Explanation of the Land Law in South Africa – and why Donald Trump drew

South African President Cyril Ramavusa is located in the middle of a political storm after he agreed to a law that gives the state the authority to confiscate some lands owned by private ownership without compensation to its owners.

The law, which has not yet been implemented, was angered by US President Donald Trump, who sees that he is distinguished against white farmers.

The political parties in the center and lobby groups in South Africa also opposed them, saying that they will challenge the confiscation law-as is the case with the law-in the court on the basis that they threaten property rights.

The Ramavusa government says the law provides for compensation in the vast majority of cases – and changes are needed to increase the black ownership of the lands.

Most private agricultural lands are still owned by white people.

When Nelson Mandela has reached power more than 30 years ago, and the racist system is finished from the apartheid system, it promised that this be corrected through the land reform program ready-but critics say that this has proven very slow and very expensive.

Legal experts told the BBC: In rare circumstances, the “public interest” will be needed.

According to the law firm in South Africa, this indicates that it will happen mainly, or perhaps, only, in relation to the land reform program.

Although it can also be used to reach natural resources such as minerals and water, the company added, In the opinion of its experts in this field, Bolilloa Mapasa and Thomas Carbridge.

Mapasa and Cberg BBC told them that, from their point of view, productive agricultural lands cannot be calculated without compensation.

They said that any confiscation without compensation – known as EWC – can only happen in a few circumstances:

• For example, when the owner did not use the ground and kept it “for speculation purposes”
• Or when “the landowner gave up by failing to exercise control it even though he is reasonably able to do so.”

Lawyers said that owners may still get compensation for buildings on the ground and natural resources.

Mabasa and Karberg added that EWC “was not intended for rural lands or agricultural lands specifically, and could include land in urban areas.”

However, in cases where the compensation is paid, the rules for change are changed, as the owners are likely to get less money.

Mapasa and Karaberg said that the plan is to obtain “fair and fair” compensation-a departure from the highest “market value” they have now reached.

They added that the government was paying compensation for the value of the market despite the fact that this was “at odds” with the constitution, which was adopted after the end of the house rule in 1994.

Lawyers said that all sources have “wide, procedural, procedural requirements”, including the owner’s right to go to court if she is not happy.

The distance from compensation for value in the market will also apply to land confiscation for a “general purpose”-such as building public schools or railways.

This was not a major debate, perhaps because it is “Busty a new concept” – a point created by JuristNewsA legal location managed by law students from all over the world.

He added, “The American constitution, for example, stipulates that the government can seize private property for public use as long as” fair compensation “is provided,” she added.

The government hopes that.

Professor Hall, Cape Land Expert at Western Cape University, BBC said that more than 80,000 land claims are still unstable.

In the eastern regions of South Africa, many blacks work on farms for free – in exchange for allowing them to live there and maintaining their livestock on part of the lands of the owners.

Professor Hall added that the government wanted to transfer the ownership of this land to the workers, and it was “unfair” to expect the market value to pay.

Over the past three decades, the government has used the current powers in favor of property- with less than compensating the market value- in less than 20 cases.

Professor Hall added that the new law was aimed at facilitating and cheaper lands to black themselves, who were “stripped of this during the white fly base or were forced to be” long -term tenants “because they could not own land.

She said, “It is a bargaining slice.”

But it suspects that the government will continue to implement the law in the foreseeable future as the “political cost” has become very high.

The academic was referring to the fact that Trump opposed the law, saying that he was distinguished against white farmers and that their lands were “seized” – a charge denied by the government.

In February, Trump reduced aid to South Africa, and in April, a 30 % tariff was announced on goods and agricultural products in South Africa, although this was stopped later for 90 days.

This was followed by confronting the famous oval office last month when Trump installed Ramavusa with a video and prints of stories that claim that white people were persecuted – a lot of his file was distorted.

Like Trump, the second largest party in the coalition government in Ramavusa, the Democratic Alliance (DA), opposes legislation.

