NYT Lies by Omission on SA Expropriation Law

A number of inaccuracies around land ownership in South Africa and the dangers of current expropriation legislation have been repeated in an interview between The New York Times and President Cyril Ramaphosa.

The newspaper reported that tensions between Pretoria and Washington have been inflamed partly because “Ramaphosa signed into law a measure that would allow the government to take privately held land without providing compensation”.

This framing is inaccurate. The law is not targeted at land exclusively and would allow the state to seize any fixed or movable asset without paying market-related compensation. Talk of nil or no compensation is a red herring that the South African government intends to withdraw at some point in the future as cover for retaining the less-than-market-related-compensation provisions.

Most serious economists regard the law as a serious threat to South Africa’s ability to attract fixed investment, which is necessary to raise the rate of economic growth and bring down the sky-high rate of unemployment.

In its report The New York Times asserts that current expropriation legislation is intended to “undo the severe wealth and ownership disparities” that exist in South Africa. That statement is materially false. South Africa’s wealth and ownership disparities are maintained in the main by its very weak education system, its overly regulated labour market, a nearly collapsed railroad and electricity infrastructure, the extent of corruption within the government and the civil service, and the broadly hostile approach to business and investment.

On land ownership specifically The New York Times made the claim that “white-owned farms still cover about half the country’s entire surface area”. This is intentionally misleading. South Africa is essentially a country of two halves. The western half is arid and sparsely populated (think Arizona). The eastern half is lush and receives high levels of rainfall. Black South Africans occupy more than half of land by productive value across that fertile east but are denied ownership of the properties they occupy by the government, which prefers to keep those properties in state possession. South African land ownership patterns could therefore easily be made much more equitable simply by the transfer of title to black South Africans. A policy of expropriating white-owned land and putting that in the hands of the state is therefore far less an attempt to undo severe wealth and land ownership disparities than it is to concentrate more ownership in the hands of the state itself.

The New York Times also fails to report information known to be in its possession that South Africans themselves do not support the government’s expropriation plans.

In a February 2025 poll conducted by the Social Research Foundation (SRF) respondents were asked to comment on the statement: “Expropriating land in the public interest, without paying the owner any compensation for it, is a good economic idea.” People could say whether they agreed or disagreed. Sixty-six percent of all respondents disagreed, while 28% agreed. Among black respondents, those figures were 59% disagreeing and 34% agreeing.

In another SRF poll, conducted in June 2025, respondents were asked the question slightly differently: “The state should be able to expropriate any private property, like land, houses ,and cars, if doing so was deemed to be in the public interest. Do you agree or disagree with this statement?” This time, sixty-two percent disagreed and 37% agreed. The proportion of black respondents who disagreed was 56% and 43% agreed.

Western media reporting on South Africa often shows great bias and ignorance around key questions of great national importance. The effect is to export an often wholly incorrect impression of the country, which in turn shapes investor and diplomatic opinion, and the damage caused by this is immeasurable to the lives of ordinary South Africans.