CAPE TOWN, Western Cape — A fierce legal showdown over the validity of the Expropriation Act intensified in the Western Cape High Court, with National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza formally rejecting the Democratic Alliance’s constitutional challenge. Arguing that the opposition’s lawsuit—which is backed by AfriForum and two other organizations—is procedurally flawed and legally baseless, Didiza’s counsel moved to dismantle the core pillars of the suit on day five of the proceedings.
Setting a combative tone early in the session, the Speaker’s legal representatives characterized the DA as a “prolific litigator” that strategically leverages the judicial system for political ends. Drawing on prior Constitutional Court phrasing, Didiza’s team argued that the opposition is far from an “indigent or bewildered litigant adrift on a sea of litigious uncertainty.” Instead, the court was told that because the DA now holds seats in government, the party makes highly calculated choices when initiating frequent legal actions. Therefore, their current maneuver is a deliberate strategy rather than a righteous legal crusade, leaving their challenge to the Expropriation Act without a legitimate constitutional hook.
The crux of the DA’s argument hinges on a dispute over parliamentary procedure. The opposition asserts that the land legislation should be entirely invalidated because four members of the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) cast votes in favor of the bill without securing explicit mandates from provincial legislators during a plenary session.
Senior Counsel Kate Hofmeyr, representing the Speaker, systematically dismantled this assertion before the court. Hofmeyr noted that the Mandating Act and the Expropriation Act carry equivalent parliamentary status. Consequently, she argued, it is legally unsound to declare one Act unconstitutional simply by measuring it against the procedural requirements of another statute.
Furthermore, Hofmeyr highlighted a critical procedural contradiction: the DA’s own representatives were present in the NCOP and notably failed to raise any objections regarding the mandates during the actual vote. Adding to the opposition’s hurdle, five separate provincial legislators have actively entered the fray to dispute the DA’s narrative regarding how the voting procedures were handled.
Beyond the procedural deadlock, the high-stakes trial is also heavily scrutinizing Section 19 of the legislation, which governs property compensation. The court is tasked with evaluating the specific criteria used to determine when “nil compensation” is deemed fair and equitable. The Speaker’s legal team is slated to address these compensation frameworks, unpacking the multitude of factors that must be weighed before the state can expropriate property without financial remuneration.
The scale of the litigation is massive, featuring approximately 13 respondents lined up to defend the legislation. This extensive roster includes the President and the Minister of Land Affairs, highlighting the executive branch’s vested interest in upholding the controversial land reform framework. As arguments continue to unfold in Cape Town, the judiciary is left to decide whether the legislative birth of the Expropriation Act was fatally flawed or firmly rooted in constitutional law.
