Why the signing of the Expropriation Act does not imply the immediate implementation of land reform in South Africa
On March 15, 2025, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio declared South African Ambassador to the US Ebrahim Rasool persona non grata following Rasool’s public remarks accusing US President Donald Trump of heading the global white supremacy movement. This marks another crisis in the relationship between Washington and Pretoria, which has significantly deteriorated since the beginning of 2025.
In February 2025, Trump suspended economic aid to South Africa, citing violations of the rights of the white minority and policies contrary to US interests. Rubio subsequently declined to attend the G20 summit in Johannesburg, pointing to South Africa’s anti-American stance. The South African government’s refusal to heed Washington’s demands, coupled with its blunt rhetoric, has further aggravated the crisis. The so-called “land question” in South Africa and the Expropriation Act signed by the South African president in January 2025 seem to have triggered the turmoil.
In fact, tensions between Washington and Pretoria are rooted in more fundamental issues, including South Africa’s independent foreign policy, BRICS membership, strategic partnerships with China and Russia, and a clear refusal to take sides in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Under former US President Joe Biden, a bill was introduced in the US Congress to reevaluate relations with South Africa, criticizing the policies of the African National Congress (ANC), particularly its foreign policy. With the change in US administration, another important source of friction has emerged: the DEI agenda (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion).
The land question in South Africa exemplifies the challenges faced by independent African nations, revealing how both internal and external players exploit these challenges for their own purposes.
The land question
In different African countries, the “land question” is influenced by specific factors, which vary by nation. In East Africa, for example, agriculture is a cornerstone of the economy, contributing 20-25% to GDP and providing jobs for 40-80% of the population.
Conversely, in Southern Africa, the mining sector traditionally plays a pivotal role in the economy, while agriculture accounts for only 3-7% of GDP. Nevertheless, just like in East Africa, agriculture remains a primary source of employment across much of the region. The economy’s relatively low dependence on agriculture reflects the government’s willingness to experiment with reforms and its readiness for change.
Political aspects also play an important role. For South Africa – which is currently in the media spotlight regarding land reform – politics is a key factor. Despite the fact that even in Russian supermarkets one will easily find oranges, lemons, and wine from South Africa, agriculture is not the country’s key economic driver. It contributes just 2.6% to GDP, makes up 10% of exports, and employs around 20% of the workforce. Furthermore, historically, settled agriculture and farming were not characteristic of the indigenous cultures that inhabited modern South Africa prior to colonization; these groups predominantly engaged in pastoralism and gathering.
Land holds significant political and symbolic weight for the Zulu, Sotho, and Xhosa communities that were forcibly relocated during the 19th and 20th centuries. For these ethnic groups, gaining ownership of land symbolizes a restoration of rights to their homeland and a reconnection with their ancestral lands. The importance of land in the dynamics between white and black populations is vividly depicted in the culture of post-apartheid South Africa, notably in J.M. Coetzee’s novel ‘Disgrace’, which won the Booker Prize in 1999.
After gaining independence, nearly all African nations struggled with land issues. Land reforms occurred in waves: first in the 1960s and 1970s following independence, and again in the 1990s. The earlier reforms focused on resolving land conflicts stemming from colonial divisions, while the latter focused on market liberalization.
In many African countries, these reforms followed a conservative scenario, aiming to maintain the status quo and protect the interests of the primary landholders. One notable exception is Zimbabwe, where after attempts to negotiate with major landowners – white farmers who owned up to 70% of agricultural land – the government adopted a more radical policy to redistribute land from white farmers to the black majority.
Apartheid and post-apartheid in South Africa
During the colonial eras of Dutch and British rule, and later under apartheid (1948–1994), the black population of South Africa was systematically stripped of land ownership rights. Bantustans, or reservations for black citizens, were established in areas least suitable for agriculture. By the mid-1990s, white minorities – making up less than 11% of the population – owned a staggering 86% of arable land, i.e., approximately 82 million hectares.
Since coming to power in 1994, the ANC, led by Nelson Mandela, has sought to restore land rights for the black population. The first step in this process was the Restitution of Land Rights Act of 1994, which provided a framework for restitution – allowing for the return of land or financial compensation to ethnic groups forcibly removed from their homes after 1913.
