achieve a two-thirds majority (66.6%) of the members of the National Assembly.
  7. The NCOP Vote: Because Section 235 involves “territorial entities,” it also requires the support of at least six of the nine provinces in the National Council of Provinces (NCOP).
  8. Presidential Assent: If it passes both houses, it is sent to the President to be signed into law.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Ordinary laws only require a simple majority (50% + 1), but constitutional changes require a “special majority” (66.6% or even 75% for founding values) to ensure that such fundamental changes reflect the will of a significant portion of the population, not just the ruling party of the day.