Ashor Sarupen, the Democratic Alliance’s federal council chairperson, stood before supporters and journalists outside the Western Cape High Court on Monday to outline a two-pronged constitutional challenge to the Expropriation Act, one targeting the law’s internal logic and the other questioning whether parliament followed proper procedure in passing it.
The DA’s application names as respondents the president, the minister of public works and infrastructure, the speaker of the National Assembly, the chairperson of the National Council of Provinces, and the speakers of all nine provincial legislatures. That list of respondents signals the breadth of the accountability question at the heart of the case: whether multiple institutions of state, from the executive to the upper house of parliament, discharged their constitutional obligations when the Act was adopted.
The party’s first line of attack focuses on what Sarupen characterized as an “irresolvable circularity” embedded in sections 19(2) and 19(3) of the legislation. Under the Act’s terms, a notice of expropriation must include compensation already determined by a court. Yet the same legislation states that court proceedings to determine compensation can only commence after the notice of expropriation has been issued. The result is an impossible loop. “It can’t be both ways,” Sarupen said. “Parliament did not properly consider this act.”
The second argument challenges the procedural validity of the Act’s passage through the NCOP, the upper house responsible for reviewing legislation. According to the DA, four provincial delegations received final mandates from speakers who lacked legal authority to issue them. Three additional provincial delegations voted in a manner that violated their own provincial legislatures’ rules. Without proper provincial authorization, the party contends, the NCOP’s approval was constitutionally defective and the entire Act is invalid.
DA public works and infrastructure spokesperson Bonginkosi Madikizela traced the party’s opposition through earlier attempts to amend expropriation legislation and Section 25 of the constitution, arguing the DA had consistently opposed each effort on property rights grounds. He noted that the Act permits the state to expropriate land for nil compensation, a provision the party views as particularly problematic, and said the court challenge fulfils a commitment made during the Act’s parliamentary passage.
DA national spokesperson Jan de Villiers framed the stakes in economic terms. “Property rights make the economy work, and it allows jobs to be created,” he said. “Temporary ownership is vulnerable ownership and it is at the mercy of the state.”
Meanwhile, AfriForum CEO Kallie Kriel addressed the media before the hearing opened, expressing support for the DA’s challenge. Kriel warned that the Act would create legal uncertainty and potentially undermine investment and economic growth. He stated that AfriForum is prepared to pursue the matter through appeal courts and ultimately the Constitutional Court if necessary, and argued that South Africa’s land restitution challenges stem primarily from corruption and administrative failures rather than deficiencies in existing legislation.
Sarupen, responding to questions about land reform more broadly, argued that South Africa requires legislation that protects property rights while permitting expropriation for legitimate public purposes such as infrastructure development, provided compensation is paid. “What we need is stable legislation that attracts investment, ensures people can build intergenerational wealth and protects as many rights as possible,” he said.
Whether the Western Cape High Court accepts either the rationality argument or the procedural challenge will determine not only the fate of the Act but also the degree to which the NCOP’s mandate-verification processes face scrutiny going forward.