Full transcript of debate on EFF's motion on EWC

Julius Malema says ANC is progressively meeting demands EFF gave it in 2016 negotiations

Text of the debate on the Economic Freedom Fighters’ draft resolution on Expropriation of Land Without Compensation, National Assembly, Tuesday, 27 February 2018


(Draft Resolution)

Mr J S MALEMA: Hon Speaker, EFF leadership, members of the House, fellow South Africans, almost 400 years ago, a criminal by the name of Jan van Riebeeck landed in our native land and declared an already occupied land by the native population as a no-man’s land. Van Riebeeck, a first descendent of the Dutch to arrive in the Cape would later lead a full blown colonial genocide, antiblack land dispossession criminal project, arguing that simply because our people could not produce title deeds, this land, that they have been living in for more than a thousand years, was not their own. Essentially, he was disregarding their humanity, treating them as part of the animal world.

To him and those that would come after him, Africans were less than human, not deserving of land ownership. On this basis, the project of disempowering Africans of the ability to call this place their land was initiated in blood and pain. Millions ended up in humiliating, conquered township conditions of being cheap and disposable labour. Cecil Rhodes, Paul Kruger, Jan Smuts, General Hertzog, Verwoerd, Botha, even De Klerk, all laboured under the Van Riebeeck assumption that Africans are less than human. They all, one after the other, assaulted the humanity of Africans, keeping them dispossessed of land and as cheap and easily disposable labour.

Since those painful days when the Khoi of the Cape were defeated and conquered at the establishment of the Cape Colony, to the area of the 1 800, with the expansion of the colonial control into the hinterlands, the days of the Battle of Ncome River in 1838 against the Zulus, the Battle of Marico River in 1837 against Mzilikazi in the north of Transvaal, the attacks of Thaba Bosiu of King Moshoeshoe in 1865, the village raids of Vhavenda that led to the heroic resistance by King Makhado in 1867, the capture and imprisonment of Khoi chiefs in Robben Island fighting for land in 1870 up to the Land Act of 1913. Colonial crimes against the humanity of the native population did not end there with the Land Act of 1913, they continued with the forced removals through the Group Areas Act that displaced millions of black people to live in prison camps we now call townships.

The so-called township is not a settlement for human beings. It is a prison camp. Those who came in power in 1994 carrying the popular mandate of our people to restore the dignity of the African child by reinstating land to the dispossessed forgot their mandate. They became drunk in luxury and glory, building false reconciliation without justice. It took the formation of the EFF 20 years later to revive the question of the dignity of our people in the need for our land. It took the arrival of the EFF in these chambers to return in the central agenda of human freedom, the need for the land that was dispossessed through brutal crimes against humanity.

The time for reconciliation is over; now is the time for justice. If the grandchildren of Jan van Riebeeck have not understood that we need our land. But over and above‚ it is about our dignity, then they have failed to receive the gift of humanity. We do not seek revenge though they caused so much evil in our land, we do not wish for their suffering, though they caused so much humiliation of countless generations.

All we want, all our people ever wanted, is their land to which their dignity is rooted and founded. Today let us close this question once and for all, let us unite and pay no one for benefitting from the crimes against humanity. Let us come together and agree on this noble, historic and human call to expropriate land without compensation for equal redistribution. Many want us to debate food security and economic development but how can we do so if we do not have the land.

They want us to come to the table with bosses as beggars because that is unacceptable. The ability to develop policies on food security depends on land redistribution, not the other way around. Those who hold the land labour on the false idea that to distribute it we must first establish a food security programme. No, we must distribute the land then we can all talk about the food security programme.

We invite you, not to pick up spears and guns, we invite you to come to the table and realise that nothing means anything for our people except their dignity in land ownership. For a lasting peace‚ security and justice‚ land must be expropriated without compensation for equal redistribution. We would have failed these who came before us if we were to pay anyone for having committed genocide. We cannot thank them for having killed innocent people who were fighting to protect their own land.

Many say people who came here were running away from their own problems in Europe and our people welcomed them here in South Africa. It is not true. Why would you engage in a programme to kill people who have welcomed you? Those who are saying we must pay for the land are actually arguing with us that we must thank those who killed our people because those who did so did so with an intention of wiping out a black generation.

We must ensure that we restore the dignity of our people without compensating the criminals who stole our land. Those who continue to protect these crimes are themselves accused of the crime because those who protect crime are criminals themselves. All of us must come together and say‚ ‘enough is enough‚ our people must get the land’. We have offered the ANC our 6% to amend the Constitution and that 6% still stands to the ANC. [Applause.]

We want to say to the ANC that it is now an opportune moment since you have agreed in your conference to amend the Constitution. Anyone who says we can expropriate land without compensation without amending the Constitution‚ that person is misleading us because if that was the case, the ANC would have long already expropriated this land without compensation. So we need to amend the Constitution and we must do so unashamedly. It is not unconstitutional to amend the Constitution. It is constitutional to amend the Constitution. [Applause.] That is why the Constitution makes such a provision. We must stop being cowards. We must stop walking on eggshells around white minorities who are governed by the fear of the unknown when it comes to the question of land expropriation without compensation.

The investors in this country just want policy certainty. Once we say we are expropriating land without compensation there is no investor that will leave the country. They will look at our policy and say, ‘how do we continue to make money within the expropriated land?’ So those who do not agree will continue to ridicule our struggle because they never suffered the pain of losing land. They do not know what it means to lose land. [Time expired.] So we are saying to all political parties, particularly the ones that represent black people, today, let it be the day of black unity in honour of Robert Sobukwe. [Interjections.] [Applause.]

The SPEAKER: I take this opportunity to congratulate the hon Minister of Water and Sanitation on his new portfolio.

The MINISTER OF WATER AND SANITATION (Gugile Nkwinti): Thank you hon Speaker. The ANC unequivocally supports the principle of land expropriation without compensation as moved by the EFF. [Applause.] We may disagree on the modalities but we agree on the principle. There is no question about that. We are committed to implementing the resolution of the ANC which resonates very well with the motion led by the commander in chief, CIC, of the EFF. [Applause.]

Let’s just put this into context. In the thirties already, the first president of the ANC, Dr John Langalibalele Dube, said the following:

There are only one million of you and there are about six million of us; and one million of you have three fourths of the land, and six million of us have one fourth of the land. That is not fair ... In asking for more land I do not think we are asking for charity; we have contributed to the development of South Africa with our labour ... we have done our share in that respect, and in the matter of taxation, both direct and indirect.

That was Dr Langalibalele Dube in the thirties already. This is the context of the resolution before us.

The resolution of the ANC’s 54th national conference, that land should be expropriated without compensation, speaks to this historical injustice, and as the ANC we are committed to correcting it.

Listen to this because I’m addressing the context of this motion. Dr Dube vigorously fought off the commissioner’s views because he was making this presentation to a commission. He vigorously fought off the commissioner’s views that Africans did not know how to use their land properly; that any more would just be wasted; that Africans multiplied too fast; and that they had too many cattle. Dr Dube then said, “The black ox has nowhere to feed and the white ox has all the pastures. I am sorry if I cannot make that clear to you.” He was addressing a commission. Now, this is the context and what I’ve just read is an address by Dr Langalibalele Dube.

The ANC is government now. It is important for us to actually draw this distinction when we talk about modalities, not the principle. The principle is fine. The ANC is government and as government the ANC cannot fail the people of South Africa because it is the people of South Africa who put the ANC where it is today, as government. That is why, during his state of the nation address, the President of the Republic, President Cyril Ramaphosa, had the following to say in elaborating on this resolution of the ANC. He said:

... accelerate our land redistribution programme not only to redress a grave historical injustice, but also to bring more producers into the agricultural sector and to make more land available for cultivation.

We will pursue a comprehensive approach that makes effective use of all the mechanisms at our disposal.

Lastly he said, “Guided by the resolutions of the 54th national conference of the governing party, this approach will include expropriation of land without compensation.” So, there’s no doubt about it. There’s no doubt about it. Land shall be expropriated without compensation. This will be implemented in a way that increases agricultural production, improves food security and ensures that land is returned to those from whom it was taken under colonialism and apartheid.

There is a false narrative that land was stolen from the indigenous people of this country. That is a false narrative. Nobody was asleep when land was taken. It was taken through brutal wars of colonialism. [Applause.] So let us do away with this narrative that says land was stolen, as if our people were asleep.

The first war of dispossession — you may call it a skirmish — already took place here in 1659. When the Khoi people went to Jan van Riebeeck and his people they said, we have observed that you are putting up permanent structures here, telling us that you do not intend to leave our country. Jan van Riebeeck doesn’t write in his diary that they actually shot them. You know why they shot them? It’s because ... They went away and came back with their own construction tools to put up their own — what you referred to as the fist shacks — which therefore demonstrated that in the first war of dispossession they fought with them; they shot them.

