Advert
Advert – scroll down
Displaying the 30 latest comments.
Submitted | first-name | support | concern | top-concern | message |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2026-04-19 11:45:56 +02:00 | P | No I do not | All of the above | Democratic Pathways: Closing Peaceful Avenues | This is a system-wide restructuring of property rights, economic power, and governance and will cause chaos and imstability. |
2026-04-19 11:42:51 +02:00 | L | No I do not | All of the above | Redundancy: The Bill of Rights is Sufficient | |
2026-04-19 11:36:29 +02:00 | Sanet | No I do not | All of the above | Breach of Trust: The 1994 Negotiated Settlement | * Die Argument: Artikel 235 het ’n wesenlike en integrale deel gevorm van die ooreenkoms wat Suid-Afrika na ’n demokratiese bestel gelei het. * Besonderhede: Kritici van die Wetsontwerp, insluitend die CAPEXIT-party, voer aan dat hierdie artikel deel uitmaak van die “onderhandelde grondwetlike skikking”, wat daarop gemik was om die land se diversiteit te akkommodeer en te beskerm. * Die Standpunt: Hierdie besorgdheid impliseer dat die herroeping van die artikel neerkom op die verbreking van ’n belofte wat tydens die oorgangstydperk gemaak is, en dat dit potensieel die vertroue tussen verskillende gemeenskappe en die staat kan ondermyn. |
2026-04-19 11:35:38 +02:00 | Emile | No I do not | Redundancy: The Bill of Rights is Sufficient | ||
2026-04-19 11:35:29 +02:00 | Justin | No I do not | All of the above | Breach of Trust: The 1994 Negotiated Settlement | would all the kings and kingdoms be disbanded as well. furthermore, MK party was talking ablout self determinatind and seperating from south africa making Kwazulu Natal its own country. This is all a slippery slope and this country is worse off every day due to all this nonsense. |
2026-04-19 11:33:40 +02:00 | Louis | No I do not | Breach of Trust: The 1994 Negotiated Settlement | It is a disingenuous agenda to abuse power and mislead the uninformed. It is a diabolical plot to try and gain more power under false pretences. It is a drive to legalize theft that will lead to chaos , death of many and absolute poverty. Neither the MK or any other party can steal a country bankrupt and call it progress. | |
2026-04-19 11:30:13 +02:00 | Philip | No I do not | All of the above | Collective Rights vs. Individual Rights | What the MK proposal actually does It removes compensation from Section 25 entirely and enables full expropriation without compensation It places all land under state and traditional leadership custodianship, effectively eliminating private ownership It extends land claims back to 1652, massively expanding eligibility That combination is not reform—it is a systemic reset of property rights, governance, and economic structure. Why this is deeply dangerous 1) It undermines the rule of law at its core A constitution exists to create certainty. Removing compensation and redefining ownership retroactively destroys that certainty. Property rights are not just about land—they underpin contracts, investment, lending, and business confidence If ownership can be removed without compensation, no asset is secure in principle Once that line is crossed, the legal system becomes discretionary rather than predictable. That is how democracies degrade. 2) It effectively abolishes private property Calling land “common heritage” under state custodianship is just a softer phrase for nationalisation. Individuals no longer own land—they lease it from the state That means: No true security of tenure No generational wealth transfer No independent control over productive assets History is clear: when the state becomes the landlord of everything, citizens become dependent on political power for economic survival. 3) It concentrates enormous power in the state and unelected structures The proposal gives joint control to the state and traditional leadership That creates two problems: Massive centralisation of economic power in government Expansion of authority to non-democratically elected traditional structures This is not decentralisation—it is power consolidation, with limited accountability. 4) It opens the door to corruption on a massive scale South Africa already struggles with state capacity and corruption. Now imagine: The state controls allocation of all land Officials decide who gets leases, renewals, and access That is a perfect environment for: Political patronage Rent-seeking Systemic corruption You are effectively turning land into a political favour system. 5) It makes economic collapse far more likely Investment depends on certainty and enforceable rights. This proposal introduces: Unclear ownership structures Political control over land allocation Retroactive claims going back centuries That combination: Scares off local and foreign investors Weakens banking (land is core collateral) Reduces agricultural productivity Even proponents admit the scale—claims could expand to 87% of land . That level of disruption is economically destabilising. 