Expropriation Bill [B4-2015]: deliberations, with Deputy Minister

Meeting report

Clause 26: Expropriation register
Nothing has been changed.

Clause 27: Offences
Mr Andre Meiring, Chief Director: Property Policy; indicated that clause 27 had been reworded as it became apparent that it would be the expropriating authority that would have to apply the sanctions if anyone commits an offence in terms of the processes outlined in the Bill, creating the “referee and the player” situation. Clause 27(2) had been reworded to read as: “A civil court may impose a fine up to a maximum prescribed amount, in favour of the National Revenue Fund, on a person referred to in subsection(1), upon application by the expropriating authority brought on notice to the affected person”.

Mr M Filtane (UDM) supported the addition that had been made by the Department but expressed concern about the implications of the word “fraud” in the reworded clause 27(5) as fraud was different from mere misrepresentation of facts.

Mr K Sithole (IFP) also expressed concern about the part “to be punished as if he or she had been convicted of fraud” as this implied that the person who had misrepresented facts was to be charged of fraud.

Dr Q Madlopha (ANC) responded that clause 27(5) was clear that the person to be charged as if committed fraud was the one who had wilfully furnished false or misleading information in any written instrument.

Mr Filtane maintained that the word “fraud” was perhaps extreme and could have serious implications on the career of the person who would be charged of such an offence.

The Chairperson suggested that the part “to be punished as if he or she had been convicted of fraud should” should be deleted.

Mr Gideon Hoon, Senior State Law Adviser, Chief State Law Adviser (CSLA), admitted that Members are correct that the person who had wilfully furnished misleading information would be found guilty according to section 27(5) of the Bill and the prescribed punishment of “fraud” was the same punishment that would have been imposed by a court.

Ms Ngcobozi also supported the proposal to delete the part “to be punished as if he or she had been convicted of fraud should”. It should be left at the discretion of the court to decide on the punishment to be imposed on the individual that had been found guilty of wilfully furnishing misleading information to the expropriating authority.

Mr Hoon maintained that it is statutory to prescribe the punishment in the Bill and therefore it was unnecessary to delete the word “fraud” as this was once again the same punishment that would have been imposed by a court.

Mr M Dlamini (EFF) said that the Parliamentary Law Adviser had proven once again why they should not be taken seriously or trusted as it was impossible to have a Bill without prescribing a punishment to be imposed to an individual who had been found guilty of an offence.

Mr Filtane interjected and pointed out that it was unfair and unnecessary for Mr Dlamini to bash the legal advisers as MPs come to Parliament without even the slightest qualification in legal matters and it was imperative to have the legal advisers in the processing of any Bill.

Dr Madlopha also agreed that the legal advisers were supporting Members in the processing of the Bill and they could not be labelled as “untrusted”. She agreed that there was a need to prescribe the sentence in the Bill and the Department could just rework clause 27(5).

Mr Jeremy Cronin, Deputy Minister of Public Works, responded that there was a need to distinguish between the offence and the punishment as these were two totally different things. There is a general consensus that any person who had wilfully furnished misleading information should be found guilty according to section 27(5) of the Bill. It was indeed correct that the Bill needs to give guidance to court on the kind of punishment to be imposed on the individual that had been found guilty of an offence. The Department still favoured that clause 27(5) should be retained as it is, but would also consider the suggestion to rework this clause to accommodate concerns of Members.

Ms Dreyer asked about the average sentence that is imposed to any individual that had been found to have committed fraud.

Mr Filtane responded that the matter of average sentence was irrelevant since law is applied sporadically and there is no consistence in the sentencing of individuals. The concern was on the fact that there are serious career implications once an individual is charged with fraud.

Ms Masehela clarified that clause 27(5) was clear that the person who had been found guilty of wilfully furnishing misleading information to the expropriating authority would be charged equally as if he or she has been convicted of fraud.

Deputy Minister Cronin responded that the Department was compelled to punish individuals that would wilfully furnish misleading information to the expropriating authority and this was irrelevant whether there was a personal gain or not in that act.

Members agreed with the suggestion.

Clause 28: Regulations
Mr Filtane wanted to know the rationale behind the use of “may” in clause 28(1) as there was an agreement that the Department should use “must” in cases where there are prescribed instructions.

Dr Madlopha responded that the Department had made it clear that there are stages in the Bill where it would not be necessary or uncertain if the Minister needed to make the regulations, hence the use of “may”.

Ms Ngcobozi responded that the use of “may” in clause 28(1) was because the Minister has the discretion to make the regulations.  

Members agreed with the clarification.

Clause 29: Interpretation of laws dealing with expropriation
Nothing has been changed.

Clause 30: Amendment of Act
Ms A Dreyer (DA) suggested that clause 30 should be deleted in its entirety and be replaced with nothing as MPs had a constitutional right to introduce Bills to Parliament, and this right was only given to Minister in clause 30.

Dr Madlopha proposed that perhaps it was unnecessary to delete the whole clause 30 and the best way could be to delete “only” and add “and Members of Parliament”.

Mr Dlamini also supported the suggestion not to remove the whole clause 30 but just delete “only” and add “and Members of Parliament”.

Mr Filtane wanted to know if it was the standard practice for any Bill to have such a clause in the first place, as the amendment of Act was a constitutional right of any Member of Parliament.

Deputy Minister Cronin supported the suggestion to delete the whole clause 30 as it well understood that any Act can be amended.

Members agreed with the suggestion.

Clause 31: Repeal of laws
Mr Filtane wanted to know how it was possible to make reference to sections 12 and 13 of the Expropriation Act, 1975 (Act No 63 of 1975) in clause 29(1)(b) while this law is repealed in clause 31. It looked like it was superfluous to make reference to an Act that had been repealed by the President.

Deputy Minister Cronin responded that clause 32(1)(b) clarified the concern of Mr Filtane that “this Act does not apply to any expropriation initiated through delivery of a notice of expropriation prior to the date of commencement of this Act or to any consequences of any expropriation initiated or completed prior to the date of commencement of this Act”.

Mr Filtane stated that he was privy of the fact that the Expropriation Act of 1975 has been repealed because it was unconstitutional but what is unclear is whether the whole Act was unconstitutional or some portions. If the Department was repealing the whole Expropriation Act of 1975 then there was no necessity to be mentioned in clause 29(1)(b).

Ms Ngcobozi responded that it was impossible to interpret whole clause 29 without reading clause 31 and 32 as there was a transitional arrangement between these clauses.

Mr Dlamini asked why there is specific reference to the Expropriation Act, 1975 as this was not clear in the explanation provided.

Ms Ngcobozi responded that the Expropriation Act, 1975 was currently in operation but there is a transition to phase it out by implementing the new Act.

Dr Madlopha maintained that clause 32(1)(b) clarified the concern of Mr Filtane that the Expropriation Act, 1975 would not be referenced as soon as the new Act becomes law.   

Mr Filtane appealed to the Department to go back to the drawing board in order to sort out the confusion in clause 29(1)(b) and clause 31. It was unclear as to which Act would be applied in the transitional period as the assumption was that the transitional period would become obsolete immediately when the new Act becomes law. There are salient contradictions between clause 29(1)(b) and clause 31.

Deputy Minister Cronin responded that clause 29(1)(b) made it clear that any outstanding compensation would need to be construed as a reference to compensation contemplated in the provisions of section 25(3) of the Constitution and the provisions of this Act and not section 12 and 13 of the Expropriation Act, 1975.

Members agreed with the clarification.

Clause 32: Transitional arrangement and savings
Nothing has been changed.

Clause 33: Short title and commencement
Mr Dlamini asked why the short title of the Bill did not specify the part of “just and equitable compensation” in order to be consistent to the definition of the Bill. He wanted to know if it was possible to assume that the Bill was precisely focused on expropriation and not compensation.