In 1660 at a conference in the Netherlands, Jan van Riebeeck submitted a report, stating that these people came and claimed their land. So, it is not correct that it was after 1913. It was long before that. [Applause.] The people went to Jan van Riebeeck’s men and said it was their land. That was the Khoi and the San. So when all of us as South Africans debate the question of land it is an emotive thing. However, we are government now. We are government now.

In coming to the land audit, which was referred to in the discussions, the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform conducted a land audit in 2017. [Interjections.] Yes, we will make it available today. We are busy printing copies. You will get copies, sir. Just look at this because we are giving context to the resolution by the CIC of the EFF. That audit report reflects the following ownership patterns across races. Whites own 26,6 million hectares, which is 72% of the total 37 million hectares of farms and agricultural holdings by individual landowners; followed by coloureds at 15%, Indians at 5% and Africans at a lousy 4%. This is the context of the draft resolution before us.

This land audit which we conducted shows one interesting thing which we must not lose sight of. There are institutions here, trusts and companies. They own land in this country. These institutions are the next target. In the land audit there is a recommendation that we should establish a land administration commission.

There is already a Bill before Cabinet — the Regulation of Agricultural Land Holdings Bill. One of the conditions there is that a land commission should be established and everybody who owns land in this country must declare it. If they don’t do so, action will be taken against them in terms of South African law, because what they are doing is to hide ownership. Trusts will not tell us. We are trying and we have tried our best to find out who constitutes these trusts. They don’t tell us because trusts belong to Justice and ... [Inaudible.] ... belong to the Department of Trade and Industry. You have community-based organisations and you have all these kinds of institutions out there, including churches by the ay. They own land. So ... [Interjections.] ... Of course government should own land. Government should own land because government is the government of the people. {Applause.] It’s a government which is not the government of the people that should never own land. [Interjections.]

Now, listen to this. Listen to this because I know that those hon members on the left of this House have this question about communal land out there, etc that belongs to chiefs and, whatever you try to do they say it’s because you are appeasing the chiefs. Listen to this, listen to this, listen to this. This is what Dr Dube said:

Uppermost in my mind and in the minds of African people was the land issue. They needed far more of it, particularly those who could not afford to buy. The land ought to be purchased for them and handed over; all the African areas ought to be properly surveyed and divided into building plots, grazing grounds and gardens. People could pay a nominal rent for their plots.

Then already he understood that there were people who could not afford. So a progressive, revolutionary government ought to then have land and allocate it to people.

When we started the department in 2009 — some of us sitting here don’t want to remember — we checked how much land we had lost because those programmes gave title deeds to people. Let us be careful here and not fashionable, with capitalists sitting on the left thinking that anything is hunky-dory. No!

When we did so we asked them how much land we had lost since we bought land through the Land Redistribution for Agricultural Development, LRAD, and Proactive Land Acquisition Strategy, Plas, programmes. They said 5% had already been lost to the market because people who got land and were given title deeds then couldn’t work the land. They went for loans and they couldn’t service the loans, and what happened? The same people who owned the land took the land back. We lost 5%.

That is why we then said we are not doing LRAD anymore. We are only going to focus on Plas. Through that we kept the land and made it available for our people to work. Even now I say, if we think we will just make land available because they say so and give title deeds, be careful. You will lose that land.

When we started the department, 14 farms were already about to be auctioned because our people could not service them. In 2009 we allocated R87 million to defend and protect those farms. That’s why we stopped the title deeds until our people and government was in a position to defend them. [Interjections.] Now is the time. We are in agreement. [Applause.]

Ms T MBABAMA: Madam Speaker, in Cry The Beloved Country, Alan Paton reveals many dimensions of what land means to us as South African people. He warns us that:

The ground is holy and that we must keep it; guard it; care for it, for it keeps men; guards men; and cares for men. Destroy it and man is destroyed

That last line of the quote, illustrates the extricable link between men and the land. A man’s land, no matter the size is his refuge, a place where he finds shelter, sustenance and a sense of wellbeing. Former Deputy Chief Justice Dikgang Moseneke said:

Land is very spiritual. It is in land that we bury our people and connect and speak to our ancestors. It is land on which churches, temples and mosques are built, and it is from land that we eat and survive. Seize that land and you take away not only man’s livelihood, you take away his identity too. Black people were brutally dispossessed and forcibly removed from their land. Decades later, the wounds still run deep. There is an indisputable need to right that wrong, to make amends.

My fellow countrymen, sizwe sakuthi, expropriation without compensation cannot be part of the solution. [Interjections.]

IsiXhosa: 15:02:17

Ndicela ukuyiphinda.


Expropriation without compensation cannot be part of the solution. [Interjections.] Only a few months ago, members on the right side of the House fully agreed with this position when they opposed the previous EFF motion to expropriate without compensation. Today, they have back-tracked. What has changed? [Applause.]

Expropriation without compensation fundamentally undermines property ownership in South Africa. The property clause in Section 25 of the Constitution states that property is not limited to land. This poses serious risks to investment in agriculture and South Africa if expropriation without compensation is implemented.

Cassim Coovadia MD of the Banking Association of South Africa writes that:

Expropriation without compensation erodes property rights and once this happens land can no longer serve as collateral. Most productive agricultural land is bonded to financial institutions under a total debt of approximately R160 billion. What will happen to that debt should the encumbered farms be expropriated without compensation?

IsiXhosa: 15:03:40

Benikhe nayicinga kusini na loo nto?


Kristen and Sihlalo, two agricultural economists, raise a valid query. They argue that in a typical productive farming operation, considering both movable and immovable assets, the land is roughly 10 percent of the value of the operation. Under expropriation without compensation would the infrastructure and assets also be seized?

The problem is not Section 25 of the Constitution. Expropriation without compensation is a way to divert attention away from the failures of the ANC-led government. [Applause.] As former President Kgalema Motlanthe’s High Level Panel report points out that:

The need to pay compensation has not been the most serious constraint on land reform in South Africa –

Mr Nkwinti knows this -

other constraints, including corruption by officials, the diversion of the land reform budget to elites, lack of political will, and lack of training and capacity have proved more serious stumbling blocks to land reform.

It is shocking that at the current rate it will take 35 years to finalise restitution claims lodged before 1998. How is this justice for poor black people in this country? The process to lawfully implement expropriation without compensation will only prolong the wait for the landless in this country.

The government needs to address the weakness in implementing the provisions in the Constitution instead of bowing to populist rhetoric. [Applause.] The fact is this: expropriation without compensation is a blatant lie. It is a lie being peddled by a desperate ANC that fears being outflanked by the EFF. We in the DA believe that redressing the wrongs of the past is not a game and we can never use the scars of the past to score cheap political points.

Land reform is a social justice issue and the government’s newly changed position will not benefit the poor but will instead benefit the elite and those with connections to the ANC government. Fellow South Africans, the DA believes it is possible to achieve the aims of land reform and to do so in a way that truly empowers black people and strengthens the economy.

One of the ways in which this can be achieved is through partnerships with community organisations, an initiative that has enabled the DA to accelerate the pace of land reform here in the Western Cape. This approach has led to the success of 62% of all land reform farms in the Western Cape. [Applause.] This is in stark contrast to the 90% failure rate of land reform programmes in the rest of the country.

IsiXhosa: 15:06:34

Mamelani ukuze nifunde. [Uwelewele.]


Our approach means we have more black farmers participating in the formal economy with the state playing a role in providing the support they need. Another method of ensuring that land reform serves as a tool of economic freedom is to give title deeds to farmers. Most people do not know that is it national government policy to withhold title deeds from black farmers, this is a barrier to land reform.

Here in the Western Cape, the DA has delivered 82 830 title deeds since 2009. [Applause.] This not only provides black farmers with the dignity of owning their own property but it also provides access to funds through financial institutions. Surely this is true economic freedom.

IsiXhosa: 15:07:25

Bantu bakuthi umbutho weDA uyavumelana nokubuyiselwa komhlaba ebantwini bawo. Kunyanzelekile ukuba abantu abantsundu, abahluphekileyo babandakanyeke kwezomhlaba ukuze bakwazi ukuxhamla kwezoqoqosho. Asivumelani kodwa nokuxuthwa komhlaba ngaphandle kwembuyekezo. IDA iza kunifundisa. [Kwaqhwatywa.]

Inkosi R N CEBEKHULU: Hon Dep Speaker, land which has often been referred to as Africa's most valued asset, is no doubt a critical resource for all aspects of our lives and further development. Inherent and foundational to the successful future sustainable development of our land is the notion of appropriately developed, just and equitable, land tenure laws and administrative reforms.

Inherent in our Constitution is the right to property and our supreme law is explicit when it states that no-one may be deprived of land except in terms of the law of the general application, and conditional upon such deprivation being for a public purpose or in the public interest and further subject to the agreed (by those affected), or the court decided and approve compensation.

Constitutional review committee is a suitable structure to look into this matter rather than ad hoc committee as proposed in this motion.

The notion of expropriation without compensation, which would first require a constitutional amendment, would be supported by the IFP only in very limited circumstances, it being the exception rather the norm.

