Parliamentary spokesperson Moloto Mothapo.
THE DA’s 'factually inaccurate and misleading' media statements that only four provinces voted in favour of the Expropriation Bill when the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) considered the Bill seeks to undermine the commitment of that legislative arm to carry out its constitutional obligations, says Parliament.
“According to our records, seven provinces voted in favour of the Expropriation Bill, far exceeding the required majority required by the Constitution. In terms of section 65 of the Constitution, the majority that is required to pass an ordinary bill affecting provinces – a section 76 bill – of which the Expropriation Bill is one, is at least five provinces. It is, therefore, disingenuous to attempt to attack the constitutionality of the Expropriation Bill on the grounds that the NCOP failed to comply with its constitutional obligations,” said Parliamentary spokesperson Moloto Mothapo.
His remarks came as the relationship between Government of National Unity (GNU) partners, the ANC and the DA stood on shaky ground after President Cyril Ramaphosa signed the Expropriation Bill into law - a move the DA said it would challenge in court.
DA leader John Steenhuisen has since declared a formal GNU dispute, saying: “Any coalition agreement is premised on the acknowledgement that the larger party should be prepared to negotiate and compromise when required – because all parties in the GNU, including the ANC, only represent the interests of a minority.
He said if they could not fulfil their mandate to their voters within the GNU, “we will have to seriously consider our next steps”.
EFF researcher Lubabalo Ntsholo noted that the new law was in fact not much different from the previous version of the Act.
“The white rightwing is horrified for no reason at all, their interests are still strongly protected by the new Act; and those who are excited that this Act may expedite the sloth-paced land reform programme in the country have no reason to be excited at all. The Act for instance makes it mandatory that no expropriation can take place until the State has exhausted all available avenues to negotiate with those who own the property to be expropriated. Even after the expropriation process has been initiated, the Act requires that there be consensus between the expropriating authority and the owner of the property on the amount of compensation, failing which the courts must determine an amount of compensation that is considered just and equitable,” he said.
Political analyst professor Sipho Seepe said: “As we move towards local government elections, we are going to see more of these gimmicks. The GNU is only sustainable to the extent that DA allows it. The rest is just pretence.”
Policy analyst Nkosikhulule Nyembezi said South Africans needed to be “concerned” when the DA pushed to block the implementation of legislation passed by the previous administration.
“Forcing the president to delay signing and commencing legislation undermines parliament and our democracy. If the DA does not focus on strengthening the government to implement laws and budgets passed by parliament, they will struggle to realise their ambition of transforming the government and returning South Africa to constitutional and fiscal sanity. The DA risks being remembered as peddling a cheap public-relations stunt,” Nyembezi said.
Cape Times