The Expropriation Bill of 2020, soon to become law pending President Cyril Ramaphosa’s approval, faces scrutiny for its constitutional compatibility.
The Institute of Race Relations (IRR) has petitioned Ramaphosa, citing multiple clauses as unconstitutional. The bill’s failure to mandate prior court approval for compensation disputes is a key concern. Legal advisors argue this oversight contradicts Section 25(2)(b) of the Constitution. Despite attempts to rectify the issue, the bill remains constitutionally flawed.
Sign up for your early morning brew of the BizNews Insider to keep you up to speed with the content that matters. The newsletter will land in your inbox at 5:30am weekdays. Register here.
By Anthea Jeffery
The Expropriation Bill of 2020 (the Bill) has been adopted by Parliament and will become law once President Cyril Ramaphosa gives his assent to it. However, the President may not sign a bill into law if it inconsistent with the Constitution. The IRR has thus sent a letter and a detailed Petition to Mr Ramaphosa setting out the unconstitutionality of many clauses in the Bill and requesting him not to sign it into law.
One of the key defects in the Bill is its failure to include clear clauses requiring an expropriating authority, in the event of an unresolved dispute with an owner, to obtain a prior court order deciding or approving the compensation payable – and otherwise confirming the constitutionality of a proposed expropriation.
