CAPE TOWN — A highly anticipated Democratic Alliance Expropriation Act challenge has officially commenced in the Western Cape High Court, setting the stage for a fierce legal battle over the future of South Africa’s property laws. The opposition party is petitioning the judiciary to declare the newly enacted framework unconstitutional and entirely invalid, arguing that the legislation—which allows the government to seize land for nil compensation—was pushed through Parliament using deeply flawed procedures.
Addressing the media outside the courthouse, party representatives outlined a comprehensive legal strategy aimed at protecting constitutional property rights. DA spokesperson Bongi provided a detailed historical timeline of the party’s resistance to the legislation, noting that the roots of the current battle stretch back nearly a decade.
According to Bongi, an earlier iteration of the Expropriation Act passed Parliament in 2016 under former President Jacob Zuma but ultimately lapsed before being signed into law. The DA also fiercely opposed the 2018 parliamentary push to amend Section 25 of the Constitution, an attempt to alter property rights protections that ultimately failed. The current bill was introduced in 2020 and processed through the public works and infrastructure committee, where Bongi serves as the DA spokesperson. Despite extensive public hearings and vigorous opposition warning of compromised property rights, the ANC and the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) joined forces in 2022 to pass the bill through the National Assembly. This legislative maneuver occurred prior to the 2024 elections and the subsequent formation of the Government of National Unity (GNU). President Cyril Ramaphosa officially signed the Act into law in January 2025, a move the DA strongly objected to as a GNU partner.
Fatal Legal Circularity and Procedural Flaws
DA spokesperson Asha took the lead in unpacking the specific, technical legal grounds of the court application, emphasizing that a constitutional democracy cannot accept a bill that effectively legalizes land grabs. The core of the DA’s argument rests on the assertion that Section 19 of the Act is fundamentally irrational due to an “irresolvable circularity” that makes the law inoperable.
Asha highlighted a direct contradiction between Section 8(3)(g) and Section 19 of the Act. Section 8(3)(g) dictates that a notice of expropriation must reflect a compensation amount that has already been agreed upon or decided by a court under Section 19. However, Section 19 states that the timeframe for instituting those very court proceedings only begins on the date the notice of expropriation is issued.
“The notice must reflect compensation determined by a court, but the act also says that you can’t go to court until a notice has been issued,” Asha explained, describing the framework as a circular law where neither action can occur without the other.
Unlawful NCOP Mandates
Beyond the text of the law, the DA is challenging the procedural integrity of the National Council of Provinces (NCOP). Asha argued that in the rush to pass the bill during the dying days of the previous parliamentary majority, provincial delegates were not lawfully authorized to vote.
The Constitution mandates that at least five provinces must vote in favor of a bill in the NCOP. The DA contends that fewer than five provincial delegations possessed lawful authority on the day of the vote. Specifically, four delegates were issued final mandates by the speakers of their respective legislatures—officials who lack the constitutional power to confer such mandates. Additionally, three other delegates were given final mandates that directly contravened the internal rules of their provincial legislatures.
Separation of Party and State
The court application names a wide array of respondents, including President Ramaphosa, the Chairperson of the NCOP, the Speaker of the National Assembly, the speakers of the nine provincial legislatures, and the Minister of Public Works.
The inclusion of the Minister of Public Works, Dean Macpherson, prompted questions regarding his dual role as a DA member and a state respondent. Asha clarified that this is strictly a separation of party and state matter, noting that Macpherson’s legal council will represent the state in court. The DA emphasized that Macpherson neither tabled nor supported the bill during its parliamentary processing; the legislation was driven under the previous administration by then-Minister Patricia de Lille.
Broader Impacts and Geopolitical Tensions
The DA is not alone in its legal pushback. Asha confirmed that other applicants, including AfriForum and an unnamed NGO, have launched separate challenges against the bill based on different legal grounds.
When pressed on whether South Africa requires expropriation legislation given its history of forced removals and arbitrary property deprivation, the DA maintained that the country needs stable, rights-respecting laws that foster intergenerational wealth and attract investment. The party argued that expropriation should be strictly limited to specific public purposes—such as building transmission lines—and must always include fair compensation, rather than creating economic uncertainty or echoing past injustices.
The high-stakes Western Cape High Court hearing arrives at a sensitive geopolitical moment. The Expropriation Act has become a primary point of contention in the ongoing diplomatic and economic standoff between South Africa and the United States, adding immense international scrutiny to the court’s impending constitutional review.
