Land reform in South Africa has long been a contentious and emotionally charged topic, but the passage of the Expropriation Act of 2024 has taken the debate to new heights. While South Africa’s government frames the law as a crucial step toward addressing deep-seated historical injustices stemming from the apartheid era, critics within and outside the country have accused it of promoting reverse discrimination and threatening property rights.

The controversy escalated on February 7, 2025, when US President Donald Trump signed an executive order halting all US aid to South Africa and offering refugee status to white South African farmers. Trump’s order characterized the new law as racially motivated, even though the law itself contains no racial distinctions. His decision has drawn global attention and sparked diplomatic tensions, with many questioning whether the US has the right to intervene in a foreign nation’s domestic policies.

At the heart of the issue is a centuries-old legacy of racial inequality in land ownership, coupled with South Africa’s struggle to heal from the deep wounds left by apartheid. A new future is likely to unfold for South Africa judging from the historical context, the provisions of the new law, and the wide-ranging implications of international interference in South Africa’s land reform process.

South Africa’s current land ownership disparities have roots in the country’s colonial past and the formalized racial segregation policies of apartheid. Beginning with the Natives Land Act of 1913, Black South Africans were forcibly confined to only 7% of the country’s land, a figure that increased to 13% in 1936. These policies led to the displacement and forced removal of millions of Black South Africans from their ancestral lands, creating deeply entrenched socio-economic inequalities.

Under apartheid (1948–1994), white South Africans—who made up a small fraction of the population—were granted privileged access to land, education, jobs, and political power. Black South Africans, who accounted for the vast majority, were relegated to poverty, denied basic rights, and subjected to mass forced removals from urban and rural areas alike.

Even after apartheid officially ended in 1994, land ownership patterns have remained largely unchanged. A 2017 audit found that white South Africans still owned 72% of the country’s agricultural land, despite making up only 7.3% of the population. Meanwhile, Black South Africans, who represent over 80% of the population, owned just 4% of the land. This glaring disparity has fueled ongoing demands for land reform to right historical wrongs.

Signed into law by South African President Cyril Ramaphosa on January 23, 2025, the Expropriation Act aims to provide a legal framework for the South African government to expropriate private land in the public interest. The law is part of South Africa’s ongoing efforts to address the country’s vast land ownership disparities, which stem from the historical injustices of colonialism and apartheid.

The core of the controversy surrounding the law lies in its provision for expropriation without compensation under specific, limited circumstances. While eminent domain laws—allowing governments to seize private property for public use—are common worldwide, the concept of "nil compensation" is particularly contentious. Critics fear it could erode property rights and deter investment, while supporters see it as a long-overdue tool to correct entrenched social and economic inequalities.

The Act allows for expropriation without compensation in the following scenarios, as outlined in Section 12(3):

“If land is not being used and is held primarily for the purpose of profiting from market value appreciation.”

This provision targets landowners who acquire land purely as a speculative investment and leave it undeveloped, with no intention of putting it to productive use. Such practices can exacerbate land scarcity and contribute to rising land prices, making it harder for historically disadvantaged communities to access land. The government argues that seizing unused land held for speculation can help redistribute land to those who need it for farming, housing, or other essential uses.

Example: A property owner buys large tracts of rural land with no plans to farm, develop, or lease it. Instead, they wait for the value to increase over time, intending to sell the land at a profit without contributing to local development or economic activity.

“If state-owned land is not being used for public functions and was originally acquired at no cost.”

This provision applies to land held by government agencies or state-owned enterprises that is neither being used nor expected to be needed for future operations. If the government originally acquired the land for free—such as through historical transfers or inheritances—the law allows it to be reallocated without compensation.

Example: A government department inherited a large piece of land decades ago but has never developed it or assigned it for any public purpose. Under the new law, this land could be seized and redistributed to historically dispossessed communities.

“If the registered owner has abandoned the property and failed to exercise control over it.”