There are vast tracts of state-owned land in our country. This land is by and large vacant and unproductive. Why has the state not already allocated such land to previously disenfranchised landless citizenry? Additionally, there are large portions of privately owned, unused and vacant land whose owners cannot be traced or located. Portions

In respect of land held in communal trust by traditional leaders for the benefit of their communities, we would strongly advise against government identifying such land as being potentially redistributable, as such land has already been redistributed to the people. This land is productive and our communities are occupying and using the fruits of such land into perpetuity under the able leadership and trust of traditional leaders

Any attempt by government to change such status

quo would be met with fierce opposition from the citizenry and would be a recipe for disaster.

In respect of such land communally held in trust by traditional leaders, government should rather be focussing on assisting communities with more effective land use and management strategies... [Time Expired.]

Mr A M SHAIK EMAM [National Freedom Party MP]: Deputy Speaker, let me start off by – maybe agreeing with the hon Mbabama. Hon Malema, when she says that there should be no expropriation without compensation maybe she is correct because these people that stole the land from the Khoi and the San in District Six and everywhere they all became millionaires at the expense of the blood sweat and tears of these people. In any event there should be no compensation whatsoever. So we must expropriate.

The ANC, the NFP, the EFF and the IFP are all in agreement that we must expropriate. So what is the delay there is no need for a debate, let’s go forward... [Applause.] ... Let’s go out there and expropriate. Time is running out. Let’s go out there and give to our people what is rightfully theirs.

Hon Deputy Speaker, I am not surprised about my colleagues here, because in a very short space of time from being oppressed they became oppressors. Because the grass is greener on this side with all the evergreen contracts in any event. Now, what do they do? Not only oppressed and took away the land of our people here, they even support Israel who have now stolen the land of the people of Palestine. So they don’t only interfere here they interfere everywhere else as well.

Hon Deputy Speaker, let me also add that many times we put in mechanism to deal with this issue. And this has been going on for 24years. What does the criminal procedure act says, hon Malema? What does it say? That if you buy stolen goods, you are as good as a thief. If you are occupying land that you knew that even if you bought it, that was land that was stolen by your people, then you are occupying stolen land and you are a criminal. You should be charged equally as well. Why is it ok for you to occupy stolen land and be in possession and not be charged but if you buy stolen goods on this side then you must be charged. Why are there different laws and two different rules for these people.

Let me also add – there is a serious problem – not only with the Khoi and San and the district Six and the Ndebele people. All the land in the N1 right up to Sea Point and all over – what is happening… these colonialists, these apartheid oppressors are working with the rich and the elite and all the land they are giving to just a handful of people to develop. Those properties are out of reach of not only the average persons even the middle class cannot afford it anymore because that is exactly what they are doing.

The time has come to deal with this matter and deal with it today. Time is running out. What we as the NFP would want to know when you will start redistributing the first land to the rightful owners. Give us the date, give us the time and we will be there. Thank you very much. [Applause.]

Mr M L W FILTANE [UDM MP]: Deputy Speaker, in November 1990,80 church denominations met at the national conference of church leaders in South Africa and produced the well known Rustenburg declaration.

The central theme of the conference was the expression of the Constitution for the wrongs and sins of the past and a call for action to repair those wrongs. In paragraph 2.4 of the declaration, the church leaders conference said: “

we know that without genuine repentance and practical restitution we cannot appropriate God‘s forgiveness and that without true reconciliation is impossible. The Conference went further to say as a first step towards restitution we call on government to return all land expropriated to its original owners.”

The call by the church leaders would respond to what today seems to be the glaringly missing issue in the debate about land. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Constitution, the question of moral demand or rightness of not only changing land access and relationship but of repairing the [15:15:56] the misery, the brokenness and trauma of a person violently reaped off from their land for generations. 2013, marked the centenary of the 1913 Native Land Act which heralded an extraordinary scale of land dispossession.

Many South Africans including members of this House made moving observations and experiences about the viciousness of that act and its subsequent impact on land ownership in South Africa.

However, any talk on land has still not translated into a legislative and policy landscape that recognises the question of land reform as a matter of inclusive economic development, moral concern and legal justice.

The UDM supports the wide and inclusive consultative process in this matter of national interest. We want to remind citizens that the most lucrative and substantial amount of land was taken before the 19th of June 1913. the failure of the restitution programme as found in the report by the high panel represents justice denied. The principle of justice would be understood by the conference of church leaders demands that where something was unjustly acquired or taken away it must be returned or given back. In simple language if you steal my vehicle I lay claim to it, I deserve it back. In fact, what may invite unending conflict is not the return of land to its rightful owners but the refusal to do so. Return the land to the rightful owners.

Given the historical reality of our country, the current economic challenges confronting the nation and the increasing levels of equality and poverty. The UDM supports the motion.  

Dr P J GROENEWALD: Hon Deputy Speaker, it is quite clear that hon Shaik Emam did not put on his red overall. What I want to say is that I thoroughly agree with hon Nkwinti when he said, and I quote: “The narrative that the land was stolen must stop because it is false.“ I agree. If we want to debate in a responsible manner about land, we will have to stop that.

There are many interpretations when it comes to history. I want to quote hon Prince Mangosuthu Buthelezi when he spoke at the inauguration of the Ncome Blood River Monument on 16 December 1998:

In 1991, even before apologies became the fashion of the day, on behalf of the Zulu nation, I tendered my apologies to the Afrikaner nation for what became the fate of Piet Retief and his Voortrekkers, and the action taken by my ancestor’s side, which caused pain and suffering to their people. I have reiterated this apology on several occasions including two weeks ago when I received the Freedom of the City of Utrecht.

Hon Buthelezi, the Afrikaner accepted the apology and it is time that the young people in South Africa learn history from an elder statesman with high integrity.


Die vraag is: As die regering dan die grond wil onteien sonder vergoeding, wat wil u daarmee doen? Dis die vraag. Wat gaan u daarmee maak? [Tussenwerpsels.] Ons weet van wie se grond ons praat. Almal sê dat dit die wit mense is wat die grond moet teruggee. Ons moet ook baie duidelik na hierdie voorstel kyk en ook na wat die ANC regering sê.

Ek wil vandag weer vir alle grondeienaars sê dat u u nie moet laat mislei om te dink dat hier net van landbougrond gepraat word nie. Hier word van alle grond gepraat. So as jy die eienaar van ’n woonhuis in ’n dorp of stad is sluit dit ook dit in.

Ek vra weer die vraag: Vir wat wil u die grond gebruik? [Tussenwerpsels.] As u dit wil gebruik om mee te boer, om die landbou te stimuleer, dan sê ek vir u dat u, as Minister, die mislukking van grondhervorming in Suid-Afrika is. Dit is hoekom ons is waar ons is. Die Vryheidsfront Plus sal dit nie ondersteun nie.


I want to say again, if you continue in this course, I can assure you that there are going to be unforeseen consequences, not in the interest of South Africa. [Time expired.] [Interjections.] I thank you.

Mr M G P LEKOTA: Hon Deputy Speaker, last week in the debate in the House, hon Ndlozi asked me a question: “Why did you go to Robben Island?” He asked: “What were you doing on Robben Island?” I went to Robben Island because I was fighting against white domination over us, the black sections of the population.

En route to Robben Island, I chanced upon a prisoner who came from the Free State like me. His name was Bram Fischer. He was doing life imprisonment because he was opposed to white domination over blacks, just like me. Indeed, he was a colleague and a close comrade of President Mandela and others who were already doing life imprisonment on Robben Island. Later on when I was on Robben Island, I learned from the senior leaders there, including Walter Sisulu and other, that Bram Fischer was a comrade who, like them, was fighting against white domination over blacks.

They also imparted something to me, which I kept remembering, especially in the recent period, that those of us who were harassed by our white counterparts yesterday, now confront a challenge that some of us are ashamed to accept - the danger that there are those who think that equality in our time means that we must dominate whites. [Interjections.]

I am serious because I have asked the question last week... [Interjections.] Please listen. I have asked the question last week: Who are “our people” and who are not “our people”? In 1955, Chief Albert Luthuli, Z K Matthews and many leaders of our people like Dr Dadoo, Dr Naicker and many others went to Kliptown and said that the South Africa of the future is one that will belong to all of us – black and white. [Applause.] We were not there, but that is the legacy that they handed over to us - the South Africa we now struggle for. That congress had the Indian Congress, the Coloured People Congress, the African Congress and so on. [Time expired] [Interjections.]

No, the thing is now, to seek to divide the people on the basis of some pronouncements of before 1955.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon Lekota, look on your watch.

Mr M G P LEKOTA: When you adopted this thing that the land will be given to some and taken from others, you set us on the path of the PAC of 1959.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon Lekota, I will now switch off your microphone.

Mr M G P LEKOTA: This is the PAC of 1959; it is no longer the African National Congress. [Applause.]


