The South Africa Earth legislation was explained – and why so inflamed Donald Trump

South Africa President Cyril Ramafosa is at the center of a political fiery storm after approving a law giving the state the power to alienate private land without compensation for the owners.

The law that is yet to be applied has attracted the wrath of US President Donald Trump, who sees him as discriminating against white farmers.

Right-wing political parties and lobbying groups in South Africa also opposed, stating that they will challenge the law of alienation-as the law-in court, on the grounds that it threatens property rights.

The Ramafosa government says that the law provides for compensation to be paid in the bigger part of the cases – and the changes are necessary to increase the black property on the land.

Most private agricultural lands are still owned by white people.

When Nelson Mandela came to power more than 30 years ago, putting an end to Apartheid’s racist system, it was promised that it would be eliminated by a purchase that a market for reform of the Earth-but critics said it turned out to be too slow and too expensive.

In rare circumstances, this will be a land that is needed for the “public interest”, legal experts told the BBC.

According to South Africa Law Firm, Werksmans lawyers, this suggests that this will happen mainly or perhaps only in connection with the Earth Reform Program.

Although it can also be used to access natural resources such as minerals and water, the company added, In an opinion written by his experts in the field, the Bouletla Mabas and Thomas CarbergS

Mabas and Carberg told the BBC that in their opinion productive agricultural lands cannot be alienated without compensation.

They said that any alienation without compensation – known as EWC – can only be realized in several circumstances:

• For example, when an owner does not use the land and held it for “speculative purposes”
• Or when the owner “abandons the land by failing to control it, although he is reasonably capable of doing so.”

The owners are likely to receive compensation for the buildings on the ground and for natural resources, lawyers said.

Mabas and Carberg added that EWC “is not aimed at rural land or agricultural land and may include land in urban areas.”

However, in cases where the compensation is paid, the rules change, with the owners likely to receive less money.

The plan is for the owners to receive “just and justified” compensation-dismissal from the higher “market value” they receive now, Mabas and Carberg said.

The government was paying for market value compensation, despite the fact that it was “contrary” to the Constitution adopted after the White Minority rule ended in 1994, they added.

The lawyers said all the alienations have “extensive requirements for the justice of the procedure”, including the right of the owner to go to court if they were not satisfied.

The distance from the compensation of market value will also apply to alienated lands for the “public purpose”-as the construction of public schools or railways.

This is not a major moment of dispute, probably because it is “Hardly a new concept” – a point made by JuristnewsA legal website governed by law students around the world.

“The US Constitution, for example, provides that the government can seize private property for public use as long as” fair compensation is provided, “she added.

The government hopes that way.

The expert of the University of Western Cape Prof. Ruth Hall told the BBC that over 80,000 land claims remain unfulfilled.

In the eastern regions of South Africa, many blacks work on farms for free – in return, they are allowed to live there and keep their livestock on part of the owners’ land, she said.

The government wants to transfer ownership of this land to workers and it was “unfair” to expect it to pay the market value, added Prof. Hall.

In the last three decades, the government has been using existing powers to alienate property- with less than the compensation of market value- in less than 20 cases, she said.

The new law was intended to facilitate and cheaper to restore the land of blacks who were “ordered” by it during the rule of white minority or were forced to be “long-term tenants” as they could not own land, added Prof. Hall.

“It’s a negotiation chip,” she said.

But she doubts that the government will move on with the implementation of the law in the foreseeable future, as the “political costs” became too high.

The academician refers to the fact that Trump has opposed the law, stating that he is discriminating against white farmers and their land is “seized” – an accusation that the government denies.

In February, Trump reduced the aid of South Africa, and in April he announced a 30% tariff for goods and agricultural products in South Africa, although this was later stopped 90 days.

This was followed by the notorious exhibition of the oval office last month when Trump planted Ramafosa with video and prints of stories that claim that white people were persecuted – much of his file was discredited.

Like Trump, the second largest party in the coalition government of Ramafosa-Democratic Union (DA) is against legislation.