Dr Madlopha also asked if there was any particular reason why the part about “just and equitable compensation” had been omitted under the short title of the Bill.

Ms E Masehela (ANC) responded that clause 33(1) was only making reference to the title of the Bill and not the definition.

Members agreed with the explanation.

Afternoon session

Re-drafting of certain proposed amendments: approval by Committee
The Chairperson indicated that the Parliamentary Law Adviser would read all the amendments that had been incorporated by the Department from the suggestions that had been made by Members in the previous engagement.

Ms Dreyer said that the Committee would need another session where Members would be given an opportunity to get a final copy of the Bill included all the proposed amendments that had been made today.

Deputy Minister Cronin responded that the Committee would indeed need another session so as to allow the Department to incorporate all the proposed amendments that had been made this morning before producing a final version of the Bill.

“property”
Mr Filtane wanted to know what had happened to those issues where the Department had promised to still apply its mind on, for example, the definition of “property”.  

Ms Dreyer asked if the proposed amendments that had been made this morning would be incorporated in the final version of the Bill so that Members could vote on a clause to clause basis.

The Chairperson responded that the Committee was in a process of preparing for the final version of the Bill. The Department should by the next meeting come up with the final version of the Bill with all the proposed amendments.

Mr Meiring responded that the on the issue of the definition of “property”, all the Department was trying to do was to define “property” in an open- ended way. It must be noted that the Department had been reluctant to provide a definition of “property” for the reason that the way in which courts, particularly the Constitutional Court interprets the meaning of “property” has shifted and this was a complex matter. There was a strong feeling within the Committee that the Department needed to provide the definition of “property” and what had been done was to define it an open-ended way. The definition of “property” does not limit what is to be expropriated and, what limits what could be expropriated, is what the Constitution says about expropriation. The Act also made it clear that the Minister of Public Works could not expropriate property that does not fall within his mandate, so the limitation to what could be expropriated is contained in a myriad ways and it was unhealthy to limit such to the definition of “property”. In essence, the Department does not have any further input on the definition of “property” as the advice was that the current definition should be retained.

The Chairperson suggested that the Committee should be provided with different definitions of “property” that had been used in various court judgments.

Dr Madlopha responded that even if the Committee could be provided with different definitions of property that had been used in various court judgements; this would not help as these would be different definitions from different court judgement. The best solution is to stick to the current definition of “property” which is covered in the Constitution.  

Mr Dlamini indicated that there was confusion since the issue of expropriation and compensation currently operated under the Expropriation Act of 1975 while the Constitution made it clear that any person or community that had been dispossessed of property after June 1913 is entitled to restitution of that property or to equitable redress. The reality is that the Bill was specifically focused on land which had been stolen from the majority of citizens and there was no need to “beat around the bush” on the matter.

Mr Meiring responded that expropriation takes place virtually every day through a myriad of organs of state, each with its own empowering legislations and some of that legislation refers to the process outlined in the Expropriation Act, 1975(Act No 63 of 1975). However, the Expropriation Act of 1975 is far short of the constitutional requirement and this was why the Department was introducing a new Act which would bring about a uniformed process that meets the ethos of the Constitution. A number of expropriating authorities are following desperate processes each trying to live up to the requirement of the legislation and other requirements like PAJA steps. The Expropriation Act of 1975 was currently the empowering legislation which allows the Minister of Public Works to expropriate land but this Act needs to be read in conjunction with all the requirements of the Constitution.

Ms Masehela also supported the suggestion to retain the current definition of “property” as the definition was more open-ended and could include many things and most of the court judgments are more specific and focused on a particular issue on that particular time.

Mr Filtane suggested that this debate should be put aside at the moment as there is no one that had come up with any definition of “property” which could be debated in the meeting. The focus should be on how “property” is defined in other countries.

