A Zimbabwe process for SA to replicate

Although the land debate in SA is fixated on the constitutional review process, it remains unclear how – once expropriated – land will be redistributed. In this regard, one can look at one successful aspect of Zimbabwe’s fast-tracked land reform process, which can be replicated in SA. In an analysis on the Mail & Guardian Online site, Sithandiwe Yeni, of the NGO Tshintsha Amakhaya – a civil society alliance for land and food justice in rural SA – says this successful aspect allowed for large farms to be subdivided into many small and medium-sized farms. Two main models were established, one focusing on small-scale production (A1 schemes) and the other focusing on commercial production on a larger scale (A2 farms). After just three years, more than 93% of beneficiaries were A1 farmers on more than 40% of redistributed land. These farms were all productive, says Yeni, adding that the lesson for SA to explore is a similar subdivision of farms. However, he warns that SA should not repeat the elite's capture of land reform and the dispossession of farm dwellers. ‘Instead, the redistribution of farms should prioritise farm dwellers and workers, and create jobs and livelihood opportunities for the black majority, women in particular.’ Yeni adds that the SA land redistribution process has so far failed to yield such outcomes. ‘To achieve this requires a major shift from the dominance of large-scale industrial agriculture towards a combination of small, medium-sized and large farms, practising various types of farming and supplying alternative markets.’

Full analysis on the Mail & Guardian Online site

The speed of restitution must be accelerated exponentially. People are tired of waiting, and the delay is not good for those who own or wish to buy land, says former Public Protector Advocate Thuli Madonsela, in an analysis in the Financial Mail. She says missing from the public hearings on land expropriation without compensation and the proposed amendment of section 25 of the Constitution is the fact that the current constitutional provisions have never been fully implemented. Section 25(8) of the Constitution permits expropriation with and without compensation – yet it has never been tried. Equally, nothing has stopped government from enacting legislation that regulates expropriation for restorative and redistributive purposes. And the new Land Expropriation Act is ‘being consulted on’ after President Jacob Zuma referred it back to the NCOP. Madonsela points out that while the ANC’s Enoch Godongwana has previously said the land likely to be targeted would be abandoned and unused land, this is not the ‘low-hanging fruit some think it is’. ‘That land is still subject to the right not to be arbitrarily deprived of one’s property. So while it would be easier to satisfy the section 36 constitutional limitations and expropriate land, to do so without paying compensation might be a bridge too far.’ She adds that even if land is not used, it may still be someone’s legal asset and often the subject of a bank loan. There is also the matter of compliance with global legal requirements – the African Charter on Human & People’s Rights, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, and the UN Convention on Civil & Political Rights. ‘It would also be naive not to expect long court battles. No-one is likely to allow their land to be expropriated in this way without a fight. So the low-hanging fruit may end up being a mirage.’

Full analysis in the Financial Mail

Only a referendum can decisively resolve the issue, maintains a former editor. While controversy surrounds the parliamentary process to review section 25 of the Constitution to enable land to be expropriated without compensation, the issue is being fired by the ‘misunderstood’ report of the high-level panel headed by former President Kgalema Motlanthe, which recommended that changes be made to the Ingonyama Trust. In an analysis in Business Day, former Sowetan editor John Dludlu notes King Goodwill Zwelithini – supported by IFP leader Mangosuthu Buthelezi – has been mobilising Zulu resistance against the Motlanthe report, especially the recommendation to repeal the law setting up the Ingonyama Trust. This culminated in an imbizo two weeks ago addressed by the king and Buthelezi, where the core message was twofold: reject the panel’s report and demand an apology. This the President duly did, while distancing his administration from the Motlanthe report. However, Dludlu claims this response has wider implications for the land issue and the parliamentary process under way. ‘In essence, last week’s apology means that the land under the Ingonyama Trust is off limits. This victory is likely to embolden other traditional leaders to wring out similar concessions. This renders the parliamentary process – including public hearings and written representations – irrelevant, as it excludes land under the control of traditional leaders.’ Dludlu says this will fuel uncertainty: the land issue is featuring ‘high on the list of concerns’ frequently cited by investors considering SA as an investment prospect. He argues that land has become a central issue in the 2019 election, even though none of the main parties has a clear vision of how it is to be resolved. ‘Having effectively undermined the parliamentary process, only a referendum can decisively resolve the issue,’ he says.

Full analysis in Business Day