The Institute for Race Relations (IRR) has issued a stern response to President Cyril Ramaphosa’s recent court admissions regarding flaws in the Expropriation Act, warning that while the president acknowledged certain “errors,” his statements signal significant constitutional battles ahead.
Three critical warnings
The IRR has highlighted three major concerns arising from Ramaphosa’s admissions:
First, the organisation warns against misleading media reports suggesting the president admitted sections of the law are “unconstitutional” – an admission he explicitly did not make.
Second, despite acknowledging errors, Ramaphosa has doubled down on his support for Expropriation Without Compensation (EWC).
Third, the president has advanced what the IRR characterises as a “fake transformation claim” – the type of argument the organisation has repeatedly cautioned against.
The Section 19 “error” Ramaphosa defends
In a puzzling legal stance, Ramaphosa has both admitted to an “error” in section 19 of the Expropriation Act while simultaneously defending it in court. Section 19 governs disputed expropriation processes, setting the timeline for when property owners can seek court intervention.
The problematic provision starts the legal clock from “the date of the notice of expropriation” – a document served only near the end of the expropriation process. This timing allows the state to complete expropriations first and face court challenges afterward.
The IRR argues this directly contradicts constitutional requirements. In the landmark Haffejee case, the Constitutional Court ruled that disputed expropriations must “generally” be decided in court “before” they can be executed.
Constitutional duty questioned
The IRR had previously warned Ramaphosa about this flaw in a petition before he signed the law into effect. The organisation noted that under section 79(1) of the Constitution, the president “must” return draft legislation to Parliament for reconsideration if he has any “reservations” about its constitutionality.
Despite these warnings, Ramaphosa signed the Act. Now, under oath, he has described the disputed sections as “absurd” and “circular,” admitting the legislature passed them “in error.”
Defending the indefensible
While many interpreted Ramaphosa’s admission as acknowledgment of unconstitutionality, the IRR points out he specifically stated in his court affidavit: “I defend the provisions and ask that the DA application [to declare them unconstitutional] be dismissed.”
Ramaphosa’s defense strategy involves asking the court to interpret “the date of the notice of expropriation” as implying “two totally different, earlier dates” – essentially arguing the words don’t mean what they plainly state.
The IRR warns this approach undermines “the basic principle that words in laws have meanings.”
Economic implications of EWC support
Perhaps most concerning to the IRR is Ramaphosa’s continued advocacy for EWC under an “open list of unconstitutional circumstances.” These include passive land investment for profit – essentially equivalent to purchasing non-dividend-bearing shares.
The organisation links this policy stance to declining investment rates, noting that South African Reserve Bank data shows fixed new investment has dropped to 2006 levels since 2022.
Constitutional transformation vs. political rhetoric
The IRR strongly disputes Ramaphosa’s claim that “emphasis on private property rights…will defeat the transformation objective of the Constitution.”
The organisation argues this represents a fundamental misunderstanding of constitutional transformation, which should include “systematic poverty reduction through investment-driven, long-term growth.”
Rather than advancing genuine transformation, the IRR contends Ramaphosa’s approach risks worsening what the Constitutional Court has termed a “colossal crisis” in land administration, particularly harming those without means to leave the country.
Looking ahead
The IRR’s response suggests these constitutional and legal battles are far from over. While Ramaphosa’s admissions may have seemed like concessions, the organisation views them as tactical maneuvers that preserve the core EWC framework while attempting to provide legal cover for obvious constitutional violations.
The institute states that South Africa’s Constitution promises to “protect owners from state predation, emphatically” – a promise they argue the president should fulfill “without equivocation.”
As legal challenges to the Expropriation Act continue through the courts, the IRR’s warnings about “battles to come” appear increasingly prescient, with fundamental questions about property rights, constitutional interpretation, and economic policy hanging in the balance.
- Since 1929, the Institute of Race Relations has advocated for a free, fair, and prospering South Africa. At the heart of this vision lie the fundamental principles of liberty of the individual and equality before the law guaranteeing the freedom of all citizens. The IRR stands for the right of all people to make decisions about their lives without undue political or bureaucratic interference.