Dr Madlopha reminded Members that in the previous engagement the agreement was that Members should come up with their definitions of “property”.

Ms Dreyer indicated that Mr Johan Kruger had volunteered to provide the Committee with the definition of “property” during the official public hearings.

The Chairperson added that the Committee would need to contact Mr Kruger in order to assist in providing the definition of “property”.  

Dr Madlopha interjected and mentioned that the time for public hearings had passed and therefore it was improper to consult Mr Kruger at this point in time. The Committee should rather come up with its own definition of “property”.

Mr Dlamini also agreed that the time for public hearings had long passed and the Committee could not be subjected to the arrangement of Mr Kruger who is not even known where he is coming from. The Committee should rather stick to the definition of “property” that is provided in section 25 of the Constitution.

The Chairperson suggested that Members should rather suspend the debate on “property” at the moment and focus on all the amendments that had been incorporated by the Department so that Members could see if their amendments had been effected.

Ms Ngcobozi clarified that the Committee would vote on the final version of the Bill which would incorporate all the proposed amendments including those of today.

Long Title and Preamble
Dr Madlopha indicated that the ANC was very clear from the outset that “subject to just and equitable compensation” in the Long Title of the Bill should be deleted and replaced by “as contemplated in section 25 of the Constitution”. The Bill at the moment looked like it was about expropriation and compensation, while it only needed to focus on expropriation.

Ms Dreyer said that she was completely opposed to the suggestion by Dr Madlopha to delete “subject to just and equitable compensation” as this was a crucial component of this whole Bill. The longer name of the Bill referred to matters that would be discussed in the Bill and the five most important words in the Bill included “expropriation”, “property”, “public purpose”, “public interest” and “compensation” and it was impossible to delete any of these key words in the Bill.

Mr Dlamini stated that the purpose of the Bill was on expropriation and not compensation and there seemed to be an obsession with compensation as the Bill was mainly meant to focus on expropriation. It must be flagged that section 25 of the Constitution makes it clear that there is a need to take into account on how the property was acquired and therefore it was unclear how to settle the mortgage bond of the property that was acquired unjustly. In essence, the part of “just and equitable compensation” should be deleted as it was indicated in the previous engagement that it would be unaffordable for the state to compensate for the property to be expropriated.

Dr Madlopha said that Chapter 5: Compensation for expropriation, in clause 12(1) covered the concern that had been raised by Ms Dreyer.

The Chairperson suggested that the current definition of the Bill should be retained at the moment and then Members would be given an opportunity to express their views when voting on the final version of the Bill. The consensus from the majority of political parties is that “just and equitable compensation” in the definition of the Bill should be deleted.

Mr Sithole reiterated that the IFP had been opposed to the inclusion of “just and equitable compensation” in the definition of the Bill as this was covered extensively in Chapter 5.

Ms Dreyer wanted to put it on record that the DA was strongly opposed to the suggestion to delete “just and equitable compensation” in the definition of the Bill.

Dr Madlopha wanted to know the rationale behind going clause by clause again as the two most outstanding issues was mainly on the definition of “property” and the proposal to delete “just and equitable compensation” in the definition of the Bill.

Clause by clause consideration
The Chairperson maintained that the Committee still needed to go through the Bill on a clause to clause basis so as to pick up other outstanding matters that would need to be incorporated in the final version.

Mr Sithole asked about the position of UDM on the proposal to delete “just and equitable compensation” in the definition of the Bill.

Mr Filtane responded that the UDM regarded this as a minor issue and therefore it was irrelevant whether the part was deleted or retained.

Chapter 1: Definitions and Application of Act
Clause 1: Definitions
Ms Dreyer indicated that the word “legal disability” in clause 1(e) is ambiguous and therefore needed to be reworked as raised issues of different interpretations. The Department had agreed to look at the matter but it looked like this had not been incorporated in the amendment B-list that was distributed today.

