COMMENTS ON EXPROPRIATION BILL SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF FORESTRY SOUTH AFRICA
PRESENTATION OVERVIEW Introduction Powers of Investigation Notices of Intention to Expropriate Compensation Claims for Compensation Approval of Compensation by a Court Conclusions
INTRODUCTION Forestry South Africa accepts the need to create a legislative framework for expropriation consistent with the Constitution FSA contends the Bill is objectionable mainly because of: Failure to provide for expropriation that is procedurally fair Denial of proper access to the courts Bill infringes the rights to privacy and human dignity
POWERS OF INVESTIGATION Clause 10: Investigation and gathering of information No allowance for owner or holder to influence investigation and recommendations by a Board Infringement of right to privacy and the right to human dignity Norm: prior issue of a warrant by judicial authority
NOTICES OF INTENTION TO EXPROPRIATE Clause 11(1): “If (EA) intends …”. Suggest “contemplates” Period of 21 days too short + no condonation / extension Only written objections and submissions Consideration of objections and submissions Negotiations without prejudice
COMPENSATION Clause 15: determination of compensation by expropriating authority Clause 24: approval of compensation by court Approach in conflict with section 25(2) of Constitution More than market value compensation
CLAIMS FOR COMPENSATION Clause 17(3): Period of 21 days too short Clause 18(1): Expropriating authority will face same difficulty with 21 day period Condonation by administrative officials
APPROVAL OF COMPENSATION BY A COURT Section 25(2)(b) of the Constitution Decided or approved by a court Interpret conjunctively as opposed to disjunctively Bill limits courts to a review of the process Access to the courts to determine compensation Review model unconstitutional
CONCLUSIONS Bill is unconstitutional in certain respects and defective in other respects Bill ought to be amended to make provision for procedures which recognise and give effect to fundamental rights