Key points in this article:
- Proposed Land Bill Seeks to Address Legislative Gaps:
The Portfolio Committee on Land Reform reviewed the Equitable Access to Land Bill, which aims to establish clear principles for land redistribution. - Concerns Over Land Ownership Data and Policy Clarity:
The committee raised concerns about the lack of a precise legal definition for “equitable access” and called for a credible land audit to determine land ownership patterns. Members also criticised inconsistent terminology used for the bill, warning that it could create confusion in legislative discussions. - Freedom Front Plus Warns of Racially Selective Redistribution:
The Freedom Front Plus expressed alarm over the bill’s objectives, arguing that it aims to restructure land ownership based on racial demographics. The party linked the proposal to the recently signed Expropriation Act, cautioning that it could facilitate state-driven land acquisition and disproportionately impact white landowners. - Delays and Political Tensions Surround the Bill’s Timeline:
While the department presented a roadmap for finalising the Bill, the committee questioned the slow pace of progress and discrepancies between current plans and previous commitments. Public litigation efforts to expedite land reform further highlight growing tensions over the government’s approach.
Following the formal signing of the Expropriation Bill, the Portfolio Committee on Land Reform and Rural Development convened on Wednesday, 19 February 2025, for an in-depth briefing from Minister Mzwanele Nyhontso regarding the proposed Equitable Access to Land Bill.
This legislative effort aims to establish a structured framework to ensure equitable land access, a complex issue central to South Africa’s ongoing policy debates.
Discussing the meeting, Committee Chairperson Mangaqa Albert Mncwango outlined the session’s objective, noting that the Land Reform Framework Bill—also referred to as the Land Redistribution Bill—has been a recurring topic of discussion, examined by this committee and its predecessors in the 5th and 6th Parliaments.
Referencing Section 25(5) of the Constitution, Mncwango highlighted the government’s responsibility to create conditions enabling equitable land access for citizens. He pointed out, however, that no law or policy has yet been enacted to clearly define this right, a persistent shortfall in legislative progress.
Additionally, Minister Nyhontso, responsible for Rural Development and Land Reform, explained that the Bill remains under development and requires Cabinet approval before advancing to public consultation and parliamentary consideration.
He further noted that the current draft might differ substantially from the version presented, reflecting the iterative nature of its formulation. Although the Bill’s specific wording was not shared, the department indicated it draws on the 1997 White Paper on Land Policy and provisions of the 1993 Land and Assistance Act as foundational elements for its advancement.
Furthermore, the committee was informed of a notable discrepancy between the White Paper on South African Land Policy and existing legislation, a gap the Bill claims to address. “The Bill seeks to close the gaps. It would provide for, among other things, principles for access to land, access to land by the state and citizens, the identification and selection of beneficiaries, applications and records for land allocations, a register of agricultural land, notification of present land ownership, land ownership ceilings, a land tribunal and regulations,” the Committee stated, offering insight into the Bill’s broad objectives while leaving specifics undefined.
Moreover, the department provided a detailed timeline: submission for Cabinet approval in March 2025, public consultation from April to May, Cabinet endorsement in June, certification by the Office of the Chief State Law Adviser in July, review by NEDLAC in August, and tabling in Parliament by October 2025.
The committee acknowledged the plan but expressed reservations about the pace of progress. “They also noted that using different names for this Bill was a concern as it often leads to confusion. While there was a need to clarify the meaning of equitable access, the committee urged the department to clarify who owns what piece of land. It means there has to be a credible land audit so that the government can determine what equitable access means,” the Portfolio Committee remarked, emphasizing the need for precision and data to inform the process.
Mncwango elaborated that the committee expects the Bill to tackle significant challenges in land redistribution, including the coordination of post-settlement support and the persistent issue of budget limitations. Additionally, he observed that the declining funding for land redistribution suggests a lack of political commitment to resolving South Africa’s land question, a point of contention among certain stakeholders.
On top of this, Mncwango expressed concern that the briefing offered few specific proposals to address these issues, referencing the High-Level Panel on the Assessment of Key Legislation and Acceleration of Fundamental Change (HLP), which had identified these challenges and recommended a Land Reform Framework Bill. Mncwango stressed the importance of aligning the Bill with the HLP’s findings to ensure relevance and efficacy.
Furthermore, Mncwango noted the department’s ability to identify challenges—such as those involving Communal Property Associations and farm evictions—but questioned its capacity to develop effective solutions.
Oversight reports indicate these problems remain unresolved, prompting his call for targeted legislative measures to address land redistribution difficulties.
The committee also pointed out that the proposed timeline differs from the previous minister’s outline, raising questions about the department’s urgency. This concern is underscored by public litigation efforts to compel parliamentary action, contrasting with the department’s apparent slow pace. Mncwango affirmed the committee’s intent to monitor adherence to the timeline closely, aiming to prevent further delays in tabling the bill.
As steps proceed to advance the legislation, the Freedom Front Plus (FF Plus) has voiced apprehension about its implications. Dr Wynand Boshoff, speaking for the party, suggested the Bill aims to align land ownership with the country’s racial demographics, framing it as a race-based approach.
“According to the schedule, Cabinet is due to discuss the Bill in March already, followed by public submissions in April and May, a review by Nedlac in August and tabling to Parliament in October. Very few details are available as yet, but the objective is clear: correcting the so-called skewed pattern of land ownership in the near future,” said Dr Boshoff, outlining a trajectory that has sparked debate.
Boshoff connected the Bill to the Expropriation Act, signed into law by President Cyril Ramaphosa earlier this year, viewing it as part of a broader mechanism for state land acquisition. “The FF Plus wants to encourage everyone with an interest in landownership to be prepared. It seems as if the ANC wants to use this to rise to the MK’s challenge to move as fast as possible. Neither the Department nor the Portfolio Committee has tried to hide the fact that this Bill is aimed at white landownership. They view it as a part of the freedom struggle which was not fully carried out in 1994. In other words, they decided to unilaterally breach the initial agreement in yet another way,” concluded Dr Boshoff, raising pointed concerns about the Bill’s direction and historical framing.
With the Bill slated for implementation by the end of 2025 and the FF Plus highlighting its reservations, this evolving matter invites diverse perspectives. What are your thoughts on these developments?
Share your views in the comment section below.
