CAPE TOWN, Western Cape — The ongoing Expropriation Act legal challenge mounted by the Democratic Alliance (DA) is fundamentally flawed and devoid of any constitutional basis, National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza has told the Western Cape High Court. As one of four entities contesting the sweeping legislation, the opposition party’s bid to invalidate the law was met with fierce resistance from the Speaker’s legal representatives.
The crux of the DA’s lawsuit hinges on procedural mechanics, specifically targeting Section 19 of the Constitution and the legislative mandates utilized within the National Council of Provinces (NCOP). The opposition alleges that the Expropriation Act was passed unconstitutionally because several NCOP delegates cast their votes without securing the necessary, formalized mandates from their respective provincial legislatures. According to the DA’s interpretation of the Mandating Act, these authorizations must be explicitly granted during plenary sessions to be valid.
Countering these claims, Senior Counsel Kate Hofmeyr, leading the legal defense for Speaker Didiza, characterized the opposition as “prolific litigators” who are attempting to manufacture a constitutional crisis. Hofmeyr highlighted a glaring inconsistency in the DA’s timeline, noting the peculiar absence of any formal objections from the party while the NCOP voting was actively underway.
Delving into statutory interpretation, Hofmeyr systematically dismantled the argument that the legislation breaches Sections 76, 44, or 65 of the Constitution. She asserted that attempts to leverage Section 65(1)(a) and (b) fail to establish a valid legal foundation, as those subsections merely dictate the arithmetic of NCOP voting—who holds votes and how many are required to carry the day—rather than imposing substantive constitutional obligations.
Furthermore, she addressed the DA’s heavy reliance on the Mandating Act to invalidate the new land laws. Hofmeyr emphasized a core tenet of South African law: the Mandating Act and the Expropriation Act are both parliamentary statutes of equal standing. Consequently, she argued, one Act of Parliament cannot be rendered unconstitutional merely by alleging it is inconsistent with another equivalent Act.
Armed with these arguments, the National Assembly Speaker’s counsel concluded that there is no “constitutional hook” to justify invalidating the legislation and has formally petitioned the Western Cape High Court to strike the DA’s mandate challenge off the roll entirely.
The dense legal proceedings are set to continue tomorrow, with the court scheduled to hear submissions from the legal team representing the Minister of Land Reform and Rural Development.
