SOUTH Africa’s second-largest political party, the Democratic Alliance (DA), has filed a court case challenging the country’s new land expropriation law. The DA claims the legislation, which allows the government to expropriate land without compensation under specific conditions, is both procedurally and substantively unconstitutional.
Signed into law last month by President Cyril Ramaphosa, the Expropriation Act permits ‘nil compensation’ for property seized in the public interest, raising concerns both domestically and internationally. The law has sparked diplomatic tensions with the United States, leading to an executive order from President Donald Trump to freeze aid to South Africa.
Legal battle over constitutionality
In a statement released on Monday, the DA argued that the law contains ‘vague and contradictory clauses’ that could undermine property rights. ‘The DA has filed papers in the High Court to challenge the recently signed Expropriation Act because it violates constitutional principles,’ the party said.
The DA, traditionally viewed as pro-business and South Africa’s largest opposition party, holds six ministerial positions in a fragile coalition government formed after the African National Congress (ANC) lost its outright majority in last year’s elections—a first since the end of apartheid in 1994.
The roots of the land debate
Land ownership remains a deeply sensitive issue in South Africa, where historical injustices during colonialism and apartheid resulted in vast land disparities. Today, white South Africans—about 7 percent of the population—still own a disproportionate share of the country’s farmland. The new law seeks to address these inequalities by replacing an outdated 1975 apartheid-era statute with one aligned to the post-apartheid constitution.
The legislation allows land expropriation without compensation only under exceptional circumstances, where it is deemed “just and equitable.” The government argues that this approach is necessary to correct historical imbalances while maintaining economic stability.
International fallout and US-South Africa tensions
The law’s passage has drawn sharp criticism from US President Donald Trump, who claimed it enables the South African government to ‘seize property from ethnic minority Afrikaner farmers without compensation.’ Trump’s administration responded by freezing foreign aid to South Africa, citing human rights concerns.
South Africa’s government has condemned what it calls a ‘campaign of misinformation,’ rejecting the narrative that the law targets specific ethnic groups. ‘The Expropriation Act is a constitutional measure aimed at land reform and economic justice, not racial discrimination,’ said a spokesperson from the Department of International Relations and Cooperation.
Fears of a Zimbabwe-style land crisis
Critics of the new law fear it could lead to economic instability reminiscent of Zimbabwe’s controversial land reform program in the early 2000s, where the abrupt seizure of white-owned farms without compensation led to agricultural collapse, hyperinflation, and widespread food shortages.
However, South African officials insist their approach is measured and legally sound. ‘Unlike Zimbabwe’s land reform, South Africa’s policy is grounded in constitutional principles and designed to prevent economic disruption,’ said Minister of Agriculture Thoko Didiza.
Coalition government under pressure
The legal challenge adds strain to South Africa’s already fragile coalition government. The ANC, historically the dominant political force, was forced into partnership with the DA and several smaller parties after failing to secure a majority in the last election. The uneasy alliance has struggled to maintain consensus on key issues, with land reform emerging as a major flashpoint.
While the ANC defends the Expropriation Act as a vital tool for redressing historical injustices, the DA warns that vague legal language and potential misuse could harm investor confidence and property rights.
What’s next?
The High Court is expected to review the DA’s case in the coming months. Legal experts predict a lengthy battle, with potential appeals reaching the Constitutional Court, South Africa’s highest legal authority.
In the meantime, the government plans to proceed with implementing the law, emphasising its commitment to constitutional land reform. However, with growing domestic opposition and rising international scrutiny, the path forward remains uncertain.
As South Africa grapples with its complex land reform legacy, the outcome of this legal battle could shape the country’s economic future and test the resilience of its democratic institutions.
