Cronin hits back at critics of expropriation bill

The Expropriation Bill is in line with the Constitution, according to Deputy Public Works Minister Jeremy Cronin. 

Reacting to a decision by the South African Institute of Race Relations to petition President Jacob Zuma to not sign the bill into law, Cronin said the criticism was mainly technical in nature, and didn’t focus on substantive issues. 

The institute’s Anthea Jeffrey said the bill was inconsistent with the Constitution and had been passed without full public participation or procedural compliance. Not only could the bill enable expropriation without court confirmation, she said, but the process of expropriation could be abused. 

For instance, she claimed that, in terms of the bill, all organs of state at all levels of government, including state-owned entities, would be entitled to expropriate property. 

This meant that cash-strapped municipalities might be tempted to use their powers to acquire land which they could sell for housing or other purposes. 

But Cronin said it was “completely wrong” to say that the bill gave expropriation power to all state entities. 

The aim of the bill was essentially to define the “administratively just process” that any expropriating authority must follow, he said. 

All municipalities, premiers, some MECs and at least eight ministers had existing powers of expropriation for different purposes, Cronin said. 

“This does not mean all state entities have the right to expropriate. If government entities wish to expropriate property, it must be done through the relevant minister,” he said. 

Cronin denied that municipalities with cash flow problems would be able to use the law to acquire land and sell it. 

“They have to prove why they are expropriating property. It would be highly unconstitutional to expropriate to make money from it. The legislation cannot be used in a speculative manner,” he said. 

Cronin conceded that the bill did not define what exactly constituted “property” – which is one of the criticisms that have been raised. However, he referred to a recent Constitution Court ruling that it would be unwise to define property. 

The institute believed that the bill should be amended to require prior court confirmation that a proposed expropriation was indeed constitutional, but Cronin said “nowhere in the world” did this happen. 

The bill set out the administrative process for expropriation of land, time frames on how property may be expropriated and the procedure to be followed in the case of a dispute. 

About criticism that too few public hearings took place, Cronin said about 20 of these were held in all nine provinces. 

There was also a two-year process in Nedlac where unions and the business community had a chance to respond. 

The process has been before the National Assembly since 2013 and was passed by majority vote last week.