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.

The Deputy Minister of Public Works continued to take Members through the comments made during the public hearings on the Expropriation Bill, indicating what comments had been made and whether the Department agreed with them or had other views. The Department had added to the Preamble to make it clear that section 34 of the Constitution provided that anyone had the right to approach the courts for resolution of a dispute. In relation to the definitions, there was discussion on whether the Bill should refer to both high courts and magistrates’ courts.

The Committee continued with the deliberation 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 UDM MP wanted to know how it was possible to make reference to sections 12 and 13 of the Expropriation Act of 1975 in clause 29(1)(b) while this law had been repealed in clause 31. It seemed superfluous to make reference to an Act that had been repealed.

The Bill incorporating the proposed amendments was not yet ready so the Deputy Minister discussed with the Committee some of the proposed changes to the Bill that had been agreed upon so far.

Members raised concerns about the variation in judgements in Magistrates Courts; the potential definition of expropriation; definition of property being not limited to land. Some MPs wanted to “subject to the payment of just and equitable compensation” and just add “according to the Constitution and the Act”.

The Deputy Minister of Public Works presented the latest version of the Expropriation Bill, with some amendments that had been proposed by the Committee or other commentators at earlier sessions. Members firstly wanted to clarify whether this Bill was not preventing other spheres of government from exercising expropriation powers, and the Deputy Minister clarified that any such processes would have to be in line with legislation and following the precepts of Chapter 3 of the Bill.

The Deputy Minister of the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform (DRDLR), addressed the Committee on the motivation for the amendments to the Extension of security of tenure (land) Amendment Bill, saying the fundamental resolve was to overcome decades of hardship in South Africa. Its redress was not about obsolete political stories, but about the creation of just opportunities.

The Committee was briefed by the Ingonyama Trust Board (ITB) on its third quarter 2014/15 performance and financial report. Apologies were received from the Minister and Deputy Minister. At the outset, Members expressed their dismay that the ITB was reporting from a document that contained different figures to the one sent through to Members earlier, and it was difficult to follow the presentation. Secondly, several commented that the reporting format was problematic, as it did not conform to standard practices nor terminology as used in the Public Finance Management Act.

The Department of Rural Development and Land Reform (DLDLR) provided a progress report on its interventions to address the challenges arising from the actions of the Rama Communal Property Association (CPA). The CPA had initiated some income generating activities on its land, which included a quarry business, and had started a museum and an entertainment centre that featured a cinema. In partnership with the Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality and private investors the CPA was in the process of developing houses on its land.

This paper discusses the history of irrigation development and related land allocation in the Bagré area in the South of Burkina Faso. It specifically analyses current processes at play as part of the recent Bagré Growth Pole Project implemented by the government of Burkina Faso with support of the World Bank. The paper stresses the efforts made to put in place a fair and equitable compensation mechanism for the people being affected by the extension of the irrigated area downstream of the Bagré dam.

A constitutional amendment bill has been tabled before Parliament with the primary aim of overhauling the Constitutional Right to Protection from deprivation of property (Article 26).