Submission on the Draft Expropriation Bill, 2020

The submission by Natural Justice (NJ) evaluates the draft Expropriation Bill, 2020, which aims to replace the 1975 Act and allow for expropriation without compensation in South Africa. NJ argues that the Bill fails to account for climate change and agro-ecological constraints, which are critical given South Africa's limited arable land. The organization expresses concern over the state-centric approach to expropriation, the potential for state-owned land to be shielded from reform, and the risk that state-subsidized land held by disadvantaged people could be expropriated for nil compensation. NJ recommends the creation of an ombudsperson to represent public interests, the adoption of a Land Redistribution Framework Act for better oversight, and the implementation of a Land Records Act to protect the tenure of millions of people with unregistered rights.

• Land reform planning in South Africa fails to address climate change and agro-ecological constraints, ignoring the fact that the country is largely dry with limited arable land and lacking long-term plans to respond to climate threats.
• The draft Bill's requirement for the concurrence of the executive authority to expropriate state-owned corporations or entities may remove the compulsory nature of expropriation and shield state land from the land reform project.
• The Bill focuses too narrowly on land, whereas the Constitution defines property more broadly to include corporeal and incorporeal property, such as intellectual property and patents for medicines.
• The current definition of 'expropriating authority' reinforces a state-centric approach that excludes the public, individuals, and communities from initiating or influencing the expropriation process.
• Section 12(3)(e) of the draft Bill could inadvertently allow the state to expropriate land for nil compensation from disadvantaged individuals or communities who used state subsidies to acquire or improve their land.
• While the Bill recognizes unregistered rights holders—who comprise nearly 60% of the population, including 2 million on commercial farms and 17 million in communal areas—these individuals remain vulnerable to eviction without a formal land administration system to record their rights.
• The proposed Expropriation Register lacks sufficient detail to monitor whether land reform is equitably benefiting the poor or merely serving economic interests, and it fails to provide a mechanism for stakeholders to challenge decisions.
• The draft Bill does not provide a clear definition for land held for 'purely speculative purposes,' which is necessary to differentiate between land purchased for future development and land left unused to increase in value.

APA

Natural Justice (2021). Submission on the Draft Expropriation Bill, 2020. https://naturaljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/NJ-2021-Submission-to-the-Expropriation-Bill.pdf

Chicago

Natural Justice. Submission on the Draft Expropriation Bill, 2020. 2021. https://naturaljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/NJ-2021-Submission-to-the-Expropriation-Bill.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite press release |author=Natural Justice |title=Submission on the Draft Expropriation Bill, 2020 |date=28 February 2021 |url=https://naturaljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/NJ-2021-Submission-to-the-Expropriation-Bill.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@misc{naturaljustice2021submission, author = {{Natural Justice}}, title = {{Submission on the Draft Expropriation Bill, 2020}}, publisher = {Natural Justice}, year = {2021}, month = feb, url = {https://naturaljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/NJ-2021-Submission-to-the-Expropriation-Bill.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }