In an exclusive BizNews interview with Bronwyn Nielsen, Helen Zille discusses the DA’s legal bid to have the Expropriation Act nullified, citing constitutional and procedural concerns. She warns that the Act could open the door to state overreach and economic instability, arguing that land restitution should remain within existing laws. Zille also weighs in on the Act’s implications for South Africa’s international relations, including potential fallout with the U.S. under a Trump administration.
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.
The seventh BizNews Conference, BNC#7, is to be held in Hermanus from March 11 to 13, 2025. The 2025 BizNews Conference is designed to provide an excellent opportunity for members of the BizNews community to interact directly with the keynote speakers, old (and new) friends from previous BNC events – and to interact with members of the BizNews team. Register for BNC#7 here.
If you prefer WhatsApp for updates, sign up to the BizNews channel here.
Watch here
Listen here
Edited transcript of the interview ___STEADY_PAYWALL___
Bronwyn Nielsen (00:01.102)
Helen Zille, thanks so much for joining us this morning on BizNews. Could you provide a quick update on where we stand with the papers you have lodged in the Western Cape High Court regarding having the Expropriation Act declared unconstitutional and nullified? Can you give me the status quo as it stands?
Helen Zille (00:24.113)
Yes, we have filed papers. We want that Act nullified. We believe it is unconstitutional, both procedurally and substantively. We think we have a strong case. We’ve pursued the strongest legal argument, which is not necessarily our strongest objection to the Bill or the Act. However, we are obviously taking the route that gives us the best prospect of success without delving into too many complexities.
Bronwyn Nielsen (00:52.344)
As I understand it, the Democratic Alliance has opposed this Bill since 2018. Is that factually correct?
Helen Zille (01:01.489)
Yes, that is factually correct. In fact, you must remember the history of this Act. It originated from a resolution at the ANC’s elective conference in 2017. That resolution was to introduce expropriation without compensation into the law, specifically into the general Expropriation Act that the ANC wanted.
It emerged directly from the RET faction of the ANC. We have been strongly opposed to it ever since, and our opposition continues to this day.
Bronwyn Nielsen (01:41.910)
Now, this situation is highly politicised. There are both strong supporters and detractors. However, perhaps we can return to the fundamental principle that the Act is intended to address historical inequalities. That is one of its fundamental tenets.
Bronwyn Nielsen (02:07.842)
That is not what you are opposed to, correct? I just want to clarify that point.
Helen Zille (02:14.737)
Let me be clear, Bronwyn: this Act is not about land restitution and land reform. There are three other Acts that specifically address historical injustices. These are the Restitution of Land Rights Act and two Land Reform Acts, one of which is the Land Tenancy Act.
These three Acts were designed explicitly for the purposes of land reform and restitution, aiming to redress the historical injustices of land distribution and confiscation. The Expropriation Act, however, serves an entirely different function.
The Expropriation Act is not, and should not be, a land restitution Act. The ANC is attempting to smuggle in a provision that allows for an open-ended process of restitution at the will of the majority party, whenever they choose. Land restitution and land reform have a legal cut-off date because the framers of those Acts recognised the necessity of certainty regarding property ownership.
There must be certainty as well as restitution. The ANC’s attempt to remove this certainty through the Expropriation Act is a major concern. The Act should be designed to enable the state to expropriate land for public infrastructure—railways, roads,
Helen Zille (04:03.857)
bridges, dams—whatever land is required for the public good. The government must then demonstrate that expropriation is in the public interest and provide fair market value compensation unless the property can be objectively assessed as having effectively no value. However, such cases are exceedingly rare.
This Act is not intended for land restitution. The ANC is attempting to insert a clause that allows for expropriation without compensation, a concept first adopted at the 2017 ANC elective conference when the RET faction prevailed.
Bronwyn Nielsen (04:47.898)
What does this mean for the GNU? This issue is a significant test of unity between two opposing viewpoints. Could this potentially break the GNU?
Helen Zille (05:05.031)
I don’t see why it should. We hold a different position on this Act compared to the ANC. We believe we are acting in South Africa’s best interests because our shared objective is economic growth and job creation. Everyone agrees that these are South Africa’s top priorities.
Property uncertainty and expanding the state’s ability to expropriate land without compensation are highly detrimental to investment, growth, and job creation. We articulate this argument clearly and believe history supports our position. We are fully in favour of land restitution and land reform under the existing legislation. However, we vehemently oppose what the ANC is attempting to do within the Expropriation Act.
The ANC is free to challenge us on this matter, but our responsibility is not to prop up the ANC within the GNU. Our duty is to represent all South Africans in the GNU in line with the mandate we received from the electorate, which has positioned us as a balancing force within the government.
Bronwyn Nielsen (06:30.362)
From a layperson’s perspective, what happens next? You have lodged the papers at the Western Cape High Court. What is the next step?
Helen Zille (06:43.665)
Our case begins with a strong procedural argument. Specifically, five of the seven provinces that voted in favour of the Expropriation Act in the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) did not have proper mandates from their provincial legislatures.
There is a legal process that must be followed for a province to grant its delegation a mandate in the NCOP. This process was not followed in the Eastern Cape, Northern Cape, Mpumalanga, Gauteng, and Limpopo. If this is proven, the Act must be sent back to the drawing board and restarted from scratch.
If we succeed on this procedural point, the Act will be reset to square one.
Bronwyn Nielsen (07:50.614)
And if you don’t win on procedural grounds?
Helen Zille (07:57.789)
Our secondary argument is that the Act is internally inconsistent and ambiguous, which renders it unconstitutional. The Constitution requires that laws be clear and comprehensible to the public. This Act fails that test.
However, this does not directly address our primary concern: expanding the government’s power to expropriate property. We worry that a future government could abuse the law, manipulate the courts, and appoint cadre judges to facilitate an unjust expropriation process.
We must legislate for the worst-case scenario, not the best-case scenario.
Bronwyn Nielsen (08:57.278)
To illustrate this point, if Dean MacPherson, the current minister responsible for this legislation, were replaced by someone from the EFF, could that person manipulate the Act to suit their own agenda?
Helen Zille (09:36.657)
Yes. We cannot predict who will govern in the future. We once legislated for a Nelson Mandela and ended up with a Jacob Zuma. Zuma deployed his cadres into key state institutions, turning them into extensions of his power. We must ensure that this does not happen again.
The Expropriation Act, particularly under Section 12(4), enables the government to justify expropriation for restitution purposes. This process could be manipulated, allowing a future government to expropriate property arbitrarily. Moreover, ‘property’ extends beyond land to include all forms of assets, both movable and immovable.
Bronwyn Nielsen (11:45.890)
One final issue—Donald Trump’s stance on South Africa. Has he taken this out of context, and could his reaction harm our international relations, including our eligibility for the AGOA agreement?
Helen Zille (12:18.267)
If we pass legislation like this, we should not be surprised by international reactions. Trump’s response was not solely about the Expropriation Act but about South Africa’s alignment with America’s adversaries. His concern is bipartisan in the US, shared by both Republicans and Democrats.
While Trump was incorrect in stating that land is currently being expropriated en masse, this Act creates the conditions for such expropriation in the future.
Bronwyn Nielsen (14:58.970)
Helen Zille, thank you very much for your insights and for sharing them with us on BizNews. Much appreciated.
Read also:
