/ MEDIA STATEMENT / The content on this page is not written by Polity.org.za, but is supplied by third parties. This content does not constitute news reporting by Polity.org.za.

The Expropriation Act does not belong at the Clearing House and it should not be referred there because the Act is not a dispute arising out of the GNU.
 
The fact that the DA is ideologically opposed to the Act bears no relevance. They lost the ideological argument in the last parliament, and being a member of the GNU in the 7th parliament doesn’t afford them any special powers to veto decisions of the 6th parliament.
 
The Expropriation Bill has already been approved by a majority in the National Assembly and National Council of Provinces. It is thus a law already passed; it is not a product of the GNU and is not subject to the 2024 GNU agreement.
 
Furthermore, the DA’s announcement that it is “invoking clause 19 of the GNU statement of intent” is non-sensical.
 
Clause 19 doesn’t contain an invoking mechanism. The clause only deals with how decisions within the GNU should be made.
 
Read with Clause 18, the Statement of Intent calls for decisions to be made first by consensus. If it is impossible to reach consensus then Clause 19 dictates how to reach “sufficient consensus”.
 
The DA’s announcement that it is invoking Clause 19 does not make sense because the Expropriation Act is not a disputed policy or law requiring “sufficient consensus”. That ship sailed early last year when the Bill was approved by both houses of parliament, supported by the majority of parties.
 
The implementation of the Act is a legitimate and legal outcome of that political and legislative mandate.
 
There’s no rational basis to subject the Expropriation Act to the GNU Statement of Intent when it was adopted under a different mandate.
 
If one was to extrapolate the DA’s position, how far back should the GNU go in reconsidering laws and policies adopted by previous governments and parliaments?
 
The 7th administration has no constitutional authority to undo the legislative authority of previous parliaments unless the President finds constitutional grounds for referring the bill back to Parliament.
 
Those complaining about the Bill being assented to, fail to grasp the concept of “separation of powers” between the Legislature and the Executive.
 
The same applied to the BELA Act. In that instance, the President invited further engagement on the constitutionality of the Bill before implementing it, as was his prerogative.
 
The DA position that previous decisions are now subject to their review and concurrence is irrational and absurd.
 
The DA is clutching at straws, and making a big noise about it, but the GNU Statement of Intent does not help them.
 
There is no role to play for the GNU Clearing House and the Deputy President, who chairs the Clearing House, should not agree to placing it on the Clearing House agenda.
 
Land reform in South Africa is urgent. If the DA doesn’t like the Expropriation Act it has the option of challenging it in court, as it has done with countless other laws.
 
The GNU Clearing House is not an appropriate mechanism for litigation.

Issued by GOOD Secretary-General & Member of the GNU Clearing House Mechanism Brett Herron