Unpacking the South African land law that so inflames Trump
3 min read
New expropriation law fuels political battles at home and diplomatic friction with the US.
South Africa’s recently signed Expropriation Act—which allows the government to take certain lands without compensation—has ignited a political firestorm both domestically and internationally. Approved by President Cyril Ramaphosa, the law is intended to accelerate land reform in a country where most farmland remains under white ownership. But it has drawn strong criticism from US President Donald Trump, who claims it unfairly targets white farmers.
Although not yet implemented, the law gives the state the power to expropriate land in limited cases without compensation, especially when land is unused, abandoned, or held purely for speculation. The South African government insists this change is necessary to address long-standing racial inequalities in land ownership. Critics, however, argue it threatens property rights and could destabilize the economy.
The Legal Basis and Restrictions
Legal experts Bulelwa Mabasa and Thomas Karberg from Werksmans Attorneys clarified that expropriation without compensation (EWC) is meant only for specific, rare circumstances. These include situations where land has been abandoned or is held for speculative purposes. Importantly, they noted that productive farmland is unlikely to be seized without payment, and compensation will still likely be required for any buildings or improvements.
They emphasized that EWC is not aimed exclusively at rural or farming land and may also apply in urban contexts, such as derelict buildings in city centers.
From Market Value to “Just and Equitable”
Under the new law, compensation for expropriated property is expected to shift from full market value to “just and equitable” amounts, depending on the circumstances. This approach is more in line with South Africa’s post-apartheid constitution, which critics argue has been inconsistently applied in the past.
Mabasa and Karberg explained that extensive procedural protections remain in place. Property owners have the right to challenge expropriations in court, ensuring the process respects legal fairness.
Political and International Fallout
Trump has harshly criticized the law, claiming it discriminates against white South African farmers. In response, he briefly imposed tariffs and paused aid to South Africa, actions that have strained diplomatic relations. A recent Oval Office confrontation between Trump and Ramaphosa only deepened tensions, with Trump citing largely debunked reports of white persecution.
Domestically, the law has divided political parties. The Democratic Alliance (DA)—Ramaphosa’s coalition partner—has pledged to challenge the Expropriation Act in court, rejecting the idea of “nil compensation” in any form. However, the party has expressed support for a “just-and-equitable” compensation framework overseen by the judiciary.
Even Afrikaner lobby groups, such as the Solidarity Movement, acknowledge that the law may not lead to widespread farm seizures, though they fear it could damage investor confidence.
Meanwhile, the South African Property Owners Association has criticized the idea of giving no compensation to land speculators, arguing that speculation is a legitimate business practice with high holding costs.
Government’s Perspective
Public Works Minister Dean Macpherson, who is responsible for the legislation, defended the law as a major improvement on previous expropriation frameworks. He argued that it provides stronger legal protections while preventing abuse of the compensation system.
Macpherson cited the example of Eskom, the state power utility, where corrupt land speculation inflated costs. He also referenced abandoned buildings in Johannesburg as cases where courts could justify zero land compensation—though owners would still be compensated for structures.
He stressed that “nil compensation” is not the same as “no compensation”, and clarified that it would not apply to working farms.
Uncertain Future
Despite signing the law, Ramaphosa has not announced a date for its implementation, likely due to both domestic resistance and sensitive trade negotiations with the US. The DA is pushing for a judicial review, and multiple legal challenges are expected.
The issue remains divisive, with some groups, such as Julius Malema’s Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), believing the law does not go far enough to address apartheid-era land injustices.
For now, South Africa’s land debate remains in limbo, stirring debate over justice, equity, and economic stability—and raising questions about the government’s next move.
About The Author
