Listen here.In this interview with Chris Steyn, Kallie Kriel, the CEO of AfriForum, describes the legal battle being fought against the Expropriation Act in the Cape High Court this week. Detailing the implications of the act in current form, Kriel warns that after the Local Government Elections in November, municipalities under MK control could use a section of the act to expropriate without compensation. “They can use a reason that is not valid and they can go ahead…And that is why we will use the resources we have to fight this till the bitter end.” As for unlawful occupation, Kriel reveals that Economic Freedom Fighter (EFF) CIC Julius Malema is facing legal action over his latest land grab call. “A few years back we got a court order successfully against him that he is not allowed to do that. He had to pay our costs. But you will see that during the last week he did it again. We have not announced that publicly; so you hear it the first time. But our legal team is drawing up a case at the moment because his behaviour is contempt of court. So we believe we have a strong case there.”.Sign up for your early morning brew of the BizNews Insider to keep you up to speed with the content that matters. Register here.Support South Africa’s bastion of independent journalism, offering balanced insights on investments, business, and the political economy, by joining BizNews Premium. Register here.If you prefer WhatsApp for updates, sign up to the BizNews channel here..Edited transcript of the interview.Chris Steyn (00:01.102)The legal battle to fight the Expropriation Act is being fought in the Cape High Court this week. In attendance is Kallie Kriel, the CEO of AfriForum. Welcome, Kallie.Kallie Kriel (00:15.101)Good morning to you Chris, great speaking to you.Chris Steyn (00:17.762)What was the first day in court like?Kallie Kriel (00:21.85)Well, one would never know. I think the arguments we raised were very strong in terms of showing that the Expropriation Act is indeed unconstitutional. Of course, this court case is set down for five days until Friday. We are continuing with our case this morning to argue. Then after us, it would be the IRR legal. And then of course the various amici that support our case will have the chance. And then all the other parties that oppose our application. In the end, we can then have an opportunity to reply. So it's still a long way to go, but it's worthwhile because it's a good cause we're fighting for.Chris Steyn (01:08.782)Kallie,, the Democratic Alliance and Vaderlandstigting: They have a separate application being heard alongside. What's the difference between the two applications?Kallie Kriel (01:20.976)Yes, what happened is we made a court application to the Pretoria High Court. The DA came to the Western Cape High Court or to Cape Town. And then there was a proposition or a proposal that these cases should rather be joined in the same courtroom because there is some overlap with that. And that is why we then agreed to come to Cape Town.There is an overlap, but there's also a difference. In terms of the DA's case, they argue that the various provinces did not give a mandate for the provinces to vote in the National Council of Provinces, thus making the whole act invalid. But then they also focus specifically on Section 19(2) that allows expropriation to take place and… only then… go to court. I'll come to the implications of that. We also focus on Section 19(2), also Section 19 (8) that says expropriation can continue even when you appeal a judgment in the court. But I think the difference in the cases is that we focus specifically also on Section 12(3) and (4). Those are the sections that allow for expropriation without compensation. And our argument is there, if you're going to look at Section 25 of the Constitution, it strikes a balance between various factors that have to be taken into account. What this Act does, it actually breaks what the intention is of the Constitution, and it diverts and gives some higher status to so-called null compensation or compensation with expropriation without compensation, while the constitution says that there should be just an equitable compensation. But what are the implications of this act? One should measure the act not only in terms of its intentions. Well, we believe in this case, they are extremely bad intentions. Deputy President Mashatile stated it quite clearly that they want to expropriate….Kallie Kriel (03:41.252)….without compensation. But what are the implications for land owners and property owners, but also all the people in the country? Let's start off with all the people in the country. If you look at what - and this is not new news, that is why it's so astonishing that the ANC does not learn from this - when you have the slightest, slightest implication or send the slightest signal that you don't respect property rights, it has a detrimental effect on the country's economy. This is not just a slight indication, it states quite clearly that there would be infringement of property rights without compensation. And we can look at what happened in Zimbabwe, we can look what happened in Venezuela, you have hyperinflation, growing unemployment, growing poverty levels, to such an extent that people are fleeing over the borders from Zimbabwe to South Africa The same arguments that we hear now from the ANC and the EFF and MK were used there. It was so called to give land to the landless and the poor. What happened? It was elitist enrichment, like we see with BEE. It was land and farms for friends and party loyalists, while ordinary people suffered because of that. That is the economic implications and that's why...we believe it's disloyal to the country to try and promote such an act. With regard to the implications on a specific land owner, what happens, remember there are now over 400 expropriation authorities that they call them. That includes municipalities that have the power to expropriate. After the municipal election, it will most probably have a number of municipalities under MK control, for instance. Then they can use that Section 12.3 to expropriate without compensation. Now the critics would say, there are specific cases mentioned, four of them, where expropriation can take place without compensation. And they say, well, that is narrow enough not to be worried. Well, we don't agree with, there are also big problems with some of those four mentions.Kallie Kriel (06:02.127)But if you go and read the small print, well it's actually printed quite big, it says expropriation of land without compensation can take place in the following, including but not limited to the following. So it's an open-ended situation. So what you can have, MK municipality can say, well, there can also be other reasons. They can use a reason that is not valid and they can go ahead.But people would say, well, if you go to court, then you will win. But the problem is expropriation can take place in Section 19(2) before going to court. So what is the implication for the normal person? You will lose your land. For most people, it is their sole income and they lose their income because they lose their property. Now they have to go and fight it with their