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.

Barr Alex Aidaghese, 

Alex & Partners

Legal Practice and Consultancy

Lagos, Nigeria

+234 807 762 0672, +234 704 921 5084

ehilexander@gmail.com

February 10, 2024