Mr Hoon responded that the term “legal disability” was the exact same wording that was used in the legal drafting and Parliament and the Department was worried that the word could have a different interpretation if could be reworked.

Ms Dreyer added that there are many issues that fell under “legal disability” like suspension of the driver’s license but could still not require the owner or holder of the property to have a representative.

Dr Madlopha also supported the suggestion to retain the word “legal disability” for the sake of consistence to the standard of legal drafting.  

Mr Johannes Lekala, Deputy Director: Expropriation, DPW, responded that the context of “legal disability” was important and in this instance the reference was precisely on property.

Ms Dreyer indicated that it was interesting that “legal disability” was limited to “property” while the very definition of “property” to be expropriated was still not limited to land and could be anything.

Dr Madlopha clarified that the word “legal disability” was under the definition of an “owner” and therefore the word “legal disability” needed to be contextualise to “property”.  

Ms Dreyer expressed concern that the Department had unilaterally decided not to incorporate some of the proposed amendments that had been made by Members in the previous engagement, without providing any explanation for doing so.

The Chairperson said that the general consensus was the word “legal disability” should be retained with some concerns from Ms Dreyer.

Members agreed with the suggestion.

“property”
Ms Dreyer requested the Department to provide a definition of “property” as what was to be expropriated was “property” and the Committee had not been provided of the definition of what ought to be expropriated. The limit of what was to be expropriated would be provided in the definition of “property” and at the moment it was unclear whether the pension funds, inheritance and investment could also be included in the expropriation.

Dr Madlopha agreed that the way “property” is defined in the Constitution was very broad but what was not correct was to reduce the broadness of this definition. The definition of “property” was broad because it is a law of general application.  

Mr Filtane highlighted that there was no definition of “property” on section 25 of the Constitution. It was unclear what exactly was causing the Department to avoid providing the definition of “property”. It must be pointed out that section 25 of the Constitution does not refer to an unregistered interest in property and section 25(7) only referred to property that was acquired after 19 June 1913 ignoring property acquired before this time. It was unclear at the moment if the Department would not expropriate property that was acquired before 19 June 1913. It would be the biggest loophole for the Department to only define property as “contemplated in section 25 of the Constitution” as there are people in the country that had been holding to property prior to 1913, as this point was articulated in the previous engagement.

Mr Sithole said that the Bill was referring to expropriation and the definition of “property” should be retained as it is and any attempt to come up with the definition of “property” would reduce what ought to be expropriated.

Mr Dlamini indicated that the EFF was clear from the onset that section 25 of the Constitution should not be chosen selectively to make the part of compensation a priority while there are other issues that need to be taken into consideration when dealing with expropriation.

Ms Dreyer mentioned that the Constitution was the foundation of the democracy of South Africa and therefore it was important to draft bills that are constitutionally compliant.

Mr Filtane reiterated that section 25 of the Constitution does not even attempt to define “property” and the Department had devised the smartest way to avoid providing the definition of “property”. The fact that there are different definitions of “property” proves that the Committee would need to reach a consensus on the proper definition “property”.

Ms D Kohler-Barnard (DA) said that there might be unintended consequences in the failure to define “property” and this was something that the Committee needed to take into consideration. She wanted to know if the legal team had looked at the global treaties and how expropriation would be undertaken as most portfolio committees fell under various global treaties.

Mr Dlamini stated that the Bill fell under section 25 and this was a general consensus that had been agreed upon. The EFF was clear that Chapter 5: Compensation for Expropriation should be scraped as this meant that white people would be the ones who would be compensated for the stolen land. The Bill was trying to deal with the mess that had been created by Mr Verwoerd and the DA wanted to maintain that legacy of Verwoerd.

Ms Dreyer interjected and said the EFF Member was clearly out of order as he seemed to resort to insults than discussing the issues of expropriation.

The Chairperson appealed to Members to remove emotions on the matter by not resorting to insults and focus on the Bill.

