Pre-Owned 2005 FORD TAURUS SE Sedan 4 4DR SEDAN #S1099 in Vallejo | CarHop
2005 FORD TAURUS SE Sedan 4 Front Wheel Drive 4DR SEDAN in Vallejo
2006 FORD TAURUS SE Sedan 4 Front Wheel Drive 4D SEDAN in Tulsa Constitutional property law and land reform experts make Constitutional Review Committee submission | Universiteit Stellenbosch Fakulteit Regsgeleerdheid | University of Stellenbosch Faculty of Law
You Are Here: Home » Nuus / News » Constitutional property law and land reform experts make Constitutional Review Committee submission
​​​​​​A team of four constitutional property law and land reform experts from Stellenbosch University made a submission to the constitutional review committee recently.
Professors Bradley Slade, Juanita Pienaar, Zsa-Zsa Boggenpoel and Ms Tina Kotze from the Faculty of Law, wrote a submission to the constitutional review committee (link to submission). This was then followed up by a recent (3 September) oral submission to the committee in the Old Assembly Chamber in Parliament.
On the 27th of February 2018, the National Assembly adopted a motion to review section 25 and other clauses of the 1996 Constitution to allow for the expropriation of land in the public interest without compensation. The underlying reason for this motion is the fact that the Constitution requires the state to pay compensation when it expropriates property. The obligation to pay compensation is seemingly seen as an obstacle that frustrates the attainment of land reform targets. This may be influenced by the underlying misconception that the Constitution requires the state to pay compensation equivalent to market value when it expropriates property.
The crux of the team’s submission was that the amendment of section 25 of the Constitution is not required for the effective implementation of land reform. The Constitution already provides the constitutional authority for the expropriation of property for land reform purposes and legislation specifically enables the state to expropriate property for various land reform programmes.
The team in fact urged the state to use its power of expropriation for land reform purposes if it is necessary. It was reiterated that the standard of compensation is justice and equity and not market value. It was furthermore argued by the team that in some cases market value compensation will be just and equitable, while in other very little, or even no compensation may be just and equitable, but that the determination will depend on the particular facts of each individual case. In that regard, the team suggested that parliament should give greater clarity in legislation and in policy directives as to how just and equitable compensation should be approached by both the administrators and the courts.
The team also argued that any amendment of section 25 within the parameters set out in the motion will differentiate between the expropriation of land in the public interest and the expropriation of property for a public purpose, and will inevitably offend foundational values such as human dignity, equality and the rule of law of principle as well as other provisions in the bill of rights, most notably section 36(1), the general limitations clause. Any amendment of section 25 to permit expropriation of land in the public interest without compensation therefore necessitate a complete overhaul of the constitutional design and should, at this stage, be avoided.
​ŉ Span van vier konstitusionele eiendomsreg en grondhervormingsdeskundiges aan die Universiteit Stellenbosch (US) het onlangs ŉ voorlegging aan die grondwetlike hersieningskomitee gemaak.
Professors Bradley Slade, Juanita Pienaar, Zsa-Zsa Boggenpoel en me Tina Kotze van die Fakulteit Regsgeleerdheid, het ŉ skriftelike voorlegging aan die komitee gemaak (skakel na voorlegging) na voorlegging) wat onlangs opgevolg is met ŉ mondelinge voorlegging aan die komitee in die Parlement.
Op 27 Februarie 2018 het die Nasionale Vergadering ‘n mosie goedgekeur om artikel 25 en ander klousules van die 1996-grondwet te hersien om vir die onteiening van grond in die openbare belang sonder vergoeding voorsiening te maak. Die onderliggende rede vir hierdie mosie is die feit dat die Grondwet vereis dat die staat vergoeding moet betaal wanneer dit grond onteien. Die verpligting om vergoeding te betaal, word beskou as ŉ struikelblok in die bereiking van grondhervormingsdoelwitte. Dit kan beïnvloed word deur die onderliggende wanopvatting dat die Grondwet vereis dat die staat vergoeding gelykstaande aan markwaarde betaal wanneer dit onteien word.
Die kern van die span se voorlegging was dat die wysiging van artikel 25 van die Grondwet nie nodig is vir die effektiewe implementering van grondhervorming nie. Die Grondwet maak reeds voorsiening vir die grondwetlike gesag vir die onteiening van eiendom vir grondhervormingsdoeleindes en wetgewing stel spesifiek die staat in staat om eiendom vir verskillende grondhervormingsprogramme te onteien.
Die span het die staat versoek om sy onteieningsbevoegdheid vir grondhervormingsdoeleindes te gebruik as dit nodig is. Daar is beklemtoon dat die standaard van vergoeding geregtigheid en billikheid is en nie markwaarde nie. Daar is voorts deur die span aangevoer dat markwaarde in sommige gevalle regverdig en billik sal wees, terwyl in ander gevalle min of selfs geen vergoeding regverdig en billik is,​ maar dat die uitkoms afhang van die bepaalde feite van elke individuele geval. In hierdie verband het die span voorgestel dat die parlement meer duidelikheid gee in wetgewing en beleidsriglyne oor hoe regverdige en billike vergoeding deur beide die administrateurs en howe benader moet word.
Die span het ook geargumenteer dat enige wysiging van artikel 25 binne die parameters wat in die mosie uiteengesit word, sal onderskei tussen die onteiening van grond in die openbare belang en die onteiening van eiendom vir ŉ openbare doel, en dat dit onvermydelik fundamentele waardes soos menswaardigheid, gelykheid en die beginsels van beginselreg en ander bepalings in die handves van regte, veral artikel 36 (1), die algemene beperkingsklousule, sal aantas. Enige wysiging van artikel 25 om onteiening van grond in die openbare belang sonder vergoeding toe te laat, vereis dus ‘n volledige hersiening van die grondwetlike ontwerp en moet in hierdie stadium vermy word.
[Prof B Slade]