Hon Deputy Speaker, hon Deputy President-congratulations by the way I don’t see him - we reaffirm the position of the 54th National Conference of the ANC of the expropriation of land without compensation. During his state of the nation address, the President of the Republic had the following to say in elaborating on this resolution:

We will accelerate our land redistribution programme, not only to redress a grave historical injustice, but also to bring more producers into the agricultural sector and to make more land available for cultivation. We will pursue a comprehensive approach that makes effective use of all the mechanisms at our disposal. Guided by the resolutions of the 54th National Conference of the governing party, this approach will include the expropriation of land without compensation. This will be implemented in a way that increases agricultural production, improves food security and ensures that the land is returned to those from whom it was taken under colonialism and apartheid.

The pinnacle of our work is guided by the Freedom Charter and the preamble says:

South Africa belongs to all who live in it, black and white; and that no government can justly claim authority over South unless that government is based on the will of the people.

It also has two important clauses the land shall be shared amongst those who work it; and the people shall share in the country’s wealth.

The ANC is committed to building a more equal society, in which all can find decent work and enjoy sustainable livelihood. There are three areas of land reform, namely land restitution, land redistribution and land tenure.

The land audit that the Minister has referred to indicates that we are far from achieving equality in this country.

We reiterate that let us not be misunderstood, the principle is something that we 100% agree to and no turning back. One should not make a mistake when one wants equality and one says we want to oppress whites. Hon Lekota is making a big mistake. We are saying, we want to redress a historical injustice and barbaric brutality. We want at this time, in fact, every speaker here who came to fore, starting from hon Malema, said we are not caring guns or spears but we want what belongs to us. On that, we should be unshaken. In answering the hon Lekota’s question about who these people are; the indigenous people are those that were colonised here, hon Lekota, and no other people. Lastly, I really want to say, hon Mbabama I like the fact that what you said, you said it in vernacular too.


Abantu bakuthi bakumamele usithi mabangawufumani umhlaba wabo.


If you say we did not say that, now we are saying it. That is why we are democratic organisation. When the ANC was formed in 1912, we never said we wanted to take up arms, but at a particular juncture in our history we felt that it is now critical for us to take up arms against an injustice regime. It is a democratic organisation that has now decided that we must do everything in our power to make sure that land is expropriated in our country. In doing so, we want black people, whites, Indians and coloureds to understand us. We are a responsible government; and we want to take everybody along in achieving an equitable society. The only thing that one can do is to walk the road with us.

There was a cry when we started to introduce 50/50; today there are white farmers who are supporting that project because you are also an immediate beneficiaries in an equal society. Let us walk this road all together and I can assure you, hon Mbabama, we are going to be patient with you and we will take you with us.


Ungonmye wethu ntonje ke usalahlekile. [Kwaqhwatywa.]


Rev K R J MESHOE: Deputy Speaker, the ACDP has always acknowledged that there has been a historical socioeconomic injustice in South Africa around the question of land ownership, and our black population has been at the receiving end of forced dispossession. That is why the ACDP supports fair, legal and just reform and land redistribution.

This past weekend, the ACDP had a guest speaker Dr N M Tunde Bakare, the future President of Nigeria, who gave us his insight into the subject of expropriation of land without compensation. Among other things he said:

For socioeconomic justice to be done, land redistribution is inevitable. However, the Zimbabwean model is equally unjust, socially hazardous and economically unviable, even if politically appealing in the short term.

He continues to say:

Expropriation of land without compensation is an aberration under international law. The property, even of an alien, cannot be taken for public use without adequate compensation. This is in line with natural justice, and takes into consideration the fact that the current owners have added value to the land in the form of investments.

Resolving this matter requires inclusive policies such as those that helped to create a postapartheid South African nation under the leadership of President Nelson Mandela, hence nationhood must be the overriding objective. The state must champion a pragmatic land redistribution drive guided by the principles of equity and justice.

Therefore, the ACDP will not support this motion before us because we believe expropriation of land without compensation is another forced takeover of land, which involves paying evil with evil. Hon members, two wrongs do not make a right. The fact that the apartheid government forcefully dispossessed black people of their land does not justify the democratic government repeating the same evil.

Expropriation of land without compensation has historically destabilised economies as it destroys investor confidence and scares foreign investors.

The ACDP will not place ownership of land in the hands of the state, which would then lease it to its citizens. True economic freedom is guaranteed more by innovation, industry and productivity, rather than by radicalism and rebellion.

Therefore, the ACDP calls on all parties in this House to help build one nation under the Almighty God who desires that the benefits and profit of the land be for all its people, regardless of their colour, gender or creed. I thank you.

Mr M P GALO (AIC MP): Deputy Speaker, this debate is stubbornly recalcitrant. It is the complete cleansing of the land enigma that will rid South Africa of the many challenges associated with the land question.

It must be said that until we answer the following questions, no meaningful constitutional amendments will save the day: Has the current government been able to dismantle the spatial patterns of apartheid? Has land development achieved rural and urban justice and equity? Have we aggressively empowered women and their immediate families against illegal evictions, in other words, have we secured land tenure of our people against illegal deprivations and evictions?

The process of reconfiguring the scheme of land rights in South Africa has succeeded in legislation. It has stalled, however, in implementation.

The government has introduced the following legislations, amongst others, to supposedly address the land question: The Labour Tenants Act 3 of 1996 and the Extension of Security of Tenure Act 62 of 1997.

Under the currency of these laws, rural hunger has amplified; illegal evictions in commercial farms have sky-rocketed; shack settlements and shanty towns have increased; the spatial planning introduced by apartheid has not been dismantled; the land restitution measures have not brought about subsistence food security.

Hon Deputy Speaker, this motion envisages that Parliament has to pass a Bill to give effect to the expropriation of land without compensation.

Hon members, it is completely ironic, that it is this Parliament that the EFF wishes to debate and pass the expropriation Bill when it rejected its legitimacy when the President was sworn in.

We, however, support this motion in principle. Our long-standing view on this matter is that the inefficiencies in state machinery and administration to drive the land reform project have largely given rise to this quagmire.

We, therefore, propose the following measures to address the land reform question: a national land reform Panel to establish practical measures to achieve land reform ... [Time expired.]

Mr M A PLOUAMMA (Agang SA): Hon Deputy Speaker and hon members. Hon Reverend Meshoe, please agree with me when I say “those who have taken our land by force, Jesus Christ must reject their prayers”. [Laughter.] [Applause.]

Hon members, Mr Groenewald’s speech is like the longest suicide note in history. These democratic projects cannot survive if those who benefitted unlawfully do not unconditionally volunteer to equally distribute the land to the previously marginalised.

Hon members, Agang SA supports this motion without reservation. [Applause.] We should not fear those who are still nostalgic to the era Verwoerd; those remnants of the broederbond will never give land for free.

We must amend section 25 and speed this process to avid land grabs or anarchy.

I urge the ruling the party to develop a backbone of steel and stop speaking with fork tongues. The issue of land has been with the ruling party since the dawn of democracy. However, they have done nothing so far.

Hon members, hon minister Nkwinti is well-known, he has mastered the art of pacification, or should I say seducing us to believe that the ANC is serious? The ANC will agree to anything just to win elections. We need to put time frame, otherwise we’ll debate this matter after few years again.

We need to look those fellow South Africans in their eyes and ask them how did they sleep at night when they have title deeds, which include mountains and rivers? While our people do not have a piece of land to call theirs; we need to do this as a matter of urgency to restore their cultural, spiritual and physical dignity. If we fail to do that, then this democratic dispensation is of no benefit to our people; then it is a celebrated fake. I thank you. [Applause.]

Mr N T GODI (APC): Hon Deputy Speaker, comrades and hon members. Today marks exactly 40 years since the passing of our great leader, Robert Mangaliso Sobukwe. It is a fitting tribute to Sobukwe and all Africanists that we are reaching sufficient national consensus on the need to return the land to its indigenous African owners. Sobukwe stood for African national self-determination and there can be no resolution of the national question without Africans gaining effective and total ownership of their inalienable inheritance, their forebearers’ land.

Let us not forget history; history of conquest; of land dispossession through wars of colonial conquest by white people through forced removals; through the slave labour in the farms, prisoners sold to the farms.

Let us not forget the infamous potato farms in Bethal, Mpumalanga. The continued attacks, dispossession of livestock and murder in the farms in Piet Retief, Wakkerstroom, Phongola and elsewhere.

Today the descendants of those brutal land dispossessors sit here in suits and ties and want to pontificate to us. What nerve and what arrogance. To them, we say as the APC: Go away, angels of darkness, flee to the corners of nothingness and you’ll never fool us. If you deny the historical injustice of brutal and heartless land dispossession, nothing else you say matters to me anymore.

The APC wants to salute the Pan Africanist Congress of Azania for having endured ridicule, insults and isolation because of its stand on the land question. In the 1994 elections, the PAC’s slogan was land first and all shall follow; we were ignored. The PAC manifesto also said there shall be land expropriation without compensation except compensation for improvements made on the farm, not for the land itself. Well, two decades later, we seem to be making progress.

Let us chant with the revolutionary Nigerian musician, Sonny Okosun, when he signs and say:

Give us the land

My papa’s land

Give us the land

Who owns papa’s land

We want to know

We want to know who owns the land

Freedom fighters want to know who owns the land

Soweto wants to know who owns the land

Angola, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Namibia want to know who owns the land

Give us the land

My papa’s land

Give us the land.

