Helen Zille. (Luba Lesolle/Gallo Images)
The Democratic Alliance (DA) has launched a legal bid to overturn the newly inked Expropriation Act, arguing that it is unconstitutional and procedurally flawed.
It has asked the court to declare the law invalid in its entirety.
The party filed its application at the Western Cape high court on Friday, naming as respondents President Cyril Ramaphosa, DA Public Works Minister Dean Macpherson, the chairperson of the National Council of Provinces (NCOP), the speaker of the National Assembly and several provincial legislatures.
In her affidavit supporting the party’s challenge, DA federal council chairperson Helen Zille said the passage of the Act was riddled with procedural irregularities, including several provinces in the NCOP voting in favour of the legislation without securing the proper mandates from their provincial legislatures.
Only two of the seven provinces that voted in favour of the legislation did so validly, said Zille, while the remainder did so without obtaining proper provincial mandates, violating procedural requirements and the Constitution.
“They voted in terms of final mandates that were issued contrary to the Constitution. This renders the Act unconstitutional in its entirety.”
She said section 65(1)(b) of the Constitution “requires at least five provinces to vote in favour of the Bill for the NCOP to pass legislation. If there are fewer than five lawful final or voting mandates in support of a Bill when the NCOP passes that Bill, then the resultant legislation would be unconstitutional”.
The challenge also takes aim at specific sections of the Act, particularly provisions requiring landowners to approach a court within 180 days of receiving a notice of expropriation. The DA argues this timeline is irrational and unconstitutional because it limits property owners’ ability to challenge expropriations effectively.
Said Zille: “… it is absurd to require parties to approach a court for the determination of compensation within 180 days of the notice of expropriation. The 180-day period after the service of a notice of expropriation will never commence before a party approaches a court.
“Conversely stated, a party cannot approach a court to determine compensation after a notice of expropriation. A notice of expropriation implies that a court has already determined the compensation for that disputed compensation. But section 19(2) [of the Act] envisages parties approaching a court after the notice of expropriation.”
The Expropriation Act has been politically contentious, with the DA alleging that it is an attempt by the ANC to implement expropriation without compensation — despite the then governing party’s failure to amend section 25 of the Constitution in 2021.
It has also garnered the ire of United States President Donald Trump, who has halted aid to the country in a bid to “address serious human rights violations occurring in South Africa”.
“The Expropriation Act follows countless government policies designed to dismantle equal opportunity in employment, education, and business, and hateful rhetoric and government actions fuelling disproportionate violence against racially disfavoured landowners,” said Trump.
“As long as South Africa continues to support bad actors on the world stage and allows violent attacks on innocent disfavoured minority farmers, the United States will stop aid and assistance to the country.
“The United States will establish a plan to resettle disfavoured minorities in South Africa discriminated against because of their race as refugees.”
Trump has also cited South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice as among the reasons for halting aid.
The US allocated more than $400 million in taxpayer money to South Africa in 2023, the majority of which went to healthcare.
In a press release announcing the legal challenge on Monday, Zille said: “We have not forgotten that the apartheid government used similar powers to forcibly remove communities from their land, often with inadequate compensation or none at all.
“This history teaches us that true redress requires protecting property rights, ensuring that no government is ever given unchecked expropriation powers ever again.”
Ramaphosa signed the Act into law in December 2024 against the advice of Macpherson, who provided the president with a legal opinion that rendered the Bill unconstitutional.
The DA’s legal challenge comes amid tensions in the government of national unity. The DA has accused the ANC of pushing through legislation that reflects the ruling party’s ideological agenda rather than policies agreed upon by coalition members.
The presidency on Monday said of the DA’s challenge: “Our legal team will study the papers and respond in accordance with the established legal process. South Africa is a constitutional democracy that is governed by the rule of law. The Constitution provides for such matters to be decided by the courts in the event of a dispute.”