America's Ongoing Pursuit of Justice and Democratic Values

Tyranny thrives on fear, silence, and compliance. Democracy demands courage - Illinois Governor JB Pritzker.

Extremist ideologies, like Nazism, often begin with targeted oppression, and if left unchecked, they can escalate further. DOGE began as a campaign against DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) and minorities—and it was initially tolerated.

Now the purge has become colour-blind but class-focused, sometimes selective, targeting known and perceived enemies. Federal agencies have degenerated into caricatures of their once-strong and reliable selves. In this environment, no one is truly safe. Societies must protect vulnerable groups and uphold democratic values to ensure the safety and well-being of all.

The momentum of the emerging nationwide demand for justice and democratic values is still being defined, requiring the active participation of citizens, policymakers, and community leaders. I have faith in America's resilience; it will persevere and the people will emerge victorious, even without a clear direction.

During the height of the attack on Capitol Hill, a remarkable act of courage took place. The President's official driver refused to drive him to the scene, effectively thwarting his attempt to empower the insurrection. When the President attempted to drive himself, a security agent intervened, restraining him. This bold move exemplifies courage under fire and a commitment to protecting democratic values.

We must also remember the patriots who resigned from the White House and the Justice Department during the President's first term in office. Their selfless acts demonstrate a strong moral compass and dedication to upholding the principles of democracy. We salute their bravery and conviction.

From the civil rights movement to the present day, the nation has grappled with systemic injustices, social inequalities, and threats to democratic institutions. And we always win. America will overcome the madness of the moment.

Finally, the partnership between DOGE, Elon Musk, and the Trump administration is a fleeting moment in history, much like a scene in a movie - it will eventually fade away. America has weathered turbulent times before, overcoming challenges posed by President Nixon. Similarly, it will overcome this moment.

Like

Comment

Share

President Donald Trump v President Cyril Ramaphosa: A Critical Analysis of South Africa's Expropriation Act of 2024

Introduction

This essay seeks to correct the misconceptions perpetuated by President Donald Trump and Mr. Elon Musk regarding the South African Expropriation Act of 2024. They falsely claim that the legislation unfairly deprived White farmers of their land rights under President Ramaphosa's administration. However, this assertion is inaccurate. It is essential to understand that the Expropriation Act does not target specific groups, such as White farmers, but rather aims to address the historical injustices of apartheid-era land policies and promote equitable land distribution. By examining the facts and legislative context in conjunction with Common Law principles, it becomes clear that the narrative pushed by President Trump and his advisors is misinformed and misleading. This legislation is consistent with global standards, similar to the concepts of Police Power and Eminent Domain in common law countries and in the United States of America.

A Highlight of the Expropriation Act

As reported by TIME Magazine, ‘The South African Expropriation Act of 2024, signed into law on January 23, 2025, addresses land ownership inequalities rooted in the pre-1994 apartheid era. The Act was the result of five years of public consultation and parliamentary debate. It outlines the process for expropriating land "for a public purpose or in the public interest," ensuring "just and equitable" compensation. While the Act generally requires compensation, it includes specific circumstances in which compensation may be zero.’

The Contentious Section: Zero (Nil) Compensation

Section 12 of the South African Expropriation Bill, 2025, outlines circumstances where compensation for expropriated property may be zero, or "nil." The key points are as follows:

1. Compensation Amounts:
• The bill mandates that compensation be "just and equitable," reflecting both the property's value and the owner's interests—similar to the Eminent Domain approach in Common Law.
• In certain circumstances, the compensation amount may be zero (Nil)—comparable to the Police Power approach in Common Law.
2. Circumstances for Zero or Nil Compensation: The Act provides four specific grounds under which zero compensation may apply. These are not arbitrary and are limited to certain situations:
• Land held for speculative purposes and unused by the owner.
• Abandoned land where the owner has failed to maintain control.
• Land whose market value is equal to or less than the value of direct state investment or subsidy used for its acquisition and improvement.
• Land held by a state entity but not used for its core functions and acquired without compensation.

Procedures for Expropriation (Due Process Approach)

The Act’s primary goal is land reform and addressing historical injustices. It establishes clear procedures for expropriation, including:

• Notice requirements
• Opportunities for objections
• Dispute resolution mechanisms

This approach mirrors the due process standards in the United States and other Common Law countries. Therefore, it is disconcerting that President Trump and his advisors would accept misinformation, likely manipulated by figures like Elon Musk, without seeking informed legal counsel.