Izwe lethu [Our land] [Applause.]

AN HON MEMBER: iAfrika [Africa]

Mr K P ROBERTSON (DA): Hon Deputy Speaker, what is this obsession with private land? What is the succession with private land? The ANC inherited land that that the apartheid government stole and they still haven’t given it open to the very people that deserve the land. Why don’t you show us the route? Show us the route by expropriating your own land and give it to the people; expropriating the state land and give it to the people

IsiZulu: [15:44:53]


Mnu K P ROBERTSON: Ngeke ngisuke. Abantu bayahlupheka, abantu bayahlupheka ... [Ihlombe.] ... Nkosi yami!


The ANC government does not have a land problem. We have a problem with the way the ANC is handling land. People were dispossessed of their land and their dignity by the discriminatory laws of the past. A painful past that can never be forgotten. But the ANC’s call for expropriation without compensation is a lazy attempt to divert attention away from the real reason that lie at the heart of the slow pace of meaningful land reform and restitution.

In March 2017, the EFF brought a similar motion to the House and the ANC shot it down in plain. The ANC’s speakers unanimously condemned the suggestion to expropriate without compensation. They used language such as: “We totally reject amending section 25 of the Constitution.”

They said that the ANC does not need the EFF’s 6%, but will do exactly what they want to. The ANC rejected the EFF’s call for land invasion. They themselves said that they have all the right mechanisms in place to ensure the land reform happens. So, what has changed?

South Africa’s Constitution recognises the painful historic injustices. The Bill of Rights seeks to ensure that the rights of all citizens are protected. Section 25 protects the right of property ownership, but recognises the use of different mechanisms, including expropriation, to ensure that the transfer of land occurs, but this is done in a just and a equitable way.

As the High Level Panel indicates, government has to focus on releasing state and state-owned enterprise, SOE, land and to leverage it as much of its tangible assets to accommodate the ever increasing demand for land, financial and economic inclusion. According to the latest land audit, the state still owns approximately 17 million hectares of property, hon Minister; 17 million hectares of property. That’s why I asked about the obsession of private land.

By releasing most of those assets through a fair and efficient process, could propel the transfer of land to black ownership from 8,1 million hectares to more than double that figure in a fraction of the time that it would take to expropriate, and this is to be done without harming the economy.

So, why expropriate without compensation and not just release state-owned property? And while doing so, continue to uphold section 25 of the Constitution. It is surely the logical place to start. We do not have to change the Constitution; we need to implement it and we need to find efficient solutions.

In his Budget speech, ex-Minister Gigaba mentioned that, 2 851 land claims will be settled in the Medium-Term Expenditure Framework, MTEF, which will cost taxpayers approximately R10,8 billion and only equates to only 291 000 hectares of property. But currently, written questions to the Department of Public Works revealed that the departments sits with 1,9 million hectares of surplus land lying idle, which consists of 12 000 properties throughout the country.

The problem is that the inefficient state does do enough about transferring state-owned land back to the people. The Andriaanse family were awarded the land claim for 96 hectares owned by the state that is owned by the Department of Public Works next to the Cape Town International Airport.

In 2016, the state through the national Department of Public Works indicated that they lack the resources to finalise this claim. I remind you, 1,9 million hectares of land lying idly and owned by public works, yet they can’t assist our people. Over 4000 ownerships are yet to receive type of transferred beneficiaries. There is clear reluctance by the state over land.

The devastating failure rate of 90% of land reform projects throughout South Africa is another reason why the constitutional changes cannot serve South Africa’s best interests. In comparison, the DA-run Western Cape far exceeds rest of the country in terms of land reform successes and we show a remarkable success rate of 62%. Isn’t that wonderful?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon member, your time has expired.

Mr K P ROBERTSON: Thank you very much. We reject this motion of land expropriation without compensation. Thank you.

Mr P J MNGUNI (ANC): Deputy Speaker, members of the executive, hon members of the House, our guests, thank you to the EFF for reintroducing this motion once more. It was introduced at some stage. We debated immensely, but a major event of a big governing party took place and discussed in line with the history of the ANC and the policy and actually resolved that the notion of land expropriation without compensation is part of the tool kit of the ANC in seeking to redress the troubled land question. We have said before and it has been said so many times since the advent of democracy that indeed the land was not stolen.

I see hon Agbaar said the land was not stolen. I don’t think you meant the same thing as Minister Nkwinti said. The land was not stolen but the land was taken away, dispossessed through brutal wars, blood was spilled and people were imprisoned. I may seek to check the notes with the EFF, Speaker, in terms of who actually were the seven Robben Island prisoners. For our record, I am no historian, but through general knowledge I do know that Chief Maqoma, Chief Sandile, Chief Tyhali, Chief Siyolo, Chief Awutha, Chief Langalibalele and Chief Fadane were the chiefs of all the African people who were imprisoned on Robben Island. Yes indeed, we confirm that was following also on the leaders of the Khoisan people who were there in prison, including one heroic Krotoa who was able to escape from the Robben Island right there in the sea and escaped that incarceration.

We would have loved to speak more politics had time allowed, but in passing, we just need to affirm one thing. Colonialism hon Mbabama and hon Robertson sought to further the imperialist agenda, nothing else full stop. What imperialism is, it is for you to go and find out – we can assist and I can assist. [laughter.] Colonialism had no other objective. Please also share with hon Hellen Zille. We don’t seem to welcome that colonialism had come here to bring us development. All societies developed; there is no stagnant society anywhere. Colonialism was brought about by imperialists in order to suck and super exploit the people of the continent of Africa -in fact, including Latin America and other places – the world that were colonised.

There were wars of dispossession. So, Agbaar please bear with us. You seem to think that the land was not stolen, so it was amicably given – there were wars of dispossession. We would invite you to the Eastern Cape where I come from to go and tell us where these forts do come from that you find so many of in the Western Cape and as a General you would know where the word fort emerges from. Fort Hare, Fort Beaufort, Fort Malan, Fort Jackson and all the forts that you find throughout this country. I am just giving you one scenario in one province. So, there were wars fought. It is these wars of dispossession that ultimately led to the ANC being formed in 1912 and people coming together. I don’t have time again to take you through what led Xhosa, Sotho, Zulu, Ndebele whoever manyanani [ to come together.] because it was clear that the offensive was just too hard for our people to can bear as different people and different tribes.

We said before and we repeat also just to make sure that we are at one with our colleagues who moved this motion. It led to apartheid the union of South Africa in 1910 and 1913 land Act in fact the judgement of 28 July 2016 by Judge Madlanga and the full Bench of the Constitutional Court is very instructive. Judge Madlanga with the concurrence of the rest of the Judges says:

To those who personal experienced the force removal, and those who instead of inheriting the illegitimately wrestled land, inherited the pain of loss of homes or property the dispossession are not merely colonial or apartheid era memories.

They continued to be postapartheid realities. Skipping a little bit he says somewhere, “the continuing postapartheid realities of land dispossession are more so in the case of those who are yet to enjoy the fruit of restitution or equitable redress in terms of the Restitution Act.”

In short, the land portfolio is composed of three legs. It was nicely captured by the Minister and Deputy Minister Skwatsha that when you talk land reform you really refer to land tenure, land restitution and land redistribution. It is my pleasure, honour and privilege to have introduced to this august House the reopening of restitution by which we seek to further advance the agenda of making sure that the land is redistributed to our people.

It is also our pleasure to say the Extension of Security Amendment Bill is now at the National Council of Provinces, NCOP, where it is being finalised before assented to and signed by the President C R ... fresh from the box - President Ramaphosa. Before he assents to the Extension of Security Tenure Amendment Bill, ESTA, those of us who were involved in the process, we are convinced that ESTA as amended will make it almost impossible to evict people on the farms. We have become acutely aware of 2,8 million people dwelling on the farms who are super exploited with mud huts and so forth. [Interjections.]

I do not know if you differ with the facts you are raising hon colleagues on the other side. [Interjections.] We want to suggest, however, that as we cautiously like our hon Minister and Deputy have indicated that. Now the crux of expropriation without compensation is our policy, as the ANC. We want, however, to even advise our people in communities and everywhere that by adopting this policy, we are not saying people must smash and grab, each one for himself and the devil takes the hindmost. That’s not what we are saying.

We are saying a scientific systemic tool must be developed to ensure that the redress in so far as the land question, the redistribution, is fast-tracked through a scientific means, constitutional means and legislated means. To this effect, we are raising two pieces of legislation. One that had been to the Presidency before and came back for minor ratification is the Expropriation Act led by Public Works, which we informed our people and this august House that again it is at NCOP from where it will then be adopted to be law.

