Home  »  Articles   »   NA Rejects Expropriation Bill

NA Rejects Expropriation Bill

September 6, 2018


The Expropriation Bill has been rejected by the national assembly.

The bill was returned to parliament by former president Zuma in 2017 over reservations about its constitutionality.

The reservations focused on a lack of sufficient public participation during the processing of the bill.

Parliament passed the bill and sent it for assent in May 2016.

The draft bill was published for comment in 2013.

Cabinet had approved the bill in March 2013 to be released for comment.

At the time, cabinet declared that the proposed legislation will aim to “achieve certainty and give guidance to those involved in or subject to, an expropriation process, both for the state, as well as a private individual”.

The bill intended repealing the current Expropriation Act of 1975.

A review of the current act was undertaken to bring about consistency with the “spirit and provisions” of the constitution.

The proposed legislation wanted to make it clear that property could be expropriated in the public interest.

“Expropriation in the public interest, for instance, provides government with a tool to achieve its commitment to land reform, and to reforms to bring about equitable access to all South Africa’s natural resources”.

The bill wanted to put uniform expropriation procedures in place for all expropriating authorities at the three levels of government.

The proposed legislation also set down the powers of the public works minister to expropriate property, the procedures for the investigation and valuation of property, how the intention to expropriate is conveyed and how expropriation is to transpire, how compensation is to be paid and the role of the court in settling disputes.

In a statement, parliament confirmed that the portfolio committee on public works had recommended that the national assembly reject the bill “pending the conclusion of the process regarding the possible review of Section 25 of the Constitution – so that it could be re-introduced at a later stage should it become necessary.”