Sparks fly at Expropriation Bill meeting

The parliamentary discussion on the controversial new Expropriation Bill got off the expected rocky start yesterday, foretelling a Stalingrad-type battle about a bill cutting to the heart of property ownership in South Africa.

In the portfolio committee on public works, the ANC suddenly argued for the concept of just and equitable compensation to be removed from its central place in the tenets of the bill.

The bill will regulate the circumstances under and the way in which  can lay claim to private property, and the compensation a citizen can expect to receive if the state lays claim to his or her property.

The bill allows for expropriation in the public interest (for instance as part of land reform) or for a public purpose (for instance to construct a road or a power line), and covers both rural and urban private property.

It has put the ANC between a rock and a hard place politically, with pressure from the EFF on the one hand claiming compensation is unnecessary if the state needs land, and the DA on the other claiming property rights are being undermined.

Yesterday, the first fight erupted over the long title of the bill, which normally is an uncontroversial technicality in the parliamentary process of writing law.

The long title is supposed to give a bird's eye view of the proposed legislation's purpose.

For the expropriation bill, it currently reads as follows: "To provide for the expropriation of property for a public purpose or in the public interest, subject to just and equitable compensation, and to provide for matters connected therewith."

Although no-one has, up to now in the months of writing the bill, objected to the long title, yesterday ANC MP Celiwe Madlhopa wanted it changed.

She put a proposal that the reference to "just and equitable compensation" be removed from the long title, and was supported by her fellow ANC MP, Patricia Adams.

Their argument was that the property clause in the constitution already covers the concept, and that therefore it does not have to be included in the bill - it goes without saying.

This last-minute manoeuvre got the backs of the opposition up, though, with both the DA and the UDM objecting.

UDM MP Mncedisi Filtane said it ,made him very suspicious of the ANC's motives, as if the process was controlled from elsewhere - clearly implying possible intervention from the ANC head office in Luthuli House.

The DA's Anchen Dreyer also expressed her surprise at the sudden ANC change, and a long argument ensued during which Dreyer emphasised that compensation was a key part of the bill.

ANC MP and committee chair Ben Martins calmed the waters by postponing a decision on the matter, and the committee survived to fight another day.