 (1).png){kind=spacer}
8 hours ago
1
AgriSA's Johann Kotze rejected US President Donald Trump's assertion that the government was confiscating land in SA. (Mlungisi Louw/Gallo Images/Volksblad)
- AgriSA has criticised US President Donald Trump's claim that South Africa is "confiscating land".
- CEO Johann Kotzé said the signing of the Expropriation Act has caused political turmoil and tension within the agri-food system.
- Trump falsely claimed South Africa was "confiscating land", in an apparent reference to the Expropriation Act.
AgriSA has slammed US President Donald Trump's social media claim that South Africa is "confiscating land", after tensions between Pretoria and Washington escalated this week.
AgriSA CEO Johann Kotzé on Friday stressed that no land confiscation has taken place. This follows the signing of the Expropriation Act on 23 January.
"To be clear, no seizures or confiscations of private property have taken place. Nor has any land been expropriated without compensation. Isolated cases of land grabs and trespassing have been dealt with. Additionally, rumours linking farm murders to the signing of the act are baseless and irresponsible. Farmers remain productive and committed to their operations," he said.
South African-born billionaire Elon Musk, now an influential figure in the Trump administration, accused SA of having "racist ownership laws".
While delivering his State of the Nation Address (SONA) in Cape Town on Thursday evening, President Cyril Ramaphosa said SA would "not be bullied".
AgriSA calls to Ramaphosa
In 2024, AgriSA urged Ramaphosa to either return the bill to the National Assembly for reconsideration or consult the Constitutional Court regarding its constitutionality.
Kotzé said that from the outset, AgriSA acknowledged that expropriation in the public interest was a necessary function of any government:
Internationally, expropriation in the public interest is an accepted principle, provided it is constitutionally and legally sound and at a price that is fair and reasonable.
"We take comfort in the fact that the Expropriation Act remains subject to Section 25 of the Constitution, which has not been amended. Importantly, Section 25 requires that compensation be just and equitable, ensuring a fair balance between the public interest and the rights of affected property owners," he said.
Kotzé added that although the signed act explicitly allows for nil compensation in certain circumstances, this does not mean expropriation without compensation is inevitable.
"The principle of just and equitable compensation remains intact, requiring a careful evaluation of all relevant factors. Despite these checks and balances, the agricultural sector's primary concern is the definition of expropriation itself and the limitations it implies," he said.
Kotze said they would monitor cases on a case-by-case basis, as advised by senior counsel, to ensure that private property rights remain protected under the Constitution.
