Zille: Expropriation Act Sparking Conflict in the GNU

https://iframe.iono.fm/e/1526894″ width=”100%” height=”126″ frameborder=”0

You can also listen to this podcast on iono.fm here.

JEREMY MAGGS: The Democratic Alliance (DA) has submitted legal documents to the High Court contesting the recently enacted Expropriation Act, arguing that it is unconstitutional both in substance and process. Let’s delve into this issue further, as it has become quite controversial. Joining me is DA Federal Council chair Helen Zille, who will lead our discussion today. Helen, welcome. Do you think you have a strong case?

HELEN ZILLE: Thank you, Jeremy. I do believe we have a compelling case. I approach court cases cautiously because certainty is never guaranteed, but I’m confident in our position.

JEREMY MAGGS: You’ve compared this legislation to, and I quote, the dark days of Apartheid. Can you elaborate on that?

HELEN ZILLE: I might not have used those exact words, but I definitely referenced Apartheid. Many individuals in and around Cape Town have shared their experiences of state expropriating their land for the establishment of white group areas, often with little compensation, resulting in years of struggle to reclaim title to their properties.

This serves as a serious warning against granting the state such expansive authority.

You cannot provide the state with unlimited powers to expropriate property at below market value or with no value at all through an open-ended process. That is disastrous.

Our restitution laws, which the DA endorses—the Restitution of Land Rights Act and the Land Reform Act—aim to rectify past dispossessions, a goal we fully support, but they also incorporate a cutoff date since lawmakers understood the importance of property security for encouraging investment and growth. This new section 12.4 in the Expropriation Act, however, removes that certainty and engenders significant insecurity regarding property rights. We don’t believe a government should possess that kind of power again.

JEREMY MAGGS: How do you address criticisms asserting that your opposition is focused solely on safeguarding white-owned properties instead of promoting fair land redistribution?

HELEN ZILLE: We strongly back the three acts aimed at fair land distribution. We are extremely frustrated by the government’s inefficiency in implementing these measures and their total inability to manage the process effectively.

We fully support the Restitution of Land Rights Act and the two land reform acts, yet we are deeply dismayed by the government’s failure to advance them.

Adding another provision that extends government powers where it shouldn’t belong isn’t the solution. The Expropriation Act is designed for infrastructure projects—roads, bridges, railways, and dams—where negotiations for fair market value should occur when the government needs to cross private property. While there may be instances where less than market value is warranted, this should only apply to very specific circumstances. The Expropriation Act was never intended for restitution; three other laws address that. However, since the ANC passed a resolution in 2017 demanding a legal framework for land expropriation without compensation, they are now attempting to embed this in the Expropriation Act.

We absolutely cannot accept that, and this does not equate to merely defending white property owners.

We are advocating for every property owner. We aim to increase property ownership across the board.

This is why we are distributing so many title deeds in areas governed by the DA. We want more people to own property, to have title deeds, and to see their property rights protected.

JEREMY MAGGS: This is undoubtedly a politically charged issue. Would you say this court challenge reflects a realization that you’ve exhausted political options and now must resort to litigation against land expropriation?

HELEN ZILLE: We certainly possess the political power to challenge this, and yes, we could bring the government down. However, you can only do that once, after which you lose all leverage. If you have a strong case to present in court, you should pursue it. That’s exactly what we are doing.

We believe we have a strong case to declare this act null and void, allowing us to start anew and fight for our cause. This court action is intended to extend our political capacity, not diminish it.

JEREMY MAGGS: Given the situation, are discussions or negotiations still ongoing within the power structures, even though you’ve initiated court proceedings? Is there any willingness among your partners in the GNU to discuss this issue further?

HELEN ZILLE: We always hope for dialogue. However, they are constrained by the ANC conference’s resolutions. When they attempted to amend the Constitution, particularly clause 25, we mounted a vigorous opposition. Unable to alter the Constitution, they redirected their efforts toward the Expropriation Act, which, as I mentioned, is not the appropriate vehicle for these changes.

We remain open to discussions. We desire more frequent one-on-one meetings with the ANC.

However, any amendments to the act would require nearly a complete redraft.

JEREMY MAGGS: You referred to the potential to collapse a government once. How much pressure is this situation exerting on the GNU currently?

HELEN ZILLE: Indeed, it’s creating significant stress. We are not merely there to support the ANC in implementing the National Democratic Revolution (NDR). The ANC should be receiving this message clearly, even if they believe that the DA lacks alternatives because we oppose the EFF and MK gaining power. However, I assure you that Cyril Ramaphosa and his colleagues also have no interest in seeing the EFF and MK in power, as such a development could cost them their political careers.

I think we actually have more leverage than we have been utilizing, and we intend to exercise that leverage increasingly.

While we do not wish to be in a constant conflict with our coalition partners, we need tangible victories to convey clearly that we require real accomplishments.

JEREMY MAGGS: I find it intriguing how you balance the legal opposition to this act with John Steenhuisen’s readiness to support Ramaphosa’s efforts to engage with the United States; the two positions seem somewhat contradictory.

HELEN ZILLE: We have communicated to the ANC that passing laws like this will lead to the West’s rejection of South Africa. Nonetheless, we also recognize what it means if the United States and Western nations withdraw their aid and trade, which we certainly wish to avoid. Our goal is for South Africa to maintain its alliance with the West, as we support values rooted in constitutionalism, the rule of law, a market-based economy, and non-racialism—principles inspired by Western thought.

We are committed to fostering these connections. However, we warn the ANC that if it continues to align with geopolitical forces perceived as anti-West, it will be met with severe consequences from the West.

We also want to urge President Trump not to penalize ordinary South Africans for the failings of the ANC.

We implore him not to cut off the vital Aids relief funds that have provided support for many years, amounting to $8 billion under Pepfar, nor to revoke our preferential trade status under the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (Agoa).

We urge him to avoid sanctions against South Africa. Instead, we seek an expansion of trade, not a contraction.

We understand that President Trump will likely ask what America stands to gain from maintaining relations with us, and while we aim for a non-aligned foreign policy, our alliances with various rogue states and anti-democratic regimes complicate that claim.

JEREMY MAGGS: So it seems you harbor little optimism for the success of this diplomatic mission to the United States?

HELEN ZILLE: Not necessarily. We have our own channels of communication that we utilize consistently, advocating for the notion that the West should not abandon South Africa. With the world’s highest unemployment rates, the future stability of South Africa is crucial for both American and Western interests, as economic growth and job creation are imperative.

Investment is essential for economic growth, and without property security, investment will wane.

Thus, we are simultaneously pressuring the ANC on what is necessary to salvage South Africa, while also urging President Trump not to sacrifice our nation. We are addressing these issues, but plea for continued support as we combat these misguided policies.

JEREMY MAGGS: Thank you very much for your insights, Helen. That was Helen Zille, chair of the DA Federal Council, and I appreciate your time.

For comprehensive finance and business news, follow Moneyweb’s coverage on WhatsApp here.