In a statement on May 26, the party said that the Supreme Command Authority had rejected the idea of ​​”compensation nothing.”

However, he agreed on the concept of compensation only and compensation instead of compensation for the market value, adding that “a legal court should be decided.”

Surprisingly, Jaco Cleanians of the Solidarity Movement, an influential Lobby group, said that although the new law “could destroy” some companies and opposed them, he did not believe that it would lead to “the expropriation of agricultural lands on a large scale.”

“I do not see the formulation of this text that will happen,” He said in a recent discussion episode in an agricultural exhibition It was held in Frex Africa in South Africa – where a large number of conservative Africanser farmers live.

The South African real estate owners Association said that it is “irrational” “giving” compensation for nothing “to a owner carrying a ground for speculative purposes.

The association said: “There are many landowners who aim the only purpose of work to speculate on the ground. They do not get the land for free and have great detention costs,” adding that there is no doubt that the law “will be tested abundantly” in the courts.

Mapasa and Karaberg said that one view is that the EWC concept was “legal tampering” because “fundamental in the legal definition of the text is a condition for paying compensation.”

However, lawyers pointed to the alternative opinion is that the Constitution of South Africa “implicitly realizes that in some cases it will be fair and fair to be compensation.”

South African Minister of Public Works defended Dean McFireson for legislation and broke his ranks with his party, Da.

In fact, he is responsible for a new legalization, and in a discussion committee, he explained that although he had some concerns about the law, he was a “dramatic improvement” in the previous confiscation law, with greater guarantees of landowners.

He said that the law can also help end the demands of extortion on the state, and in some cases “compensation is nothing.”

It gave an example of the problems facing ESKOM.

It plans to launch a transport network more than 4,500 km (28,000 miles) from the ground to enhance electricity supplies to end the country’s energy crisis.

Before starting, some individuals colluded with ESKOM officials to buy land for a million Rand ($ 56,000; 41,000 pounds), then demanded 20 million Rand.

“Is it fair and fair to give them what they want? I do not think this is in the interest of the wider or the state,” said McFireson.

With another example, McFireson said that some of the internal cities in South Africa were in a “catastrophic” state. After leaving the owners, the buildings were “excessive in operation” and “kidnapping” of the illegal occupation. He said that the cost of the state to rebuild it can exceed its value, and in such cases, the courts can judge that the owner is qualified for “compensation nothing.”

“Nothing is a form of compensation,” added McFireson, while excluding it from the farmer.

The mayor of Johannesburg Dada Morero told the South Africa and Conditioner newspaper He wanted to use buildings for “public good”, such as accommodating about 300,000 people in a housing waiting list.

He added that the owners of nearly 100 buildings cannot be located.

“They abandoned the buildings,” he said, adding that some of the owners were from the United Kingdom and Germany.

But Mabasa and Karberg told the BBC that in such cases, it may still be paid against the buildings, albeit not the land.

They said that if the state is not able to locate the owners, it “must be deposited with compensation with the Supreme Court” if they return or follow them at a later time.

The law is in a state of forgetfulness, as Ramavusa – about four months after giving his approval to it – has not set an appointment to implement it.

He is also unlikely to do so any time soon, because he does not want to increase Trump’s restoration while South Africa was trying to negotiate a trade agreement with the United States.

On the internal front, Da leads the opposition to the legislation. She said she wanted a “judicial review”, while at the same time she was pressuring a lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of the law.

The DA’s cruel line contradicts MacPherson, who warned a few weeks ago that if the law is completely eliminated: “I don’t know what will come after that.

“In politics, sometimes you should be careful that you wish because often you can get it,” he said.

His comments shed light on deep cracks in South Africa’s policy, with some parties, such as Economy Freedom Fighters, EFFA, believing that the legislation did not go far enough to address ethnic inequality in land ownership.

With such an emotional issue, there is no easy solution to the conflict – and it is likely to continue to cause tensions inside South Africa, as well as with the American president.