6) The 1652 cut-off is practically unworkable Extending claims back to 1652 is not just radical—it’s functionally impossible. Records are incomplete or nonexistent Multiple overlapping claims across centuries Pre-colonial land systems were not documented in modern legal terms Even critics cited in reporting point out verification becomes “unfeasible” due to lack of reliable records and complex history . The likely outcome: Endless disputes Legal gridlock Administrative collapse 7) It risks social instability and conflict Land is already the most emotionally charged issue in South Africa. This proposal: Reopens all historical grievances simultaneously Creates competing claims across communities Removes clear ownership frameworks That is a recipe for: Escalating disputes Community-level conflict Potential violence 8) It replaces a constitutional democracy with political discretion The biggest issue is philosophical: A constitutional democracy relies on: Defined rights Limits on state power Predictable rules This proposal moves toward: State-controlled assets Politically allocated rights Reduced legal certainty That is not reform—it is a shift toward state-dominated governance with weaker constitutional protections. Bottom line This is not a targeted land reform proposal. It is a system-wide restructuring of property rights, economic power, and governance. The risks are clear: Collapse in investor confidence Expansion of corruption opportunities Legal chaos Weakening of democratic institutions You cannot fix historical injustice by introducing a system that removes legal certainty, concentrates power, and destabilises the economy. |
2026-04-19 11:18:46 +02:00 | Allen | No I do not | Breach of Trust: The 1994 Negotiated Settlement | ||
2026-04-19 11:17:27 +02:00 | Wynand | No I do not | Other | It's a racial attack against white people and they wants to destroy what the mk could not do just , it's discrimination against the whites | |
2026-04-19 11:14:05 +02:00 | Patrick | No I do not | All of the above | Redundancy: The Bill of Rights is Sufficient | |
2026-04-19 11:11:47 +02:00 | Delyse | No I do not | Redundancy: The Bill of Rights is Sufficient | ||
2026-04-19 11:11:27 +02:00 | Patrick | No I do not | All of the above | Redundancy: The Bill of Rights is Sufficient | |
2026-04-19 11:10:03 +02:00 | Ricky | No I do not | Breach of Trust: The 1994 Negotiated Settlement | ||
2026-04-19 11:02:21 +02:00 | Anna | No I do not | All of the above | Democratic Pathways: Closing Peaceful Avenues | |
2026-04-19 11:01:02 +02:00 | Meiring | No I do not | All of the above | Redundancy: The Bill of Rights is Sufficient | There is sufficient controls built into the constitution, this bill makes no sense and is out to further water down citizen rights. |
2026-04-19 11:01:02 +02:00 | Meiring | No I do not | All of the above | Redundancy: The Bill of Rights is Sufficient | There is sufficient controls built into the constitution, this bill makes no sense and is out to further water down citizen rights. |
2026-04-19 10:56:27 +02:00 | Michael | No I do not | All of the above | Breach of Trust: The 1994 Negotiated Settlement | |
2026-04-19 10:56:16 +02:00 | Anton | No I do not | Breach of Trust: The 1994 Negotiated Settlement | ||
2026-04-19 10:51:32 +02:00 | Fanie | No I do not | Breach of Trust: The 1994 Negotiated Settlement | ||
2026-04-19 10:44:50 +02:00 | Christo | No I do not | All of the above | Redundancy: The Bill of Rights is Sufficient | I do not support this bill because the MK is trying to erase history because they dint like history. If they remove self determination rights and property rights which is the backbone of an economy., the country will fail! |
2026-04-19 10:44:34 +02:00 | Gail | No I do not | Breach of Trust: The 1994 Negotiated Settlement | Repealing the section is a move to “shut down” a promise made during the transition, potentially undermining the trust between different communities and the state. South Africans do not want an authoritarian dictatorship | |
2026-04-19 10:38:13 +02:00 | Justin | No I do not | Breach of Trust: The 1994 Negotiated Settlement | Redundancy: The Bill of Rights is Sufficient | It has been a fundamental part of the constitution since the beginning, this is just an attempt by the Mk party to undermine peaceful enclaves like Orania. They have always been against Orania and this is about nothing more than that. |
2026-04-19 10:25:24 +02:00 | Audrey | No I do not | All of the above | Breach of Trust: The 1994 Negotiated Settlement | |