Back in 1994, the ANC declared that it would transfer up to 30% of agricultural land from white ownership to black South Africans. However, in practice, the government has been hesitant to take bold actions, and the interests of the emerging post-apartheid South African business community have largely focused on sectors like mining, trade, energy, and logistics.
Debates about the “land reform” continue in society and significantly influence elections, which is particularly important for the ANC as its support gradually declines.
Why is the land reform important?
The land reform should be viewed as a comprehensive set of legislative measures, regulatory initiatives, educational programs, and other efforts aimed at addressing the “land question”. For South Africa, this means finding a delicate balance: fulfilling the demands of the black majority without undermining the interests of the white minority, while ensuring sustainable development in the agricultural sector.
According to the South African government’s website, the primary principles underpinning the reform include: the transfer of agricultural land to black beneficiaries without distorting land markets; sustainable production on transferred land by making sure that human capabilities precede land transfer through incubators, learnerships, mentoring, apprenticeships and accelerated training in agricultural sciences; the establishment of monitoring institutions to protect land markets from opportunism, corruption and speculation.
Preparing for the land reform entails modernizing legal frameworks and aligning them with the provisions of South Africa’s modern constitution, adopted in 1996. Almost 20 acts related to the land question have been passed from 1937 to 2025. The adaptation of these laws sparked the “land reform” scandal that caught international attention in February, drawing criticism from Trump.
What is the Expropriation Act?
The controversy was sparked by the 2024 Expropriation Act (Act No. 13 of 2024), which was introduced in parliament in 2020, passed after a series of discussions and revisions in 2023, and signed into law by South African President Cyril Ramaphosa in January 2025. As the name suggests, this act regulates expropriation matters, defined as the “compulsory acquisition of property for a public purpose or in the public interest by an expropriating authority, or an organ of state upon request to an expropriating authority.” This law replaces the previous Expropriation Act enacted during apartheid in 1975.
Expropriation practices are widespread around the globe and are enshrined in various constitutions, including those of Germany and Italy, as well as in the laws of China and India. Since 1996, Section 25: “Property” of the South African Constitution has stated that “property may be expropriated only in terms of law of general application for a public purpose or in the public interest.” Consequently, the 2025 law aims to align the constitution with the legislation that interprets its provisions. It clarifies the meaning of the term “public interest” which was absent from the 1975 act but is present in the constitution, specifies the procedures for allowing government inspectors access to private properties for measurements, regulates the process of receiving a Notice of Expropriation, and more.
A key innovation in the new act is the introduction of the concept of “nil compensation” (derived from the Latin word ‘nihil,’ meaning ‘nothing’.) It outlines the conditions under which this applies:
- the land is not being used and the owner’s main purpose is not to develop the land or use it to generate income;
- organ of state holds land that it is not using for its core functions;
- owner has abandoned the land by failing to exercise control over it despite being reasonably capable of doing so;
- market value of the land is equivalent to, or less than, the present value of direct state investment or subsidy in the acquisition and beneficial capital improvement of the land.
However, the act includes a stipulation that the grounds for expropriation include but are not limited to the four reasons listed above. Critics argue that under a broad interpretation, any property could potentially be expropriated without compensation. The debate surrounding this law – which, despite the president’s signature and official publication, was not commenced, pending its effective date to be proclaimed by the president, allows all parties involved to score political points. President Ramaphosa and the ANC demonstrate their commitment to the land reform without binding themselves to extensive obligations, while simultaneously gaining leverage over landowners in future negotiations. Meanwhile, opposition groups and lobbyists, such as AfriForum and Solidarity, rally their supporters by portraying themselves as defenders of white farmers’ interests, thus drawing attention from external partners. Washington, in turn, leverages this controversy to exert political pressure on South Africa and reduce its financial commitments.
It’s clear that the land reform in South Africa is far from complete, and the highly publicized Expropriation Act is merely one of the initial and not most important technical steps in the process of its implementation.
#white #farmers #persecuted #Whats #USSouth #Africa #spat #Africa
Leave a Reply