Time permitting, I just want to go to the Constitution’s clause 25 because it looks like a swear clause, but indicate that in our understanding, it opens up avenues in so far as I will read verbatim the provision there. Clause 25(1) “no one may be deprived property except in terms of law of general application, and no law may permit arbitrary deprivation of property.” Now no one may be deprived except in terms of law of general application. This is what we are saying and it is now at NCOP. Once that law is passed and assented to, then we will have an expropriation tool in so far as we read section 25. Retired Judge Moseneke alluded to the section 25 that it has never been tested. We think that the Expropriation Act is going to help a great deal to make sure that we test section 25. Yes, of course, if needs be, we will definitely gladly see if section 25 is a fetter and be able to say what amendments to effect there.

Section 25 goes to say that property may be expropriated only in terms of law of general application, for a public purpose or public interest. So there we read an affirmation that it is enabling. For purposes of this section, the public interest includes the nation’s commitment to land reform, and to reforms to bring about equitable access to all South Africa’s natural resources. We think this is still in line with the Freedom Charter and the whole of section 25, in fact, as may be read.

However to our colleagues in the EFF who moved the motion, let us sit down and see what do we see as a fetter, and how do we move forward. Our people cannot continue to stay in slums and squatter areas and everywhere called bergie – the destitute. So, indeed, we see the need to fast-track and it is safe to say that.

For us in summary, the law of general application, again, we think that having moved from willing-buyer, willing-seller, having moved to just an equitable compensation, we think that let us test the waters in terms of expropriation without compensation. Yes, we are in agreement. Lets us just test if we mean the same thing in content. In short hon Deputy Speaker, as the ANC, we have no fundamental objections. Say for consultations, we are working with all the parties here to see if we cannot concur on the motion that we are debating that it be amended and therefore we pass it all of us. Thank you.

Mr J S MALEMA: Deputy Speaker, I think that South Africans will begin to appreciate that a party with 6% of the vote is doing what a party with 60% of the vote hasn’t been able to do for many years. [Interjections.] Imagine what could have been delivered if this party had had the same percentage.


Mr J S MALEMA: In our discussion after the 2016 elections, we gave the ANC certain conditions. One of them was that Zuma must go, Die Stem must fall, and there must be one capital city, a Gupta commission and free education. The ANC seems to be meeting all of the conditions we gave them during those negotiations. [Interjections.]

We gave the same conditions to the DA. However, the DA seems not to be meeting any of the conditions we gave them on why they should run the metros. [Interjections.] They are forever drifting away from the EFF.

Hon MEMBERS: Yes! Yes!

Mr J S MALEMA: So, we will really have to find a way of dealing with the situation in the metros. [Interjections.]

Comrade Terror, when you went to prison on Robben Island, you were a black consciousness supporter. When you came back, you became an historical mistake, which came out of Robben Island. [Laughter.] [Interjections.] Every time you open your mouth to speak here, it is extremely disappointing. That which you thought you represented, you have abandoned.

You can’t ask the question, Who are your people? The national democratic revolution answers that question. It says the motive forces that stand to benefit from the victories of this revolution are our people. Those are the motive forces of the national democratic revolution which you went to prison for. [Applause.] The motive forces of the national democratic revolution are the oppressed. Who are the oppressed? The blacks, in general, and Africans, in particular.

Consciousness, when it escapes you, however, doesn’t say goodbye. You are such a typical example of a person who has just lost his political consciousness. Those teachers should have taught you on Robben Island but clearly, that university of life failed dismally when it came to you. So, it is actually extremely wrong of you to stand here and want to distort history.

All the EFF is saying is this. Let us subject this whole matter to consultation. We don’t have a problem with that. We cannot come and meet here as a group of elitists and take a decision on behalf of our people. Let it be referred to committees. Let our people be consulted. Let ordinary South Africans make their input. We are not opposed to that, as long as this Parliament agrees that, indeed, we are at one. Let us go and take a further mandate from our people.

So, the EFF is happy with the types of amendment the ANC wants to make. This is not about party politics. It is about an issue of national interest.

So, as I conclude, on 6 April, the day of Jan van Riebeek’s arrival, the day of the formation of the PAC by Sobukwe, and the day of the hanging of Solomon Mahlangu, in honour of these people and also as a demonstration of our seriousness about this land issue, we will be passing a motion of no confidence in the Mayor of Port Elizabeth, as a warning shot to the DA. Thank you very much. [Applause.] [Interjections.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Thank you, hon members. [Interjections.] Hon members, order! Order, hon members! [Interjections.]

Debate concluded.



The DEPUTY CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Hon House Chairperson, the ANC would like to make the following amendments to the EFF’s motion:

That paragraph 6 be amended, as follows ...

Dr C P MULDER: Hon Chairperson, I rise on a point of order: In terms of the process, you have just ruled that the debate has been concluded. That was the ruling.

The debate has been completed. I am not convinced that a motion to amend can now be moved, at this stage, before we vote. The amendment should have been moved during the debate. [Interjections.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C R Frolick): No ... hon Shivambu?

Mr N F SHIVAMBU: They did. House Chair, we, the Whips of the different political parties, have just come from a consultation now. The correct procedure is that, immediately after debate, you can put the aye or nay option, which you did. Any party then has the right to propose an amendment.

If different parties propose amendments, the last proposal to be put to the House is the one we vote on, and we roll backwards, like that. The first one will be the one we vote on last. We then integrate it and decide on a motion, in terms of what happens, moving forward. I don’t know what constituted the opportunism of the FF Plus.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Thank you, hon Shivambu. No, hon members, what we are doing now is to implement the Rule. The Rule simply states that any member may propose an amendment. In fact, the Table has received a detailed amendment from the ANC.

We were alerted to the fact that such an amendment would be moved. There has been consultation with the original movers of the motion, as it stands. There is agreement and that is why I am inclined to allow the hon Deputy Chief Whip of the Majority Party to continue. Hon Mulder?

Dr C P MULDER: Chairperson, may I address you? I hear what you are saying. I want clarity for future reference. If the Chairperson has ruled that a debate has been concluded, I would like to know, in terms of the Rules, what then gives us the right to come with amendments after the debate has been concluded? If there is such a Rule, please enlighten me and I will accept that.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): No, hon members. The question was put. That is correct, and that is why we are proceeding. Hon members, the question was put and there was an indication that there were objections. There was then an indication, in terms of the Rules - Rule 121(2) - that there was an amendment. As I said, we were furnished with a copy of the amendment that was also made available to the original movers of the motion. Would the Deputy Chief Whip of the Majority Party please proceed?

The DEPUTY CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Thank you, hon House Chairperson. The ANC would like to move to amend the EFF’s motion, as follows:

That paragraph 6 of the motion be amended as follows:

(1)  “recognises that the current policy instruments, including the willing-buyer, willing-seller policy and other provisions of section 25 of the Constitution, may be hindering effective land reform”;

(2)  delete paragraph 7 of the motion as printed on the Order Paper;

(3)    substitute paragraph 8 of the motion with the following:

“notes that in his state of the nation address, President Cyril Ramaphosa, in recognising the original sin of land dispossession, made a commitment that government would continue the land reform programme that entails expropriation of land without compensation, making use of all mechanisms at the disposal of the state, implemented in a manner that increases agricultural production, improves food security and ensures that the land is returned to those from whom it was taken under colonialism and apartheid and undertake a process of consultation to determine the modalities of the governing party resolution”;

... our conference resolution taken in December ...

(4)    amend paragraph 10 as follows:

“with the concurrence of the National Council of Provinces, instructs the Constitutional Review Committee to—

(a)  in sub-paragraph (a) before the words “to make” to insert “review section 25 of the Constitution and other clauses where necessary”;

(b)  in sub-paragraph (b) after the word “amendments” to insert “where applicable” and delete all the words after “needed”;

(c)  delete sub-paragraphs (c) and (d); and

(d)  in sub-paragraph (e) to amend the date for reporting to the Assembly to “30 August 2018”.”

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Thank you, hon Deputy Chief Whip. Are there any other amendments? There being no further amendments, I thus want to put this amendment to the House. Are there any objections ...

Mr N SINGH: Hon Chairperson, I rise in response to the amendments that were proposed and I am sure you would realise that they were substantive amendments – not necessarily on the principle but in the number of words. I think it’s only fair that we should be given copies – I know a copy is going to be tabled with you – to study for five or 10 minutes, so that you can then put the question to the House. [Interjections.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Yes, hon members. Hon Deputy Chief Whip, were those amendments distributed?

The DEPUTY CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Chair, unfortunately the hon member was not in the House when I distributed the copies of the amendment. I did.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Thank you, hon member. So, the amendments have been distributed. We are going to continue.

Mr N SINGH: Chair, I rise on a point of order: Just to put the record straight, I never moved out of the House. So, I think it’s devoid of the truth if the hon acting Chief Whip of the Majority Party says that I was not in the House. That is for the record, then.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Thank you, hon member. Hon member, the amendment complies with the Rule, right? We received it, we looked at it and we followed the due process, according to the Rule. So, those are the amendments currently in front of the House. Hon Dudley, why do you want to rise?

