comments

Nthabiseng

No I do not

I do not support the Draft expropriation Bill, because it selects certain people who will be entitled to land expropriation without compensation. NB: There are lots of people, who dont have homes and are very needy, some even have children and it's heart wrecking for them to be moving from one place to onother without stable homes. You may find that some of those are from royal families who owed lands, and if those lands were not forcefully taken from their families, then they wouldn't be encountering such struggle, because atleast they will be having permanent homes.

If only portions of farms will be expropriated without compensation, to those who are living in farms, what about those who were robbed / their families were robbed of lands and they are homeless today, and in need of lands to build a home?

I find this very much unfair. The whites did not pay a penny to steal the land from our grand grand fathers anf andthe grand grand mothers. No one should pay to possess back what rightfully belongs to them. Let it rather be expropriated without compensation, to everyone, entitled to have a portion of land as an inheritance from their martermal and paternal families, whether those matternals are late or still alive. And if they are still alive, they deserve what's rightfully theirs.

Maria

Yes I do

Best law ever to cut out corruption!!!

Michael Colin

No I do not

Because it is a extremely bad idea. And it will be mismanaged as with everything else government touches.....

Lorainne

No I do not

It's unfair

Thomas

Yes I do

Land Expropriation section 25 must be amended with immidiate effect. The land must be given to the rigjtfulowners without any compensation.

Peter

No I do not

A title deed holder is the rightfull owner of the property as described on the title deed and registered in the Deeds Office, therefore expropriation can only take place with an agreed , market-related, compensation figure and his full conscent. (If land is expropriated without compensation, it is theft at the highest level and violation of your rights as a South African citizen. The person initiating such action need to be punished.)

Claire

No I do not

We, our generation and at least 3 before it, paid for and developed this land. We did not sieze it. Why should we give it away?
If SA wants to attract the foreign investment it so desperately needs, those investors need to be assured that their money is safe and not summarily "expropriated".

Pamela

No I do not

- unused land is not well defined,
- farm land with in city limits is often land developers are in process of rezoning.
- fair compensation should apply so we all can use the land to borrow against to better ourselves. Rather address the problems of the past in alternative ways.

Carol

Not fully

Land was never given BUT bought and paid for. There is more than enough for everyone, b u t mot to be given.... Nobody appreciate what you haven't EARNED. THERE ARE MANY SOLUTIONS.... THIS IS ABOUT THEFT WITHOUT A GUN.... (good name for band). Is the struggling black or any color between and white going to benifet or only the FAT CATS.

Brian

No I do not

I bought my ground / House from a Person , it was registered and transferred with Permission of the Deeds office. If they say I have stolen ground , Then they new about it when I bought my house three years ago.

Carrying on like this is not going to help build up a stronger south africa, look at Mozambique, Zambia , Angola, Nigeria, Congo, Zimbabwe, Tanzania.

barend

No I do not

whe paid for it didn't come for free
government wants it they must pay for it

Lindelwa

Yes I do

The majority of the black People don’t own any land yet their ancestors were the original habitats of this country.The elite few own lands that they either bought cheap from the apartheid government or stole from the black community by forceful removals done.Its time that the majority of the people in South Africa start owning back their land.The government doesn’t have to pay anybody for the land that was not even theirs in the beginning.The farms can still be run by those who produce the food for us buy and use as a nation but not own them as they belong to the majority of the people .

Moyeni

Yes I do

We need our land back, infact we should get the prime land. Our people must also be located to the surburbs, we need that integration

K

No I do not

We all worked for our belongings

Johannes

No I do not

Ek het gewerk vir my grond ek het dit nie verniet gekry nie en hulle sal.dit ook nie verniet kry nie

Michael

No I do not

My objection is to the bill's definition of expropriation, which states that expropriation means the "compulsory acquisition" of property by the state. Most people might think that the compulsory vesting of all land in the state's custodianship falls precisely within this definition. However, this overlooks what Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng ruled in the Agri SA case in 2013.

This case revolved around an unused "old-order" mining right, which had "ceased to exist" under the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) – because it had not been converted into a "new-order" right in time – and had thus become vested in the custodianship of the state.

Sebenza (Pty) Ltd – which had paid R1m for the mining right a few years before – demanded compensation from the state for this expropriation. The North Gauteng High Court ruled that all the competencies of ownership had passed from Sebenza to the government, and that it made no difference whether the state's competencies were termed "ownership" or "custodianship". Expropriation had occurred and R750 000 in compensation was payable.