The Common Law Approach and International Standards

Many countries have legal frameworks for government acquisition of private property for public use. Two prominent concepts are:

1. Eminent Domain: This power allows governments to seize private property for public use, provided "just compensation" is offered, usually based on the property’s fair market value. Due process—including notice and a hearing—is typically required. The South African Act uses "just and equitable" compensation, which aligns with the Eminent Domain concept.
2. Police Power: This power allows governments to regulate private property to protect public health, safety, morals, and welfare. In these cases, just compensation is not always required, as the government is regulating property use. This principle is reflected in the South African Expropriation Act under its provision for zero compensation in certain circumstances.

The concept of zero or "nil" compensation in specific limited circumstances, as outlined in the South African legislation, is consistent with the common law Police Power approach.

Conclusion

The South African Expropriation Bill of 2025 is a complex piece of legislation designed to address historical injustices and promote land reform. It is essential to base discussions about the law on facts and context rather than misinformation and speculation. The proposal to extend refugee status to White South African farmers is ridiculous. These individuals, who often enjoy upper-middle-class lifestyles in their home country, do not meet the criteria for refugee status, which is intended for those facing persecution and displacement.

The people of South Africa deserve fairness, transparency, and accountability from their leaders. President Ramaphosa, like any public official, deserves a fair hearing from President Trump. Engaging in dialogue with Ramaphosa’s government would allow for a better understanding of the Expropriation Act and its objectives, ensuring that it is applied judiciously and that those affected by the law are fairly compensated.

At present, the Expropriation Act of 2024 has not yet been fully tested in the courts, and no one has suffered harm or deprivations as a result of the Act. Therefore, President Trump's decision to freeze aid to South Africa should be reconsidered. Rather than halting aid, the US government could engage in constructive dialogue with the South African government to better understand their concerns, developmental needs, and the rationale behind the Expropriation Act.

There is Wisdom in Criminalizing Electoral Malpractices in Nigeria.

 As an observer who participated in the voting process, I strongly believe that Senator Adam Oshiomhole and INEC's actions in Benin City during the 2024 Edo State gubernatorial election represent the most egregious electoral crime in Nigerian history.

The physical restraint of PDP and other party agents by law enforcement agents, preventing them from accessing INEC collation centres, was a clear contravention of established regulations.

Furthermore, the blatant manipulation of figures, disregarding the risk of detection or accountability, and the utilization of 'federal might' to legitimize these actions are collectively a sin against humanity.

Election rigging perpetuates misfits, ill-prepared, and unqualified individuals in the corridors of power. Consequently, a culture of lower expectation is created - the little accomplishment is celebrated as a big deal.

This brazen abuse of power diverges significantly from the electoral process and leadership development in emerging countries like Egypt, Morocco, or Algeria.

For instance, the pace of infrastructural development in Egypt post-Arab Spring surpasses the progress made in the preceding thirty years. Expectation and leadership performance are no longer defined by local standards.

Finally, until we resolve to start prosecuting electoral malpractices and sending guilty offenders to jail, the Edo State situation will assume a more sophisticated execution mode all over Nigeria.

The Making of an Oligarchy.

Oligarchy, like other forms of governance, originated with an individual and evolved into a deeply entrenched notion within a select group, ultimately became an established norm - a way of life for a privileged few who wield power over the majority.

The institution of slavery, Nazism, the Rwandan genocide, and ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia were gradual processes that began with an idea conceived by an individual and supported by devoted adherents who believed in their inherent superiority.

President Donald Trump's remarks during his first term, favouring Norwegians over asylum seekers from 's...hole countries' like Haiti, El Salvador, and Africa, exemplify this notion.

America is not fighting another race war, and those who seek to divide us along racial and class lines will face defeat. I solemnly declare, in God's name and a spirit of unity, Amen.

President Donald Trump's Misrepresentation of President Ramaphosa's Land Reform Agenda: A Critical Analysis of the South African Expropriation Act of 2024.

