The signing of the contentious Expropriation Bill into law is on hold following concern over the process followed by Parliament in passing the Bill.

President Jacob Zuma has asked the Speaker of the National Assembly and the Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces to look into the process followed in the light of various petitions received by his office.

A TimesLIVE report notes the Bill, among other things‚ provides for the expropriation of property for a public purpose or in the public interest.

The Presidency said the petitions received raised a number of procedural issues, including:  

  • The procedures followed by the NCOP and some provincial legislatures in passing the Bill were inconsistent with the Constitution.
  • The NCOP failed to facilitate sufficient consultation with the public prior to the adoption of the Bill.
  • The Bill was not referred to the National House of Traditional Leaders as required in terms of section 18(1)(a) of the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act.  

A Legalbrief Policy Watch report notes the apparent oversight by the National Assembly in respect of Parliament’s legal obligation to refer proposed new legislation with implications for customary law and traditional communities to the National House of Traditional Leaders for comment was among several contributory factors influencing the President’s decision to return the beleaguered Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development (MPRDA) Amendment Bill to Parliament at the beginning of last year.

Section 18(1)(a) of the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act provides that ‘any parliamentary Bill pertaining to customary law or (the) customs of traditional communities must, before it is passed by the House of Parliament where it was introduced, be referred by the Secretary to Parlia ment to the National House of Traditional Leaders for its comments’.

Full TimesLIVE report  

The SA Institute of Race Relations petitioned Zuma in May not to sign the Bill into law, notes a Business Day report. The institute’s Anthea Jeffrey said the Bill was inconsistent with the Constitution and had been passed without full public participation or procedural compliance. Not only could the Bill enable expropriation without court confirmation, she said, but the process of expropriation could be abused.

For instance, she claimed that in terms of the Bill, all organs of state at all levels of government including state-owned entities, would be entitled to expropriate property. DA Chief Whip John Steenhuisen said the party was pleased the President had taken heed of the objections to the Bill. ‘We are delighte d this job-killing Bill is coming back to Parliament. It would have been helpful if both houses had taken heed of the warnings and avoided this embarrassing situation,’ he is quoted as saying.

Full Business Day report  

The statement tends to suggest that the President may also have heeded procedural concerns expressed at the time by DA leader in the NCOP Elza van Lingen. These were raised when the NCOP’s Committee on Economic and Business Development considered final provincial mandates on the proposed new statute in the absence of one from the Free State, which had yet to vote on it when the meeting took place. Worse still, the NCOP may have ‘failed to facilitate sufficient consultation with the public prior to the adoption of the Bill’.

Expropriation Bill (B4-2015)