Farmers’ fears that South Africa is facing its “own Zimbabwe” because of proposed amendments to the Restitution of Land Rights Act were calmed on Thursday when the government changed the wording of the amendment.
The original amendments, which the Cabinet approved two weeks ago, would have given the minister of agriculture and land affairs the right to expropriate land with or without a court order when the government deemed it to be in the interests of land reform to do so.
The wording of the latest amendments was changed to meet the guarantees of the Constitution. The introduction that granted the minister the right to appropriate land with or without a court order will now be excluded.
The new draft amendment reads: “Where land is expropriated the amount and method of payment will be set or approved by a court according to Article 25 of the constitutional right of property.”
“I am heartened by the new developments, but we are still not over the worst,” said Jack Loggenberg of the Transvaal Agricultural Union (TAU). “The court can still force farmers to sell their farms at below market value.”
In lobbying against the amendments, the TAU has repeatedly warned that the government would use them for Zimbabwean-style land grabs.
“It is in South Africa’s national interest that the Act should be amended,” said acting chief land claims commissioner Tozi Gwanya last week at an indaba on the proposed changes.
Gwanya said farmers were asking too much for their land and this was making land reform impossible.
He cited the Levubu valley claims in Limpopo as problematic because the government could not afford to buy back the farms. These claims amount to among the largest in South Africa. About 80% of the commercial farms in the valley have land claims pending.
“The farms in Limpopo alone would bust our budget for the year,” Gwanya said at a land restitution ceremony a month ago.
The TAU held an information meeting about the new Act in Mookgopong (formerly Naboomspruit) in Limpopo last month, and more than 1 200 concerned farmers attended.
It has also established a Restitution Resistance Fund to help farmers who do not want to sell their land fight restitution claims in court.
Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Land Affairs Dirk du Toit criticised the TAU’s action. “There are certain individuals who just don’t want to accept the new South Africa,” he said at the land restitution ceremony.
“But for every farmer unwilling to cooperate, there is also a willing farmer,” he said, referring to AgriSA.
Hans van der Merwe, AgriSA’s executive director, told the M&G that it is to the union’s benefit to work with the government. AgriSA is eager to be part of the discussion process to ensure its members’ voices are heard.
“We have to work with the government to ensure that our members’ interests soar,” Van der Merwe said.
Lourie Bosman, president of AgriSA, said the changes had improved the situation. “But the amendments still give her [Minister of Agriculture and Land Affairs Thoko Didiza] powers that we are not happy with. We will continue to engage the government in dialogue.”
The Levubu valley is one of South Africa’s most fertile fruit-, nut- and tea-producing areas. Sixty percent of the country’s soft-fruit exports are produced in this area.
“I will not leave my farm if I don’t get full market value for it,” said Christi Nel, a farmer in the valley whose farm is under threat.
Nel says the farmers are not the spanner in the works of resettlement, as claimed by the government. “I don’t want to move and if I had a choice I would stay. But I know that we live in an era where we have to build bridges and I’m willing to sell my farm if I’m given the right market value.
“If the government is not prepared to pay me fair market value for my farm, I will not leave. I am a citizen with rights as well. I am willing to work with the government, but it has to be willing to cooperate as well.”
Another option is for the government to give financial compensation to the land claimants. But Du Toit says this is not ideal.
“We want to give the communities their land back, instead of financial compensation. Land will empower the communities, while money is only a short-term solution. We don’t want to empower this generation only, but those to come as well.”