Imagine if your government could take your house, your land, and all your private property, and not be required to give you a single cent. This is the fear surrounding South Africa’s Expropriation Act–a bill signed into law by President Cyril Ramaphosa on January 23rd, 2025. Expropriation allows the government to take private property, in this case, primarily land, and repurpose it to further the public interest. South Africa’s Constitution outlines two reasons for which land can be expropriated: public purpose and public interest. Public purpose entails any use connected with the administration of laws by the government. 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.”
The 2024 Expropriation Act aims to heal wounds left by apartheid – the system of institutionalized racial segregation enforced by South Africa’s white minority during the 20th century. The 1913 Natives Land Act forcibly removed thousands of Black families from their lands, and this dispossession is still felt today. South Africans own just 4% of private farmland. The 7% of the population that is white, the majority of whom are of Afrikaner descent, owns around 75% of the same land as a result of decades of segregation and discriminatory laws. South Africa’s government has worked tirelessly since the end of apartheid in 1994 to follow its constitution and create a more equal country.
American President Donald Trump has reacted to the legislation negatively, claiming it is racist against South Africa’s white minority. The tension lies in potentially “nil compensation” – or no compensation, monetary or otherwise, for land that is expropriated The Act also states that compensation must be “just and equitable,” which may amount to nothing if that land is not being used for financial gain. Stipulations for how nil compensation might be determined are not outlined by the bill.
Trump signed an Executive Order on February 7, 2025, entitled “Addressing Egregious Acts of the Republic of South Africa.” The order halts United States (US) foreign aid to South Africa amidst the dismantling of the United States Agency for International Development. In 2023, the US sent over $440 million in aid to South Africa, with an emphasis on health programs targeting HIV. South Africa does not rely on this aid to function, however, global health organizations have expressed concern about the pause on HIV-related aid. Additionally, Section 2(b) of the Order stated, “the United States shall promote the resettlement of Afrikaner refugees escaping government-sponsored race-based discrimination, including racially discriminatory property confiscation”. This comes after an Inauguration Day Executive Order that suspended the US Refugee Admissions program until it is “realigned with the interests of the United States”. Essentially, President Trump concluded that the US cannot handle the influx of immigration from refugees in recent years, but has made an exception for this specific case.
Elon Musk, an adviser to the US President who was born and raised in South Africa, referred to the Expropriation Act as containing “openly racist ownership laws”. Secretary of State Marco Rubio declined to attend a G20 meeting in Johannesburg, citing “anti-Americanism”. President Ramaphosa responded to Trump at the State of the Nation Address in Cape Town, stating, “We will not be bullied.” He also moved to defuse tensions by calling Musk on the phone and emphasizing the country’s values. However, Trump has not backed down, and tensions remain high.
As of now, no land has been expropriated, as courts have yet to provide guidelines for the law’s effects. The Democratic Alliance, ActionSA, and Freedom Front Plus have all opposed the bill. These parties intend to challenge the law in South Africa’s Constitutional Court. The main point of contention remains the provision for nil compensation. Despite what the US government has claimed, no land can legally be taken arbitrarily in South Africa. The Democratic Alliance has publicly disagreed with Trump’s claims, denouncing any funding cuts to the humanitarian aid the US offers, but eyes remain on the upcoming constitutional challenge.
Edited by Clio Bailey