 Introduction

This essay seeks to correct the misconceptions perpetuated by President Donald Trump and Mr. Elon Musk regarding the South African Expropriation Act of 2024. They falsely claim that the legislation unfairly deprived White farmers of their land rights under President Ramaphosa's administration. However, this assertion is inaccurate. It is essential to understand that the Expropriation Act does not target specific groups, such as White farmers, but rather aims to address the historical injustices of apartheid-era land policies and promote equitable land distribution. By examining the facts and legislative context in conjunction with Common Law principles, it becomes clear that the narrative pushed by President Trump and his advisors is misinformed and misleading. This legislation is consistent with global standards, similar to the concepts of Police Power and Eminent Domain in common law countries and in the United States of America.

An Objective View

As reported by TIME Magazine, 'the South African Expropriation Act of 2024, signed into law on January 23, 2025, addresses land ownership inequalities stemming from the pre-1994 apartheid era. This Act resulted from five years of public consultation and parliamentary debate. It outlines the process for expropriation "for a public purpose or in the public interest" and mandates "just and equitable" compensation. While generally requiring such compensation, the Act does include specific circumstances where compensation may be zero.'

The Contentious Section: Zero (Nil) Compensation

Section 12 of the South African Expropriation Bill 2025 outlines the circumstances under which compensation for expropriated property may be zero or "nil". Here are the key points:

Compensation Amounts:

(1) The bill requires that compensation be JUST AND EQUITABLE, reflecting the property's value and the owner's interests - Equivalent to the Eminent Domain Approach under Common Law.

(2) In specific circumstances, the compensation amount may be zero (Nil) - Equivalent to the Police Power Approach under Common Law.

Circumstances for Zero or Nil Compensation

There are four grounds, and it is important to understand they are not arbitrary. They apply to specific situations, including:

(1) Land held for speculative purposes and unused by the owner.

(2) Abandoned land where the owner has failed to maintain control.

(3) A land whose market value is equal to or less than the value of direct state investment or subsidy in its acquisition and beneficial capital improvement.

(4) Land held by a state entity but not used for its core functions and acquired without consideration.

Procedures for Expropriation (Due Process Approach)

The Act's core objectives are facilitating land reform and addressing historical injustices. It establishes clear procedures for expropriation, including (a) notice requirements, (b) opportunities for objections, and (c) dispute resolution mechanisms.

It is the same approach or standard in the United States and under the due process approach in Common Law countries. So, it's quite disturbing why President Donald Trump and his advisers should fall captive to Mr. Elon Musk's manipulation without seeking informed legal opinion.

The Common Law Approach and International Standard

Many countries have legal frameworks for government acquisition of private property for public use. Two prominent examples are Eminent Domain and Police Power.

Eminent Domain: This power allows governments to seize private property for public use, provided they offer "Just Compensation," typically based on the property's fair market value. Due process, including notice and a hearing, is generally required. (In the South African Act, they used "Just and Equitable" compensation).

Police Power: This power allows governments to regulate private property to protect public health, safety, morals, and welfare. Just compensation is not always mandated in these cases, as the government is regulating the use, not necessarily acquiring the property. It is the same standard in the United States, and that was how New York City, for instance, was built.

The concept of zero or "nil" compensation in specific limited circumstances, as reflected in the South African legislation, is not without precedent in various jurisdictions. It is the same as “without compensation” under the common law Police Power.

In conclusion, the South African Expropriation Bill of 2025 is a multifaceted legislation aimed at addressing historical injustices and promoting land reform. It is essential to understand the facts and context surrounding this law rather than relying on misinformation and speculation to impose penalties on the government and people of South Africa.

The notion of extending refugee status to White South African farmers is utterly absurd. These individuals (our White brothers) typically enjoy upper-middle-class lifestyles in their home country, a far cry from the persecution and displacement that refugee status is intended to address. This is a classic case of a decision-making body deploying its power without considering the broader implications of its actions.

The people of South Africa deserve fairness, transparency, and accountability from their leaders. President Ramaphosa, like any other public official, deserves a fair hearing from President Donald Trump. By giving him a hearing, we can work towards ensuring that the Expropriation Act is judiciously applied and that those who suffered deprivations are duly compensated.

Right now, it suffices to say that the Expropriation Act 2024 is unripe for judicial attack - no one has suffered harm or deprivations and has not yet been fully tested or interpreted by the courts. Therefore, President Donald Trump's decision to freeze aid to South Africa warrants reconsideration. Rather than freezing aid, the US government could engage in constructive dialogue with Ramaphosa's government to better understand their concerns, developmental needs, and the essence of the Expropriation Act.