own money against the State that uses our money as taxpayers. And we know, for instance, in Pretoria, if you've got a disputed case, it would take you three years to get a court date, and then the case only starts. So now a person will have to fight against the State, even for five years with their own money, and hope for the best. That is the serious infringement on property rights.Chris Steyn (07:24.821)So this court action is the only thing that stands between that scenario that you have just sketched, and protection of properties.Kallie Kriel (07:38.883)Yes, and that is why this is important. That is why we've got a senior legal team representing us. And that is why we will use the resources we have to fight this till the bitter end. We don't foresee that this fight will be over soon. When there's a judgment in this case, irrespective of what the judgment would be, if it's in favour of the president and the State, we will most definitely appeal this to the Appeal Court.If it's in our favour, you will have the number of respondents, I believe, that would appeal. And then only after that, it will then go to the Constitutional Court. So we're in for a long battle, but some things in life are worth fighting for. And I think property rights is such a thing that's worth fighting for and using a lot of resources. That is what we have to do, but it's our job and that is what our members support us for, to take on these kinds of fights.Chris Steyn (08:40.589)Kallie, should you go through all these court battles that might still have to take place and you succeed, how do you plan to deal with unlawful expropriation?Kallie Kriel (08:52.536)Yes, maybe I can just still mention, I didn't mention it, we want Section 12(3) and 12(4) simply struck. It's not a central part of the Act, so it doesn't have to be rewritten, the same with Section 19(8). I think in terms of Section 19(2) if it's not struck from the Act, the wording should change and it be referred back to Parliament. In terms of unlawful occupation. Well, that's happening at the moment. What you have in many cases and we have many examples where the police simply don't act. And now landowners have to go to court and they win these cases. But then they have to make sure that the people that are illegally there have to be removed.I remember in one case…we won... The people had to be removed. But the Red Ants, it was a few hundred thousand rand because it's a costly thing. So I don't blame them. So you will have to spend hundreds and hundreds of thousands of rands to simply make sure that you get your land back while the State sits back. This happens because they are not doing their job.So I think what we should do is, and we will be looking for a case such as that, where you hold government accountable or the State accountable for losses that are being incurred. On the legal level, of course, what do you have? You have politicians that urges people to unlawfully occupy land. Julius Malema has done so. A few years back we got a court order successfully against him that he is not allowed to do that. He had to pay our costs. But you will see that during the last week he did it again. We have not announced that publicly so you hear it the first time.Kallie Kriel (11:09.688)But our legal team is drawing up a case at the moment because his behaviour is contempt of court. So we believe we have a strong case there. So we have to fight that. And I think that's a broader thing. Fortunately, there are also other civil societies, organisations that believe in the free market, that believe in property rights. And I think I want to ask people if you don't...necessarily want to support AfriForum, support those institutions so that we make sure that these organisations have the resources to take these kinds of things to court. Because a normal land owner will simply not have the money to protect their property rights.Chris Steyn (11:58.264)Kallie, this action does not mean in any way that you are against land reform. How would you see land reform constituted?Kallie Kriel (12:08.43)Well, I think in the first place, last night I was in a debate with Carl Niehaus and they make all these kinds of sweeping statements that all land is stolen and it has to be given back, given back to whom? The Khoisan people were here first. When are you going to decide what the cut-off date was? Then they also use the fallacy that is being used quite a lot, that 70 % of the land in South Africa is owned by white people. But what they don't tell you, that study that was made only looked at 30 % of the land in the country. It excluded trusts, such as the Phala Phala Farm, which is in a trust. That was not counted as black-owned land. It excluded traditional areas. It excluded state land. So if they say 70 %...it's 70 % of what? 70 % of 30% of the land. That brings you to about 20 to 21 % of land owned by individual white commercial farmers. And then of course, a large portion of that is in the Karoo. We have to have large parts of land to be able to make a living. So that is specifically the facts, but...of course, AfriForum supports the fact that we cannot deny that there were forced removals of people from land. And in those cases, there should be restitution. I think that would only be fair. So there's no quarrel that those things can be done. That's why we have a Restitution Act that can indeed identify those cases.Carl Niehaus’ sweeping statements won't work there because you have to show what the facts are. And then there can be restitution.In terms of what happened, 94% of people that were successful with these land claims, preferred the money. So then you don't change the demographics of land ownership, but restitution has been done. Then, okay, let's say...Kallie Kriel (14:30.079)Why didn't the rest work? And we don't have to speculate. In 2017, there was a high-level panel led by former President Kgalema Motlanthe that had to investigate why land reform was not working. And he did not say…they did not find that there's a problem with the acts, anything. What they found was corruption was the problem. Lack of capacity was the problem. Incompetence was the problem. So now you have… and that we've seen with catered deployment across the civil service, also with regard to land reform. So you have a government, ANC led government that has failed dismally. They don't want to recognise or acknowledge that they are the problem. Now they have to say, you know, the willing buyer, willing seller system does not work. It does work. The 77% of land you can see is in the market at any given stage. So if the ANC's cadre…appoint people that can handle this, that will be the way to go. Now they say, well, no, no, we have to do something else. It's like hitting your head against a wall. If it hurts, you cannot say, well, I'm just going to hit it harder. It will become better after a time. You can’t…. the Expropriation Act is, it will simply bring more of the wrong thing, which would be devastating to the country.Chris Steyn (16:07.671)Thank you. That was AfriForum CEO Kallie Kriel speaking to BizNews. I'm Chris Steyn. Thank you, Kallie.Kallie Kriel (16:15.937)Thank you so much, Chris. Great speaking to you.