On appeal to the Constitutional Court, however, Mogoeng disagreed. Handing down the majority judgment, he said that expropriation requires the acquisition of ownership and so does not occur on the assumption of custodianship. Hence, no expropriation had taken place. This meant that no compensation was payable to Sebenza, as Section 25 of the Constitution (the property clause) limits the state's obligation to pay compensation to instances where expropriation has occurred.

The bill's definition of expropriation is based on Mogoeng's ruling. It is intended to take a judgment which was clearly limited to the facts of that particular case and turn it into a general principle of law. This is not in the spirit of the Constitution.

This is a momentous change. It will be compounded by the proposed constitutional amendment (yet to be unveiled), which might allow "nil" compensation in "appropriate" circumstances, without specifying what these circumstances would be.

Once the bill and the constitutional amendment have been adopted, the state could enact a National Land Act which vests all land in state custodianship

There needs to be a way more specific definition of expropriation and not the one used here.Its also needs clarity and what can be expropriated without compensation

Lian

No I do not

The policy of expropriation without compensation will have disastrous consequences for the economy :
a) Foreign investors will disinvest, because their investments are not safe
b) The majority of land is owned by the banks who financed the procurement of land, meaning the expropriation policy will result in banks losing heavily which could result in massive job losses , increasing the risk of an economic meltdown.
c) The land returned to historic owners have never been used to produce food as it used to do, risking massive food shortages which the country has to import, but its business confidence has been ruined by the above mentioned points.
d) China could provide assistance, but they will bring in their own people, resulting in South Africans to be still unemployed
e) Look at Zimbabwe what happened.

Bryan

No I do not

I totally disagree
The people who are promoting this bill have already stolen from the country and want more for nothing. This can also be seen by the likes of Soweto who owe billions of Rand to Eskom as do so many ANC run municipalities that have stolen the money rather than pay Eskom
Now they want to steal the land when no good governance given the existing bill a chance but want to make it easier to expropriate
Little do they consider the adverse affect it will have on the countries economy, they dont care as they have stolen so much and can live in luxury while they brothers starve
Enough is enough, we need to stand up to these clueless politicians

Nick

No I do not

The people that is rooting for this, you are THIEVES, EVIL and you will have to answer to God one day why you did not do right in His eyes. Same as the forefathers that died and had to answer to their evil deeds. To the ANC, EFF and BLF. Go and read Soloman, 1 Kings and 2 Kings in the Bible, and you will see, only if you walk in God's way, this beutifull country your'e driving into the ground will flourish. Until then, your evil ways will never make this country better for everyone of all races. So I disagree strongly with this whole land expropriation bill. It's just a way to take focus off of the real issue here, and that's corruption. You cannot fix one alleged wrong with another. That's not how it works. You deal with facts, the person that has the title deeds, that's who the land belongs to.

Etienne

No I do not

I disagree with changing the Expropriation Bill as we have not given any good governance chance to use the existing Expropriation Bill a chance to work. Get good management and ministers in to apply the rule of law correctly, and not try "degrade" the rule of law so mediocre to poor governance can make things happen. This will be detrimental to South Africa in the long run and all citizens of South Africa will lose if this is enforced. I trust you know of several cases internationally that point to Expropriation Bill being wrongfully enforced that lead to stagnation and demise of the country - e.g. Zimbabwe and Venezuela. Look internally to yourself and make sure you were happy that right management was in place to work with the Bill, and I trust you will agree it was done incorrectly.

Yes, some Expropriation could be done for not utilised land, but use current correct Bill to use it by Rule of Law (not a "we not really good at law so just give us power law").

Please - I am a South African and want us to prosper - all of us!

Londwa

Yes I do

The bill will go a great length in assisting land claimants.

Guy

No I do not

My small property was ,purchased and fully paid for 30 odd years ago.This transaction was recorded at the requisite deeds office without any conditions re ''exploitation by Government''.My residential property is mine and mine alone !!!

Vusumzi

No I do not

State must take over our land and manage for the equity

Piet

No I do not

There is absolutely no proof that the land was "Stolen from" anyone in the past. This is a scam being used by politicians to gain control of the land. They have convinced a certain group of people in the country that the land was stolen and that the land will be "Handed back to whom it was stolen from". Hence earning the votes from such group to ensure the politicians power in the organization.

Shaun

No I do not

In every country where EWC has been implemented, those country's economy's have collapsed sooner or later.
Such a proposal shows a deep lack of understanding of the importance of property ownership, and the protection of the subsequent rights to own property, in the generation of wealth.
If we erode these rights as part of some populist agenda we'll destroy these wealth generating systems and the economy will be next.
Land only has value when people want to own it, despite what that land may be worth in money. EWC makes land ownership have no value, and that will have devastating consequences.
Perhaps if the ANC spent the same time and money on land reform as they did on private security we wouldn't even be having this conversation.