Mrs C DUDLEY: Chairperson, the ACDP would also like to say that these amendments need to be carefully considered before we actually vote on them. Thank you.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): We are actually going to vote on it now! [Interjections.] Hon members, I now put the amendments, as put by the ANC. Are there any objections to those amendments?


The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Hon Chairperson, we would like to speak on the amendments, please.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): I will now allow political parties to speak to the amendments. I will allow up to three minutes per political party to make their input in this regard. The DA?

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION (John Steenhuisen): House Chairperson, both the motion and the amendments themselves fundamentally misdiagnose where the real problem lies with land reform in South Africa. What these essentially are, are lazy shortcuts to resolve the problem.

The High Level Panel report which this Parliament commissioned — and extensive amounts of money was spent on and public input received by the High Level Panel, which was headed up by Mr Kgalema Motlanthe — did a very good diagnosis of where the obstacles to land reform actually are. They found, quite clearly, that section 25 of the Constitution, specifically at section 25(5) and section 25(8) already fundamentally provide for the equitable redistribution of land. You don’t need to amend the Constitution for what we are trying to do today, as this amendment seeks to do.

Where the problems lie, as the High Level Panel found, were in the elite capture of land reform, in the fundamentally broken legislative framework, and in the lack of an overarching framework for meaningful land reform in South Africa. What it also found is that this government, for the last 25 years, has not put its money where its mouth is. Last year, it spent 0,14% of national revenue on actually providing land reform. It’s been on a rapid decline since the 2008-09 financial year.

That is not a failure of the Constitution. It is a failure of government. It is a failure of implementation. [Applause.] This government, over the course of the last 25 years, has failed to introduce meaningful land reform. Absolutely failed to do that!

And what is happening today with this motion? This motion is actually giving this side of the House — this government that has failed for 25 years — the opportunity to get a get-out-of-jail-free card. They can now simply wash away the sins of failure of their own policies and of their own legislation by blaming and scapegoating the Constitution.

There’s nothing in the Constitution as it currently stands to prevent anybody in the House doing what they’ve spoken about today.

We must be very, very careful when we start to pull away at the underpinnings and threads that bind our Constitution together, because once we start to unpick them, there is going to be further problems down the line. When we erode the rights of some, we erode the rights of all going forward.

So, we say we must have meaningful land reform. We cannot deny the dispossession of both colonialism and apartheid. Various legislative proposals — the Glen Gray Act, the Pegging Act, the Group Areas Act, the Native Land Act of 1913 — were all legislative processes which caused dispossession. And we must address these, but we can do so by passing legislation as the Constitution envisages. We don’t need to amend the Constitution. Thank you. [Applause.]

Mr N F SHIVAMBU: House Chair, it is not unconstitutional to amend the Constitution. It’s actually a constitutional practice to amend the Constitution. This is what this Parliament is supposed to do from time to time. Parliament must sit and look into the base document that has constituted this House and which organises society and check whether it is the appropriate means by which we must go forward.

It is clear now that the majority of black political parties are saying that the Constitution is not helping us adequately when it comes to dealing with the land question. So, the DA can express its own views in terms of its own racial and class prejudices, but the fact of the matter is that we should ultimately expropriate land without compensation.

We agree with the amendment as proposed in the context that, instead of the ad hoc committee looking into this — as we proposed should — we should instead use the Constitutional Review Committee. It is a joint committee inclusive of Members of the NA as well as the NCOP. That committee must engage in public consultation, get submissions and then return in August to table a report which identifies the parts of the Constitution we must amend, as well as the specific pieces of legislation that we must align, so that we enable the state to expropriate land without compensation.

So that is the context within which we are dealing with all of these issues. We do not have fundamental problems with the characterisation that we are dealing with original sin. The amendment clearly puts that into context: We are dealing with the original sin of land dispossession, of our people being taken out of their own land.

Apartheid and land dispossession were legislated realities. So we have to use our legislative powers and our constitution-making powers to undo the injustices of the past. If we do not do so, we will be failing the many generations of people who died fighting in the wars of resistance. We will be failing so many people who died fighting for freedom, who were incarcerated, who were imprisoned, who were exiled because they wanted their land back.

So we must continue to work clearly and decisively as black political parties to reclaim our land. Izwe Lethu! [This is our land!]

Mr N SINGH: Chairperson and colleagues, firstly, congratulations to all the new Ministers that have been appointed.

When our colleague, hon Cebekhulu, spoke here, he did say that we would support a process of land reform and land restitution. It’s absolutely necessary in a country like ours, postapartheid, that that happens.

He did also say that we would support the fact that this matter be referred to the Constitutional Review Committee. I note that this amendment takes care off of that.

So, to that extent, I think the IFP is satisfied that the mechanism that are going to be used to achieve the objective, are the correct mechanisms, and that it is thus not necessary to form an ad hoc committee to deal with this matter.

However, having said that, I also want to concur with hon Steenhuisen that the process of land reform as driven by government has been far too slow and ineffective. One really needs to look at outstanding claims that have been lodged since 1998 — and there are many outstanding claims that have not been dealt with. We should also look at the contingent liability to this government. I hope the new Minister of Finance takes note of the contingent liability that this government could face when it settles land claims that have already been processed by the department.

We also believe that, as far as the IFP is concerned, what the hon President said the other day, is that expropriation without compensation is part of the menu of options that will be used to deal with the issue of land restitution. That’s how we understood it and we still understand it on that basis.

We are pleased with the fact that there will be continued engagement with the public and there will be extensive public processes for us to achieve the eventual aim of ensuring that of our people who have been dispossessed ... and I can also add that my family was dispossessed of land from a so-called white area and we were put on a truck and moved to another area.

So people who have been dispossessed of land need land returned to them and we trust that that land would be put to the best use in the interests of the economy of our country.

So we would support the motion as amended and presented to us. [Interjections.]

But, lastly, let me say, in 30 seconds, hon Deputy Chief Whip, don’t walk past us the next time. I noticed you giving the amendments. We agreed that the amendments would be given to all political parties, but you walked past. Maybe it was a lapse of memory. But just to put on record, why I asked for the copy, it was exactly so that we could run through it. But we will support the amendments as proposed. Thank you.

Prof N M KHUBISA: House Chairperson, hon members, we must also reiterate the fact that we support the amendment. We are also cognisant of the fact that the amendment tallies with the original resolution.

The issue of land reform is an historical fact. Some of the kings were incarcerated because of this issue. For instance, iSilo Dinuzulu had to go to jail because of this issue of land. So it’s really an emotive issue and it cannot be delayed.

We therefore want to concur with the resolution and that it must be done within the ambit of the Constitutional Review Committee. Our people do need land for farming, agricultural purposes, subsistence and commercial farming. But it should not delay. We really support it and we say it must be done within the ambit of law.

The timeframe has been set. As such, the NFP agrees with it. I therefore believe that, if we follow all these processes in line with the resolution and the amendment, we will eventually reach the destination. We support. Thank you.

Mr M L W FILTANE: Hon House Chair, we are running late. We cannot accurately predict what is going to happen next year. We have to move with haste and do the necessary. The people are starving out there. The socioeconomic situation out there commands that we move with this right now.

As per the report that we got in the Portfolio Committee for Agriculture three years ago, we see that 95% of food produced in South Africa comes from only 3% of commercial farmers. We need more land so that more people can produce food for themselves and for sale to those who want the food. We want the land. There’s no question or doubt about that.

Remember the frontier wars that were fought in the 18th century? Bloody wars in the Eastern Cape! Ten of them over a period of 100 years. That land that we want back is dripping with the blood of Africans butchered in their own land. Where else would that have happened? We need to move with haste.

Lastly, I want to say, as the UDM, we stand right behind the involvement of the constitutional review committee in the process. That’s the amendment that we support. Thank you.

Dr P J GROENEWALD: Hon Chairperson, the FF Plus will not support this amendment. Once you have opened the gate, you will not be able to close it again. I want to say to all landowners in South Africa today, you must take note of what is happening in this House today. Take note!


Daar is liggelowige mense wat dink dat die proses nooit sal deurgaan nie, want die agb President, Cyril Ramaphosa het mos gesê dat die ekonomie nie geskaad moet word nie en voedselsekerheid nie benadeel moet word nie. Ek sê vandag vir u dat die ANC-regering saam met sy opposisievennote die Grondwet gaan verander. Hulle het ’n tweederde-meerderheid en as die Grondwet eers verander het, gaan u u eiendom kan verloor. Dit kan onteien word sonder vergoeding en dit gaan alle grond wees – of jy in ’n dorp bly en of jy op ’n plaas bly.

Grondeienaars moet weet dat hierdie proses die spreekwoordelike geval en voorbeeld is van die padda in die pot water, maar die vlammetjie word al hoër aangejaag en jy gaan doodkook binne-in daardie pot.

Ek wil vir u sê, word wakker in Suid-Afrika. Besef u dat die ANC besig is om u soos ’n luislang in te sluk en stadig maar seker dood te druk?

