AfriForum has argued before the North Gauteng High Court that Section 12(3) of the Expropriation Act, which permits expropriation at nil compensation, is unconstitutional as the Constitution does not provide for expropriation without compensation. The challenge was brought on 21 May 2025, following the Act’s signing by President Cyril Ramaphosa in December 2024, and was presented to the court on 4 August 2026 amid concerns from various political and civil society groups over property rights.

Legal Arguments Against Nil Compensation Provision

AfriForum’s legal representative told the court, “Section 25 of the constitution does not have this distinction. It does not have a category of no compensation,” underscoring their position that the Act’s provision for expropriation without compensation is not supported by the Constitution. AfriForum is seeking a declaration of unconstitutionality against this clause, arguing that any expropriation permitted under the law must comply with the compensatory requirements of Section 25.

Ernst van Zyl, Head of Public Relations at AfriForum, stated, “We assured our members and the public at the beginning of the year that we would fight this dangerous act both domestically and internationally,” following the organisation’s application. In a separate court action, the Democratic Alliance (DA) has challenged aspects of the Act, focusing on the legislative process and the roles of the National Council of Provinces, but has not contested the substance of the nil compensation provision, according to party statements and court filings.

Background And Political Context

The Expropriation Act, signed into law in December 2024 and gazetted the following month, enables the state to expropriate land and other property in pursuit of land reform. Section 12(3), allowing for nil compensation under certain circumstances, has been the central point of contention for AfriForum and some opposition leaders. The DA’s court challenge, while critical of procedural flaws, continues to reject the constitutionality of the Act on other grounds.

Helen Zille, chairperson of the DA Federal Council, publicly criticised the law, saying, “It is absurd and irrational. It is unconstitutional for this reason alone.” These legal battles highlight the tensions between government land reform priorities and concerns about upholding property rights and legal certainty. The legal process is ongoing, with further hearings and judgments expected as both cases proceed through the courts.

The court is expected to rule on the matter after final arguments are concluded, with significant implications for land reform legislation and property rights in South Africa.