President Cyril Ramaphosa has admitted in court papers that Sections 19(2), (3), and (4) of the new Expropriation Act are unconstitutional because they: “in error” provide that expropriation can take place before the landowner can challenge the matter in court.

Ramaphosa also admits that these sections may: “render the provisions void for vagueness” and contradict other sections of the Act.

This admission is contained in Ramaphosa’s answering affidavit in the court case through which AfriForum and other parties are seeking to have the Expropriation Act declared unconstitutional in the Cape Town High Court. In his affidavit, Ramaphosa also asks the court to: “remedy the unconstitutionality” of the article by: “reading in” amendments to the articles.

In the replying affidavit – submitted to the court on behalf of AfriForum in response to Ramaphosa’s answering affidavit – Kallie Kriel, CEO of AfriForum, welcomes Ramaphosa’s acknowledgement that the relevant sections of the Expropriation Act are unconstitutional.

Kriel, however, argues that, due to the extensiveness of the amendments proposed by Ramaphosa, the courts are in this case not in a position to amend the legislation themselves as per Ramaphosa’s request. According to Kriel, this is the task of parliament, and therefore Ramaphosa should have asked parliament to correct the unconstitutionalities before he secretly signed the bill into law on 20 December 2024.

In Kriel’s affidavit, AfriForum confirms that the court should declare the Expropriation Act unconstitutional in its entirety, or alternatively that the unconstitutional parts thereof should be referred back to parliament to make amendments.

“Ramaphosa’s admissions confirm that he and the ANC have been telling blatant lies by dismissing AfriForum’s concerns about the unconstitutionality of the Expropriation Act as the ‘spreading of disinformation’. The lies of Ramaphosa and all those who falsely accused AfriForum have now, in fact, been exposed by Ramaphosa himself,” explains Kriel.

According to Kriel, Ramaphosa must be held personally responsible for the negative consequences that his signing of the Expropriation Act has had on the country and its people, as he signed the Act knowing that it was unconstitutional. “Within 10 days of Ramaphosa announcing that he had signed the Expropriation Act, President Donald Trump announced that he would be imposing punitive measures against South Africa. There is therefore a direct link between Ramaphosa’s reckless signing of the Expropriation Act and the US’s actions against South Africa. Any job losses and growing poverty that result from this must, therefore, be laid directly at the door of Ramaphosa and other ANC leaders,” says Kriel.

In a letter sent to Ramaphosa on 15 April 2024, before last year’s election, AfriForum had already officially requested the President to refer the Expropriation Act back to parliament, as the Act was unconstitutional. “Although the President knew that this Act was unconstitutional, he ignored the requests of AfriForum and others because he mistakenly thought that it would aid the ANC in regaining lost support in the election. Ramaphosa was therefore prepared to sacrifice the interests of the country and its citizens for the sake of his own and the ANC’s party-political interests,” Kriel argues.

Kriel furthermore maintains that Ramaphosa attempted to mislead the court in his affidavit by claiming that the Government Printing Works was closed over the festive season, when in fact it was only closed on public holidays.

“Ramaphosa made this misrepresentation to try to justify why the Act, which he had already signed in secret on 20 December 2024, was only published in the Government Gazette 35 days later, on 24 January 2025. The period is important because, in terms of Section 80 of the Constitution, one-third of members of parliament can refer an Act to the Constitutional Court for review within 30 days of signing. Ramaphosa’s secret signing of the Act therefore deprived members of parliament of this constitutional right,” Kriel adds.

Kriel expresses concern that in his affidavit, Ramaphosa continues to argue to the court that Section 12(3) of the Expropriation Act, which allows for expropriation without compensation (or nil compensation), is not unconstitutional.

“Using Zimbabwe as an example, Ramaphosa is well aware that the slightest doubt about a country’s commitment to property rights scares off investors and results in growing poverty, unemployment and hyperinflation. Yet, he is prepared to subject ANC supporters, along with the rest of the population, to the negative consequences of the ANC’s ideologically driven policies. Everyone in the country has already begun to reap the bitter fruits of the US’s punitive tariffs that directly followed Ramaphosa’s signing of the Expropriation Act,” according to Kriel.

Kriel emphasises that AfriForum will fight the Expropriation Act in the interest of the country all the way to the highest court and will also mobilise further international pressure should circumstances require it.

“Loyalty to the country’s people requires that we do everything possible to ensure that citizens are not subjected to the same fate as Zimbabweans,” Kriel concludes.