Eiendom is die hoeksteen van ’n ekonomie. [Tussenwerpsels.] Privaateiendom bou ’n ekonomie, maar die ANC wil dit nie toelaat nie. U, as ’n grondeienaar, as dit u erns is om u eiendom te behou, dan sê ek vandag vir u dat u u stem moet begin dikmaak, u moet u besware begin opper en u moet u afvalligheid en apatie, wat die politiek in hierdie land betref, begin eenkant sit. U dink u is klaar met die politiek, maar die politiek is nooit klaar met jou nie.

Ek doen dus ’n beroep op u. Daar is volgende jaar ’n verkiesing. Hierdie kwessie sal bespreek word. Twee jaar gelede is die grondkwessie al op die voorgrond geplaas vir propaganda in die verkiesing. Ons sal nooit so ’n mosie kan ondersteun nie en ons sal u beveg waar ons kan.

Mr M G P LEKOTA: Chairperson, once more, I thank you. I would like to start by saying, hon Malema I was in this House when you said what you said. I cannot say anything about it, because it might be that I endorse that. I think we should leave the matter of whether I am an accident of history or not. I think we should leave it for generations to come. They will pass judgement. [Applause.]

On this issue, the problem so far has been one of abject failure by the ANC-led government to utilise these instruments and to give effect to the progressive realisation of land reform - rather than of impediments created by the Constitution.

This is born out in Parliament’s High-level Panel Report which reveals that: firstly, the report on the progressive realisation of land reform rights has been concerning and slow. Secondly, that the development of policy and law has drifted away from its initial propoor stance and lacks a vision for inclusive agrarian reform. Thirdly, that there are also significant gaps, such as on tenure security, where legislation has not been passed, putting the lives and livelihoods of many rural dwellers in pirel. Fourthly, that government’s interpretation of customary law, centred on traditional leadership and away from living custom, has added to insecurity.

The report makes comprehensive recommendations and calls for crucial interventions, but no where does the panel report calls for the amendment of the Constitution. Yes, it true that Constitutions may be amended, but there must be sufficient firm grounds why you need to do so. This is a living document. It speaks about progressive realisation of the objectives in a number of different ways.    

Section 25 and section 26 speaks about progressive realisation, recognising that you cannot solve inside of five or 10 or 20 years, many other issues that are involved in this question. Those will take time, but time ahead is not as much as what is behind us is finished. We must look into the future and that is what this document is based on. I thank you, Sir. [Applause.]

Ms C DUDLEY: Chair, the ACDP agrees that we must move without delay and that land reform is crucial. It must be our top priority. However, successful land reform is just as crucial or we will further disadvantage the very people we want to make reparation to. The ACDP is convinced that if we do away with all legal protection against state abuse. Every person in South Africa will be vulnerable and is at risk of being disposed once again.

Maybe not this government, but there will be governments to come. And when you find yourself on the wrong side of the politics of the day, your future land ownership and your security will be threatened. We will not support expropriation without compensation, for the sake of every person in South Africa. [Applause.]


Mnu N T GODI: Izwe Lethu!



Mr N T GODI: What a wonderful day it is today. [Interjections.] For all the time since 1994, since I became an africanist to listen to this kind of debate and what the best way to remember Robert Sobukwe, today than to demonstrate to him that his life’s work is about to come to fruition.

Comrades our understanding is that a Constitution is always a reflection of the political balance of forces. And the Constitution that we have coming out of 1996 reflected that balance of force. This same Constitution envisages that it must be reviewed on an annual basis. So, it is indeed not unconstitutional to review the Constitution.

However, comrades I do want to say the way we handled this debate and the way we are handling the amendments, I think lays the ground and saws the seeds for black solidarity. For as blacks we have nothing to lose, but our landlessness when we unite. [Applause.]

We know that landlessness is actually the basis for the racism that our people suffer. It is the basis for our poverty, the basis for our humiliation, the basis of the dehumanisation of the natives as Frans Fernon said. So, as the APC, we support the amendments and the motion. Let us pass it. Izwe Lethu. [Our Land.]


Mr M A PLOUAMMA: Hon Chairperson, today we are speaking with pride and we support these amendments. Unlike in other countries where they choose arms. Here we choose constitutional processes. Hon Steenhuisen, if you are defeated accept, it with a smile.

Sometimes, I do not know why black South Africans vote other parties, because really if these parties are not supporting a motion like this, I do not know what it is, that black people are looking for, in those parties. [Applause.]

Hon members, hon Steenhuisen, you know, when I was listening to you there, I truly diagnosed the sickness of your party. [Interjections.] I really observed that your constituency is in America and Britain and your heart and conscience is not here. [Interjections.] I just want you to understand very clear that those who benefitted by taking over the land of our people are very lucky because they are still alive in this country and rich. In other countries, people like you are running away. [Applause.] However, here because we believe in negotiations and ubuntu, you are still wealthy and you were wealthy before the democratic dispensation and you are even wealthy today.

Our people are still travelling from Diepsloot and Alexander to your houses, but yet this is their democracy. You must actually kneel down and pray to us today and say black people, you are very kind. [Applause.]

You know, I do not say this quite often. You are very lucky to be in this country and still be accepted as citizens of this country.


The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon Plouamma, will you take your seat. Why are you rising hon member?

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon Chair, I rise on Rule 85. It is completely inappropriate for an individual to both racially and stereotype, we have heard. [Interjections.] No, he has. He is saying that you people to be in this country. That is racially stereotyping and to reflect on the honour of individual members of this House. I am a South African and I do not hold no other passport!

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Thank you. Hon Plouamma, did you refer... [Interjections.]

Dr M Q NDLOZI: Hon Chairperson... [Interjections.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon member, will you just take your seat, please. I just want to deal with this point of order. [Interjections.]

Dr M Q NDLOZI: Just eh, just eh...

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): No, I will come back to you. I will come back to you.

Dr M Q NDLOZI: Alright. Alright.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon Plouamma, did you refer to any member of this House... [Interjections.]

Mr M A PLOUAMMA: I do not know what he is talking about.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon member, did you refer to any member of this House, yes or no?


The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Thank you. Hon Ndlozi.

Dr M Q NDLOZI: Hon Chairperson, there is nothing about race and racial stereotype to say, “You are lucky to be a citizen of South Africa.” Even as a black person, I feel lucky to be part of this... [Interjections.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon Ndlozi... [Interjections.]

Dr M Q NDLOZI: If you do not feel lucky... [Interjections.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon Dlozi, I have dealt with this point of order! [Interjections.]

Dr M Q NDLOZI: We will question your patriotism!

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Thank you.

Dr M Q NDLOZI: If you do not feel lucky to be part of us!

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Thank you, hon member!

Dr M Q NDLOZI: Please!

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon Plouamma.

Mr M A PLOUAMMA: Hon Chairperson, for 400 years black people tolerated abuse, rape, theft and everything that is bad that you can think about! However, we have forgiven. We just want you to peacefully and legally give this land back to its own owners. What is wrong with you? [Applause.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Thank you, hon member. Order, hon members! Order hon members, may I just remind, order, may I just remind the guests in the gallery that you are here to observe and not to participate in the proceedings of the House, please. I now recognise the hon Minister Nkwinti.

The MINISTER OF WATER AND SANITATION: Hon Chair, South Africa belongs to all who lives in it – black and white. That is the essence of this motion by the hon Malema. He has not said everyone else must go or jump everywhere else. He says South Africa belongs to all who lives in it and therefore, all South Africans must share equitably to the profits of their country. [Applause.] That’s what the essence of this thing is. At last the ANC which has been reluctant to do this is doing it. I must really commend the hon members on behalf the ANC. [Applause.]

The ANC has been reluctant for twenty three years to come to this point of what it is saying today in terms of this resolution. The ANC is recognised across the world as a very patient movement for the liberation of the people of South Africa. Now, we have reached this point that says let us persuade fellow South Africans, let them also recognise that as South Africans they have a duty to other fellow South Africans. It cannot be correct that all the time the black majority of South Africans who have been suppressed for all these hundreds of years must always be the ones who kowtow to the minority of South Africans. [Applause.] It is not correct.

Lastly, point four says amend clause 10 as follows: with the concurrence of the NCOP instructs Constitutional Review Committee. This is an institution - this is Parliament - this is a committee of Parliament. It is not saying go out there, we all have been voted in here. It says this Parliament as a representative of the people of South Africa must use this clause, review section 25 of the Constitution and other clauses where necessary. After the words amendments it said where applicable; it is still persuasive. Let us agree that this motion must be carried out. It is supported by the mover in the first instance. Thank you very much EFF. [Applause.]

Question put: That the amendment as moved by the Deputy Chief Whip of the Majority Party be agreed to.

Division demanded.

The House divided.


AN HON MEMBER: We will reshuffle you comrade bae. [Laughter.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T FROLICK): Order hon members! Don’t start reshuffling now again. [Laughter.] We want to complete the vote.

Question agreed to.

Amendment accordingly agreed to.

Question put: That the motion, as amended, be agreed to.

Division demanded.

The House divided.


Question agreed to.

Motion, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

Source: Unrevised transcript, Hansard.


 Mcebisi Skwatsha