2026-04-19 10:24:20 +02:00 | Derrick | No I do not | All of the above | Collective Rights vs. Individual Rights | I support the right of the people in Orania to self-determination and to live out their culture, language, and beliefs peacefully. I believe every group and individual should have the freedom to pursue their way of life, just as I value the freedom to live mine and associate with whomever I choose. Respect for others means we don’t have to agree on everything, but we can coexist without interfering in each other’s communities. For that reason, I don’t support the MK party’s position on removing Section 235 from our Constitution, nor the proposals under the 24th Amendment Bill that would impact it. Section 235 protects the right to self-determination for communities, and that principle matters in a diverse country like ours. Upholding it helps ensure all South Africans feel their identity and choices are respected under the law. We build a stronger South Africa when we protect each other’s freedoms while treating one another with dignity. |
2026-04-19 10:10:24 +02:00 | Leon | No I do not | All of the above | Breach of Trust: The 1994 Negotiated Settlement | |
2026-04-19 10:04:48 +02:00 | Lindie | No I do not | All of the above | Breach of Trust: The 1994 Negotiated Settlement | |
2026-04-19 10:03:55 +02:00 | Klaus | No I do not | All of the above | Breach of Trust: The 1994 Negotiated Settlement | ISIPHETHO SOMPHAKATHI ESIBHALWE NGOMPHAKATHI Isihloko: Ukuphikisa ukususwa okuhlongozwayo kweSigaba 235 kuMthethosisekelo Ngithumela lokhu ukuphikisa kwami ngokususwa okuhlongozwayo kweSigaba 235 kuMthethosisekelo weRiphabhulikhi yaseNingizimu Afrika, 1996. ISigaba 235 siqinisekisa ukuthi imiphakathi eyabelana ngamagugu olimi namasiko afanayo ingasebenzisa ilungelo lokuzibusa ngaphakathi kweRiphabhulikhi. Ukususwa kwalesi sigaba kubonakala njengokulungisa kwezobuchwepheshe kuphela, kodwa empeleni kubonisa ushintsho olujulile lomthethosisekelo—ukusuka ekuqapheliseni ukuzimela kwemiphakathi kuya ekuhlanganisweni kwamandla kuhulumeni omkhulu. Lolu shintsho luthwala ingozi enkulu emiphakathini emnyama yaseNingizimu Afrika, lapho izinhlelo zokuphatha umhlaba, ubuholi, namasiko zisekelwe ezinhlelweni zomphakathi ezihlanganyelwe. Izikhungo ezifana ne-Ingonyama Trust azizona izakhiwo ezingaqondakali; ziyizinhlelo eziphilayo lapho izigidi zabantu zithola umhlaba, zixazulula izingxabano, futhi zigcina ukuqhubeka kwamasiko azo. Ukususwa kokuvikelwa okucacile komthethosisekelo kokuzibusa komphakathi kungaholela ekutheni lezi zinhlelo kancane kancane zifakwe ngaphansi kwezinhlelo zikahulumeni ezifanayo nezingenzi mehluko. Uma kubhekwa kanye nezingxoxo ezikhulayo mayelana nokuguqulwa komhlaba, kuhlanganise nezinhlelo zokuthathwa komhlaba ngaphandle kwembuyiselo, ukususwa kweSigaba 235 kudala ingozi ebonakalayo: yokuthi imiphakathi ingase ithole ukuthi izinqumo ezithinta umhlaba wayo nokuphatha kwayo sezithathwa ngaphandle kwemvume yayo eqondile. Lokhu kuthinta ngqo umbuzo wokuthi ingabe imiphakathi isagcina amandla ayo phezu komhlaba wayo, noma lelo gunya selidluliselwa ezikhungweni ezimaphakathi. UMqulu Wamalungelo uvikela amalungelo abantu ngabanye, kodwa awuthathi indawo yesidingo sokuvikelwa okucacile kwamalungelo omphakathi njengamaqoqo. ISigaba 235 sinikeza ibhalansi ebalulekile, siqinisekisa ukuthi ubunye eNingizimu Afrika abudingi ukufana okuphelele, nokuthi ubunikazi bomphakathi kanye nokuzimela kunendawo esemthethweni ngaphakathi komthethosisekelo. Ukususwa kwalesi sigaba kungase kudlulise umyalezo—kungaba ngenhloso noma cha—wokuthi izinhlelo zomphakathi, ikakhulukazi lezo ezisemiphakathini emnyama, azizinzile noma zingaphansi kwezinye izinhlelo. Lokhu kungakhulisa ukungathembani futhi kujulise ukuhlukana ngesikhathi lapho ukubumbana kwezwe kubalulekile khona. Ekugcineni, ngicela ngokuhlonipha ukuthi iSigaba 235 sigcinwe. Ukususwa kwaso kudala ingozi engadingekile yomthethosisekelo, kwehlisa ukuvikelwa kwezinhlelo zomphakathi, futhi kungaba nemiphumela engalindelekile ekuzinzeni, ekwethembaneni, nasekubumbaneni komphakathi waseNingizimu Afrika. Kuthunyelwe ngenhlonipho. |
2026-04-19 09:57:56 +02:00 | Laurens | No I do not | All of the above | Collective Rights vs. Individual Rights | |
2026-04-19 09:42:57 +02:00 | Pieter | No I do not | All of the above | Breach of Trust: The 1994 Negotiated Settlement | |
2026-04-19 09:42:47 +02:00 | Helen | No I do not | Breach of Trust: The 1994 Negotiated Settlement |
-
- Supporters, led by the MK Party, argue that Section 235 is a “dormant” provision that has never been turned into law. They believe it creates a “theoretical basis” for “territorial fragmentation” and allows communities like Orania to operate as “exclusionist enclaves” outside the spirit of a unified South Africa. For them, the Bill of Rights is the only protection needed for cultural and linguistic diversity.
-
- Opponents, including the Cape Independence Party and the Freedom Front Plus, argue that Section 235 is a “non-derogable right” and a cornerstone of the 1994 constitutional settlement. They contend that individual rights (Sections 30 and 31) are fundamentally different from the collective right of a community to sustain and govern itself. They warn that removing this “safety valve” will not eliminate the demand for self-determination but will instead push it toward more radical, extra-constitutional paths.