Key topics:
- Trump halts US aid over SA land reform, citing false claims.
- SA’s land law aligns with global norms, ensuring fairness and legality.
- Ramaphosa rejects pressure, says SA won’t engage “with a begging bowl.”
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 for the BizNews channel here.
By Melanie Verwoerd ___STEADY_PAYWALL___
President Donald Trump recently announced that he would pause all American aid to South Africa following the signing of a Land Expropriation Act by President Cyril Ramaphosa on Jan. 22. On his Truth Social network, Trump falsely claimed that South Africa was confiscating land from “certain classes which are treated very badly.”
Presumably influenced by South African Elon Musk and some right-wing South African groups, the US president went on to say: “America will not stand for this, we will act.”
This is a grave example of using aid, which is meant to help the most vulnerable, to meddle in the domestic policy of another country. And it hasn’t gone down well in South Africa.
The fact is, South Africa has not expropriated any private land since the dawn of its democracy. The first arrival of Europeans in 1652 led to indigenous South Africans being dispossessed of their land. This large-scale confiscation without any compensation continued until apartheid ended in 1994. By then, White landowners who made up 7% of the population occupied 93% of the land.
Under the leadership of Nelson Mandela, a liberal constitution was negotiated that went to great lengths to protect individual and group rights. But an obligation was also put on the state to correct the wrongs of the past. This included land ownership.
Given the country’s history, nothing would have been easier (and frankly more popular) than for the ANC government to have forcefully expropriated large tracts of land from White owners without compensation. Yet, it chose not to. For the last 30 years, the state bought land from landowners at (and even above) market values. Although progress has been made to correct the racial disparity, the process has been painstaking slow and expensive. Today, about 25% of agricultural land is owned by Black South Africans compared with 75% by Whites who still constitute only around 7% of the population.
The new Expropriation of Land Act in no way deviates from the ANC’s commitment to being fair and just. The act aligns with section 25 of the constitution, which, while protecting private ownership, makes provision for land seizures under certain circumstances. It also puts an obligation on the state to ensure land reform. Helpfully, the act lays out the criteria for expropriation in general. And it further states that expropriation without compensation only applies in very limited circumstances, such as with state land and unused or abandoned land, and such intervention needs to be approved by a court of law. A dispute mechanism is entrenched and the right of the courts to arbitrate is explicitly mentioned.
The act closely resembles the laws of almost all countries around the world that allow for expropriation by a state in the public interest. These include the US (where it falls under the principle of eminent domain), the European Union and the UK.
So why all the fuss?
It’s hard to believe that Trump — who during his first term was unsure of Africa’s location and described South Africa as a “hell hole” — cares about the country’s land reform. Instead, his utterances smack of racism toward African governments, suggesting that African countries can’t be trusted with the same laws that Europe and America have had on their books for decades.
Trump suggests that the ANC government is treating White South Africans very badly. And Musk has claimed that “the government is openly pushing for genocide of white people in South Africa.” But if any class is treated badly in South Africa it is the Black population. Thirty years after democracy and the vast majority of the poor are Black and the majority of land is still in White ownership.
In order for South Africa to remain a stable democracy and not spiral into the kind of racial violence seen in Zimbabwe in 2000, it is crucial for these issues to be addressed in a fair, just and legal manner.
Despite the urgency of the matter, Ramaphosa and his senior cabinet members understand that policy decisions such as irresponsible expropriation would have dramatic economic consequences. As was the case of Zimbabwe, markets would tumble, the currency would crash and inflation will spiral out of control. Thus, they have committed repeatedly that there would be no arbitrary expropriations and that land grabs would not be tolerated. In the last few days, the Minister of Public Works and Infrastructure, Dean McPherson, assured investors that this would remain the case.
In response to Trump, Ramaphosa emphasized that South Africa gets relatively little aid from America. The majority is directed toward HIV prevention and treatment and has already been frozen. This funding constitutes about 15% of South Africa’s HIV program, and patients can be absorbed into the public clinics where HIV treatment are free. Ramaphosa nevertheless said that he looks forward to engaging with President Trump on the issue, although he insisted that “we will not be doing so with a begging bowl.”
Right-wing groups in South Africa, such as Afriforum, have indicated that they will challenge the Expropriation Act in court. Given the country’s commitment to a democratic, constitutional state, this is generally welcomed; and when the independent, non-partisan judges rule on the matter, the government will abide by the ruling.
As a democracy, South Africa has the sovereign right to determine its domestic policies, without being threatened and punished by foreign heads of state — especially when such punishment is both arbitrary and based on prejudiced falsehoods.
Read also:
- đź”’ Trump signs order to create US sovereign wealth fund
- Steenhuisen says cool heads can turn Trump/ANC vitriol from crisis to a benefit
- BN Briefing: Steenhuisen on Trump/ANC; DRC; Palantir; DeepSeek
© 2025 Bloomberg L.P.
