In this case, which was  heard before the Constitutional Court of the Republic of South Africa, The Restitution of Land Rights Amendment  Act 15 of 2014  was declared invalid. The Act, among other things, sought to extend the period in which land restitution claims could be  lodged. However, the court found that the Parliament did not sufficiently  consult with key stakeholders including those who had successfully  lodged claims under the previous Act of 1994. 

In Nigeria, the recurring impoverishment and other negative socioeconomic impacts endured by landholders affected by expropriation are well-documented and call into question the Land Use Act’s (LUA) effectiveness in protecting local land rights. The World Bank’s Land Governance Assessment Framework found that, in Nigeria, “a large number of acquisitions occurs without prompt and adequate compensation, thus leaving those losing land worse off, with no mechanism for independent appeal even though the land is often not utilized for a public purpose”.

This paper examines whether national expropriation and land laws in 30 countries across Asia and Africa put Indigenous Peoples and local communities at risk of expropriation without compensation. In particular, this paper examines whether national laws ensure that communities are eligible for compensation and whether eligibility requirements effectively close the door on communities seeking compensation.

Article One:

This law has been enacted in accordance with paragraph (4) of article 40 of the Constitution of Afghanistan.

Objectives

Article Two:

The objectives of this law are as following:

This Law determines procedures relating to expropriation in the public interest

Tanzania and Mozambique — countries of vast mountain ranges and open stretches of plateaus — now face a growing land problem. As soil degradation, climate change and population growth place enormous strains on the natural resources that sustain millions of people, multinational companies are also gunning for large swaths of land across both countries. Caught between these pressures, many poor, rural communities get displaced or decide to sell their collectively held land.

Tanzania and Mozambique — countries of vast mountain ranges and open stretches of plateaus — now face a growing land problem. As soil degradation, climate change and population growth place enormous strains on the natural resources that sustain millions of people, multinational companies are also gunning for large swaths of land across both countries. Caught between these pressures, many poor, rural communities get displaced or decide to sell their collectively held land.

A l’occasion de l’adoption du Code forestier en 2001, le Gabon a instauré un droit au partage des bénéfices au profit des communautés locales impactées par l’exploitation forestière. Alors que la législation forestière est actuellement en cours de révision, ce document a pour objectif de formuler des recommandations pour consolider l’encadrement de ce droit et sa mise en oeuvre.

In Nigeria, the recurring impoverishment and other negative socioeconomic impacts endured by landholders affected by expropriation are well-documented and call into question the Land Use Act’s (LUA) effectiveness in protecting local land rights. The World Bank’s Land Governance Assessment Framework found that, in Nigeria, “a large number of acquisitions occurs without prompt and adequate compensation, thus leaving those losing land worse off, with no mechanism for independent appeal even though the land is often not utilized for a public purpose”.

The Committee continued deliberations on the official list of committee proposed amendments to the Bill (A-list) accompanied by the B version which incorporated all the proposed amendments into the Bill. Chapter 4 on Intention to Expropriate and Expropriation of Property was completed.

The Deputy Minister of Public Works, Mr Jeremy Cronin, briefed the Committee on the preliminary responses of the Department of Public Works (DPW) to the inputs received during the public hearings on the Expropriation Bill [B4- 2015]. However, the Department had been expecting that the Committee would finalise its report on those hearings and thus did not yet have a full written response. The DPW acknowledged that there were many useful points but had not accepted all input.

The Committee continued with deliberations on the official list of proposed amendments to the Bill (A-list) accompanied by the B version of the Bill incorporating all the proposed amendments into the Bill. A DA member pointed out that the factors that had been highlighted in clause 12(1)(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) had no direct monetary value and it was difficult to see how these factors would affect the compensation. There was a proposal that the Department should add a clause 12(2)(g) that would focus on the actual financial loss that had been incurred by the expropriated owner.