[After a 15 minutes break, the Committee reconvened.]

The Chairperson requested Members to continue with the debate on the definition of “property”.

Dr Madlopha maintained that the definition of “property” in the Constitution was broad and any attempt to reduce the definition of “property” would leave the government limited on what ought to be expropriated. It must be stated that this Bill was not drafted just because the ANC is in governance but to cover every corners, so as to accommodate any political party that were to take over from the ANC. The Bill was also constitutionally compliant as Clause 7: Notice of intention to expropriate in Chapter 4 clearly illustrates all the steps to be undertaken before the expropriating authority could commence with the process of expropriation.

Ms Ngcobozi stated that the Constitutional Court had indicated that it was practically impossible and judicially unwise to attempt to furnish a comprehensive definition of “property”, according to section 25 of the Constitution. This was perhaps what informed the Department to refrain from providing the definition of “property”.

“valuer”  
Ms Dreyer wanted to know why the definition of “valuer” was limited to land while the definition of property was not limited to land. What was to happen in cases where what was to be expropriated was not land?

Mr Meiring responded that there are numerous categories of properties that could be expropriated and there would also be categories of experts, who would assess the value of different properties and other factors pertinent to property. However, it is very rare for those experts to be constituted in a professional body such as “valuers”, and the Department had chosen to mention the professional “valuers” as they are constituted in terms of law.

Ms Dreyer suggested that the Department should add “to for anything other than land, means an accredited party” under the definition of “valuer” in clause 1.

Mr Filtane supported the suggestion that had been made by Ms Dreyer but proposed that “accredited” should be replaced by “competent” as accreditation could go a long way than competence.

Mr Meiring responded that the profession of valuers deals with immovable assets of which land is the main issue, but if it is the farm that is to be expropriated then the “valuer” is also competent to value the moveable assets that form part of the going concern, like tractors, irrigation and other equipment. The Department would still need to deliberate on the proposed inclusion of “competent” than “accredited”.

Clause 2: Application of Act
Nothing has been changed.

Chapter 2: Powers of the Minister of Public Works to expropriate
Nothing has been changed.

Chapter 3: Investigation and valuation of property
Ms Dreyer proposed that there should be an addition of “repaired to its original condition” in clause 5(7), on page 8in case where the property was damaged as a result of the performance of an act contemplated in subsection(2). However, it must be emphasised that this was only applicable to cases where the expropriation was not approved.

Mr Meiring responded that the Department would rework clause 5(7) but it must be stated that the addition of “repaired to its original condition” would bring about all the unintended consequences. The Department would bring forth a practical clarification of the kind of repairable that must be done as a result of an act of expropriation.

Mr Filtane suggested that it would be the best to add “returned to state of functionality” as this would be less complex than assessing the original condition of the property before the act of expropriation.

Mr Meiring promised that the Department was taking on board all the suggestions that had been made.

Mr Filtane suggested that “its” in clause 6(3) should be replaced by “his or her” as this was consistent way that the Bill had been drafted.

The Chairperson proposed the inclusion of “a” instead of “its” in clause 6(3).

Members agreed with the proposal.

Chapter 4: Intention to Expropriate and Expropriation of Property
Clause 7: Notice of intention to expropriate
Ms Dreyer suggested that in clause 7(5) the expropriated authority should provide reasons for the rejection of the objections to the notice of intended expropriation as this was part of administrative justice.

Mr Filtane wanted to know if it was necessary to have clause 7(2)(d) as the matter had been covered in clause 7(2)(c).

Mr Meiring responded that the Department would prefer to keep both clause 7(2)(c) and (d) as the Department would need to provide both the reasons and the purpose of acquiring a particular property.

Ms P Kopane (DA) indicated that it was flagged in the previous engagement that the word “approximate” in clause 8(b)(i) and(ii) should be deleted as had the potential to create uncertainty.

