In die ANC se Groenskrif oor Grondhervorming het mnr. Pieter vd Spuy daarop gewys dat daar geen beskerming van eiendomsreg is nie. “Anders as wat goedgelowiges wil glo, is artikel 25 (die sogenoemde “eiendomsklousule”) alles behalwe ‘n eiendomswaarborg. Trouens dit magtig juis die staat om eiendom te ontneem en te onteien om uitvoering aan die ANC se grondhervormingsbeleid te gee. As algemene reël is vergoeding betaalbaar in die geval van onteiening, maar dit hoef nie noodwendig markwaarde te wees nie en dit is ook nie ‘n absolute vereiste nie. Volgens ‘n uitspraak van die Konstitusionele Hof in First National Bank of SA Ltd v Commissioner of SARS 2002 4 SA 768 (KH) kan die Staat in gepaste omstandighede soos bedoel in artikel 36 wegdoen met die vereiste om vergoeding te betaal.
Die moontlikheid dat enige besit van jou weggeneem kan word en nie net grond nie, word ‘n moontlike wet soos hieronder be-oog. Is u bereid om soos in Rhodesië, wanneer 50 swartes voor jou hek kom staan en jou swaarverdiende eiendom te kom opeis, jou baadjie te vat en te loop?
Indien hierdie onvermydelike vooruitsig nie ons Afrikanervolk wat hier in Suid Afrika oorgebly het bymekaar dwing sodat ons ons fisies teen hierdie onreg kan verset nie, is die Rhodesië-scenario onafwendbaar.
Expropriation Bill now adopted by Parly's committee
13 days ago / Gaye Davis
CAPE TOWN – Parliament’s Public Works Committee has adopted the controversial Expropriation Bill amid strong objections from opposition parties.
African National Congress (ANC) Members of Parliament (MPs) backed the bill, the Inkatha Freedom Party abstained from voting and the Democratic Alliance (DA) and United Democratic Movement (UDM) opposed it.
The bill now has to be approved by the National Assembly and must then go before the National Council of Provinces before it can be signed into law.
If passed, it will allow for expropriation of any property – not only land – with compensation decided against a range of factors, and not only market value.
Committee chairperson Ben Martins says while the majority party’s MPs supported the bill, opposition parties’ opposing views will be reported to the National Assembly, when the bill comes up for debate.
“In regard to the Expropriation Bill we have traversed down this road as far as we can. The next time we meet is in plenary when there will be more than fireworks in regard to this bill, I am sure.”
Both the DA and the UDM believe the bill is at odds with the Constitution when it comes to the definitions of “property” and “expropriation”.
The DA’s Anchen Dreyer says the definition of property is too broad and could apply not only to land but also to intangible assets including contractual and intellectual property rights.
(Edited by Refilwe Pitjeng)