Abandoned land refers to property where the owner has ceased to maintain, develop, or oversee its use. In cases where owners have effectively given up their rights to the land, the government can step in to expropriate it without compensation. This provision is designed to prevent land from falling into disrepair or being left idle when it could be repurposed for public benefit.

Example: A plot of land has been left unmaintained for years, with no visible activity or care from its registered owner. Local authorities have been unable to contact the owner, and no taxes or utility bills have been paid. This land could qualify for expropriation without compensation.

“If the value of state investments in the land exceeds its current market value.”

This provision applies when the government has made significant financial investments to maintain or improve a piece of land—such as through infrastructure development, irrigation, or other subsidies—and the market value of the land has not kept pace with the cost of those improvements. In such cases, the government can seize the land without compensation, arguing that the state has effectively financed its entire value.

For example, the government invests heavily in developing farmland, providing subsidies for irrigation systems, roads, and fencing. However, the land’s market value remains low due to poor agricultural yields. Since the state’s investment has exceeded the land’s value, it can be expropriated without compensation.

Notably, the scenarios listed in Section 12(3) are not exhaustive. The law allows for other circumstances to be considered on a case-by-case basis, provided they meet the legal standard of being “just and equitable.” This clause gives the government flexibility to address unforeseen or unique situations where expropriation without compensation may be warranted. However, it also raises concerns about the potential for arbitrary or inconsistent applications of the law.

Despite the controversy, the South African government has emphasized that expropriation without compensation will only be used as a last resort. President Ramaphosa and other officials have pledged to ensure that the law is applied transparently and fairly, with clear legal processes in place to prevent abuse or corruption.

Landowners affected by expropriation will have the right to appeal the decision in court, and the courts will have the final say on whether compensation is justified in each case. The government has also reiterated that the law is not intended to target any specific racial group and that all expropriations will be based on the circumstances of land use rather than the landowner's identity.

The Expropriation Act came under international scrutiny when US President Donald Trump issued an executive order denouncing the law and cutting all US aid to South Africa. The order accused the South African government of enabling the seizure of property owned by white farmers, particularly Afrikaners—descendants of Dutch settlers who arrived in South Africa in the 17th century.

In the executive order, Trump cited what he described as “countless government policies designed to dismantle equal opportunity in employment, education, and business” in South Africa. He also accused the South African government of fueling “disproportionate violence” against white landowners, although no such provision exists in the Expropriation Act.

The Trump administration’s stance was further influenced by South African-born billionaire Elon Musk, who has been an outspoken critic of South Africa’s land reform policies. Trump also framed the order as part of his broader “America First” foreign policy agenda, which has seen the US cut aid to numerous countries and roll back diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives at home and abroad.

For South Africa, the loss of US aid will have significant repercussions, particularly in the health sector. The US has been a critical partner in South Africa’s fight against HIV/AIDS, funding nearly 20% of the country’s HIV/AIDS programs. South Africa is home to the world’s largest population of people living with HIV, and the aid cuts could jeopardize access to life-saving medications and treatments for millions of South Africans.

South African Health Minister Aaron Motsoaledi warned that the aid cuts would have devastating consequences, particularly for vulnerable communities. The cuts may also strain diplomatic relations between South Africa and the US at a time when South Africa is grappling with multiple economic and social challenges.

The Expropriation Act reflects the broader struggle to address historical injustices while balancing economic growth and political stability. South Africa’s government has insisted that the law is a necessary tool for rectifying centuries of land dispossession and inequality. However, critics fear that it could undermine investor confidence, spark social unrest, or be misused for political gain.

The law’s fate will largely depend on how it is implemented. If applied carefully and transparently, it could serve as a model for addressing historical land injustices. However, if it is perceived as arbitrary or discriminatory, it could deepen divisions and invite further international interference.

Ultimately, South Africa’s land reform efforts—and the global response to them—highlight the complexities of reckoning with a painful past while striving for a more just and equitable future.