Saai – an organisation that protects the interests of family farmers – submitted commentary on the amendment to the Constitution that would allow for expropriation without compensation.
Saai is planning a strong international awareness campaign for 2020 on expropriation without compensation and farm murders. The first leg of the campaign comprised a visit to the Hungarian government and the Global Forum for Food and Agriculture (GFFA) held in Berlin, Germany. Almost 80 countries’ ministers of agriculture were present, and Dr Theo de Jager, Chairperson of Saai’s Board of Directors and President of the World Farmers Organisation, had to answer many questions about the South African expropriation issue. South Africa’s Minister and Deputy Minister of Agriculture, Land reform and Rural Development did not attend the meeting that was held with other ministers.
“There is major cynicism on why the Constitution needs to change. Thanks to the Motlanthe Report and the evidence from the Zondo Commission the world knows that the greatest hurdle in land reform remains capacity shortage and corruption in the Department. At the myriad of meetings that I attended at the World Economic Forum in Davos people talked openly about state capture and especially the lack of prosecution of implicated people with political connections,” De Jager says.
“In the eyes of foreign governments and investors, the ANCs drive for expropriation without compensation is but an extension of a culture of state pillage, nepotism and other offences under the ruling elite. They view South Africa as an investment risk,” De Jager continues.
Saai is opposed to any changes to the Constitution that would allow for expropriation without compensation. The commentary that it submitted focuses on the international legal aspect and matter of zero compensation. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and various other international treaties such as the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (1986) and the European Convention on Human Rights Protocol (1953) both acknowledge the right to property, as well as the fact that property may be expropriated under certain conditions. Expropriation of property is always subject to certain conditions, however. One of these is the payment of fair and reasonable compensation.
According to the ANC, the purpose of the amendment to the Constitution is to make explicit that which is implicit. Saai’s request is that South Africa commits itself to the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as to the principles included in its commercial agreements. Saai also requests that the Constitution should pertinently specify that it cannot be expected of one person to carry the cost of a national responsibility.
Saai is inundated with queries from abroad about the ANC’s decision to avoid the courts in the process and to give the executive authority the power to determine compensation payable. Minister Thoko Didiza had to abandon the same idea in 2008 when it was then found it would have been unconstitutional. There are few elements of the debate that deter investors more than this proposal, and it comes at a time when South Africa’s economy cannot afford it.
The nature of Saai’s commentary on the amendment to the Constitution will also be a central component in the legal action to be launched if the amendment were to go ahead.
Saai dien kommentaar teen Grondwetwysiging in
Saai – ’n organisasie wat die belange van familieboere beskerm – het kommentaar ingedien teen die wysiging aan die Grondwet om vir onteiening sonder vergoeding voorsiening te maak.
Saai beplan ’n baie sterk internasionale bewusmakingsveldtog oor onteiening sonder vergoeding en plaasmoorde vir 2020. Die eerste skof van dié veldtog was ’n besoek aan die Hongaarse regering en die Global Forum for Food and Agriculture (GFFA) wat in Berlyn, Duitsland plaasgevind het. Bykans 80 lande se landbouministers was teenwoordig en dr. Theo de Jager, voorsitter van Saai se direksie en president van die wêreldlandbou-organisasie, moes talle vrae oor die onteieningskwessie in Suid-Afrika beantwoord. Suid-Afrika se minister en adjunkminister van landbou, grondhervorming en landelike ontwikkeling was nie tydens die vergadering met die ander ministers teenwoordig nie.
“Daar is groot skeptisisme oor waarom die wysiging aan die Grondwet nodig is. Dis danksy die Motlanthe-verslag en die Zondo-kommissiegetuienis wêreldwyd bekend dat die grootste hindernis in grondhervorming by ’n kapasiteitstekort en korrupsie in die departement lê. Ook by die World Economic Forum in Davos is daar in tientalle vergaderings wat ek bygewoon het reguit gepraat oor staatskaping en veral die gebrek aan vervolging van mense met politieke bande wat geïmpliseer word,” sê De Jager.
“In die oë van buitelandse regerings en beleggers is die ANC se dryf na onteiening sonder vergoeding maar bloot ’n verlengstuk van ’n kultuur van staatstroping, nepotisme en ander vergrype onder die heersende elite. Hulle beskou Suid-Afrika as ’n beleggingsrisiko,” voeg De Jager by.
Saai is gekant teen enige wysiging aan die Grondwet wat onteiening sonder vergoeding toelaat. Die kommentaar wat ingedien is, fokus op die internasionale regsaspek en kwessie van nul-vergoeding. Die Universele Verklaring van Menseregte (1948) en verskeie ander internasionale verdrae soos die Afrika-handves vir Mense- en Volkeregte (1986) en die Eerste Protokol tot die Europese Konvensie vir Menseregte (1953) erken die reg tot eiendom, asook die feit dat eiendom onder sekere omstandighede onteien kan word. Onteiening van eiendom is egter altyd onderhewig aan sekere voorwaardes. Een van hierdie voorwaardes is die betaling van billike of regverdige vergoeding.
Volgens die ANC is die doel van die wysiging aan die Grondwet om dit wat implisiet is, duidelik te maak. Saai se versoek is dat Suid-Afrika hom eksplisiet in die Grondwet tot die beginsels van die Universele Verklaring van Menseregte verbind, asook tot die beginsels wat in sy bilaterale handelsooreenkomste vervat is. Saai versoek ook dat die Grondwet pertinent bepaal dat dit nie van ’n persoon verwag kan word om die rekening te dra van ’n nasionale verantwoordelikheid nie.
Saai is oorval met navrae uit die buiteland oor die ANC se skuif om die hof in die proses te omseil en aan die uitvoerende gesag die mag te gee om vergoeding te bepaal. Minister Thoko Didiza het in 2008 dieselfde idee in die konseponteieningswet laat vaar omdat daar tóé bevind is dat dit ongrondwetlik sou wees. Daar is min elemente van die debat wat buitelandse beleggings meer as hierdie voorstel afskrik, en dit kom op ’n tyd wat Suid-Afrika se ekonomie dit nie kan bekostig nie.
Die aard van Saai se kommentaar op die wysiging aan die Grondwet sal ook ’n sentrale komponent wees tot die regsaksie wat geloods sal word indien die wysiging sou voortgaan.