In a statement on May 26, the party stated that the highest governing body rejected the concept of “compensation of zero”.

However, he agreed to the concept of fair and justified compensation, not for compensation of market value, adding that it should be “judicial from the court”.

Surprisingly, Jaco Kleynhans of the Solidarity Movement, an influential lobbying group for Africaner, said that while the new law can “destroy” some businesses and he opposes it, he does not believe that this will lead to the “large -scale alienation of agricultural land”.

“I don’t see the wording of this text that this will happen,” He said in a recent discussion at the panel of an agricultural exhibition Considered in the free state province in South Africa – where a large number of conservative African farmers live.

The Association of Property Owners in South Africa stated that it was “irrational” to give “compensation of zero” to an owner who kept land for speculative purposes.

“There are many landowners whose sole purpose of the business is to speculate in the land. They do not receive the land for free and have significant costs of detention,” the association said, adding that the law will undoubtedly be “abundantly tested” in the courts.

Mabas and Carberg said one opinion is that the EWC concept is “legal absurd”, since “the inherent definition of alienation is a requirement to pay compensation.”

However, lawyers said the alternative opinion is that the Constitution of South Africa “implicitly admits that in some circumstances it will be fair and fair in order for the compensation to be zero.”

South Africa Minister Dean MacPherson defended the legislation by interrupting the ranks with his party, DA.

In fact, he is responsible for the new legalization and in a discussion group, he explained that although there are some concerns about the law, it is a “dramatic improvement” of the previous law of alienation, with greater precautionary measures for landowners.

He said the law could also help to terminate the demands for the blackmail of the state, and in some cases the “compensation of zero” could be justified.

He gave as an example the problems facing state energy useful services ESKOM.

He plans to deploy a transmission network over about 4,500 km (28,000 miles) land to strengthen electricity supplies in order to end the country’s electricity crisis.

Prior to deployment, some people were confronted with Eskom employees to buy land for $ 1 million ($ 56,000; 41,000 British pounds), and then demanded the R20M for that, he said.

“Is it simple and fair to give them what they want? I don’t think this is in the interest of the wider community or the state,” MacPherson said.

Giving another example, MacPherson said some of the internal cities of South Africa were in a “catastrophic” condition. After the owners left, the buildings were “too filled” and “abducted” for illegal occupation. The price of the state for their reimbursement may exceed their value and in such cases the courts may rule that the owner qualified for “compensation at zero,” he said.

“Nil is a form of compensation,” MacPherson added as it excludes it for the farms.

Johannesburg Mayor Dada Morero told the Post and Guardian newspaper in South Africa That he wanted to use the buildings for the “public good” as a placement of about 300,000 people on the list of waiting for the housing.

He added that the owners of nearly 100 buildings cannot be located.

“They have abandoned the buildings,” he said, adding that some of the owners are from the United Kingdom and Germany.

But Mabas and Carberg told the BBC that in such cases the compensation would probably have to be paid for the buildings, though not the land.

If the state could not find the owners, it “must deposit the compensation to the Supreme Court teacher” if they are returned or can be followed later, they said.

The law is in Limbo, as Ramafosa – about four months after giving him consent – has not yet set a date for its implementation.

Nor is he likely to do it soon, as he would not want to further antagonize Trump while South Africa tried to negotiate a trade deal with the United States.

And on the inner front, to head the opposition of legislation. It says he wants a “court review” for him, while at the same time he is progressing forward with judicial actions to challenge the constitutionality of the law.

DA’s difficult line is in contrast to that of MacPherson, who warned a few weeks ago that if the law was hit as a whole: “I don’t know what will come after.

“In politics, sometimes you have to be careful about what you want, because you can often get it,” he said.

His comments emphasize the deep fissures of politics in South Africa, such as some parties, such as the economic fighters of Julius Malem (EFF), believing that the legislation did not go far enough to deal with racial inequality in the property of the earth.

With land, such an emotional question does not have an easy solution to the dispute – and it will probably continue to cause tension in South Africa as well as with the US president.