Mr Meiring reiterated once again that the removal of the word “approximate” would imply that the portion of the property to be expropriated must firstly be surveyed and this was a time consuming process as needed to be approved by a surveyor general. The whole process had the potential to greatly extend the process of expropriation, and therefore the compensation would be subject to the subsequent survey of the land. In essence, the removal of the word “approximate” would compel the Department to survey the land before making compensation to the expropriated owner. This scenario only applied to the situation where the state was only expropriating a portion of surveyed piece of land.

Ms Dreyer added that the concern with “approximate” was that this might lead to abuse of the portion of land that is required since there is no limit that is stipulated.

Mr Meiring responded that there would be a description of the land that would be required as even stipulated in the clause 7(2)(b).

Members agreed with the explanation.

Clause 9: Vesting and possession of expropriated property
Mr Filtane expressed concern that there was no definition of a “person” in the Bill and yet in clause 9(1)(a) there is a reference that the ownership of the property might be expropriated in order to be given to a “person”. The general consensus has been that the property would be expropriated for the public purpose or public interest and not given to an individual.

Ms Ngcobozi responded that the “person” in clause 9(1)(a) referred to a juristic person and did not necessarily make reference to an individual but it was a legal way of drafting the Bill in accordance with the rules of the Interpretation Act.

Mr Filtane added that this ambiguity was precisely the problem as Members had raised concern in the earlier stages of deliberations that the Bill could be used to expropriate property in order to be given to the individuals that are politically connected. A private person could not in any way be a representative of public purpose or interest.

Mr Meiring responded that a “person” in this instance referred to any organ of state and it was not necessarily referring to an individual. The Department would still have to relook at the offending word “person” so as see if there was no better and suitable word that could be used.  

Ms Dreyer said that there was also ambiguity in clause 9(1)(a) in terms of the provision of a timeframe for the date of expropriation. The concern was on the fact that the expropriating authority may take possession of the property before the payment of the amount of compensation.

Mr Meiring responded that clause 17(1) clarified the concern that had been raised by Ms Dreyer as it is highlighted that two separate dates must be indicated in the notice of expropriation which causes ownership to vest in the expropriating authority and the date stating when the right of possession would pass to the expropriating authority. The Department decided to change “possession” to “right to possession” because the actual possession need not take place but the right to possess passes to the expropriating authority. There is no chance for the state to take possession of the property without effecting payment of compensation to the expropriated owner or holder.

Members agreed with the explanation.

Directors-General
Mr Meiring suggested that the Department needed to rework the reference to Directors-General throughout the Bill as there was a realisation that there are other organs of state that are not headed by Directors-General but Accounting Officers.

Members agreed with the proposal.

Chapter 5: Compensation for Expropriation
Mr Dlamini repeated that the EFF was clear that Chapter 5: Compensation for Expropriation should be scrapped as it would be unaffordable for the state to compensate for all the property that had been stolen. It was absurd to see that government had been compensating farmers with billions while it is evident that they had acquired that land unjustly and forcibly.

Ms Kopane wanted to know the extent in which the court would go in terms of verifying whether certain property had been stolen.

The Chairperson responded that the title deeds could assist in determining if the property was stolen or not.

Ms Ngcobozi added that it was the onus of the person who had alleged that the property had been stolen to provide evidence.

Mr Dlamini asked about the Act which was currently at play for the person who wanted to claim that a certain property had been stolen.

Mr Meiring responded that the Act that is currently at play for the person or community that had been dispossessed of land will be Restitution Act and if the state agrees with the claim that had instituted by the dispossessed person or community, then the instrument that would be used to obtain that property would be the Expropriation Act.   

The Chairperson indicated that the Committee would still need to meet in the next meeting in order to continue with the deliberations on the Bill. Members would be compelled to make any proposed amendments in the morning and the vote on the Bill in the afternoon with those amendments to be effected by the Department.

The meeting was adjourned.