fbpx

Kwanalu

The voice of agriculture . Die stem van landbou . Izwe lezokulima

Agri SA gekant teen onteiening teen nulvergoeding en indirekte onteiening | Agri SA opposed to zero compensation and indirect expropriation

English to follow:

9 Junie 2021

In ’n sosio-ekonomiese studie oor die Onteieningswetsontwerp wat nooit algemeen vrygestel is nie, en ná ’n aansoek deur die Sakeliga in terme van die Wet op die Bevordering van Inligting verkry is, blyk dit dat die bewering gemaak word dat Nedlac die wetsontwerp in sy geheel ondersteun het en ook dat Agri SA die wetgewing “versigtig ondersteun”.

Hierdie bewerings is onwaar.

“Agri SA se teenstand teen sekere aspekte van die wetsontwerp, veral die definisie van “onteiening”, wat die deur oopmaak vir allerlei beperkings op eiendomsreg sonder vergoeding (indirekte onteiening) en artikels 12(3) en (4), wat voorsiening maak vir nulvergoeding, is deurgaans baie duidelik gekommunikeer,” verseker Annelize Crosby, hoof vir grond- en regsake van Agri SA.

Talle mediaverklarings is hieroor uitgereik, die standpunt is by elke geleentheid waar Agri SA kon optree gehuldig en Agri SA se voorlegging aan die portefeuljekomitee op openbare werke en infrastruktuur was baie duidelik hieroor. Die besigheidsgroepering in Nedlac was ook baie duidelik oor hulle teenkanting ten opsigte van hierdie maatreëls.

Die sosio-ekonomiese studie skep dus ’n vals indruk oor Agri SA en die sakewêreld se steun vir dié wetgewing. “Agri SA het in werklikheid groot uitgawes aangegaan om regsmenings in te win oor die wetsontwerp en het opdrag gegee dat ’n onafhanklike studie oor die moontlike ekonomiese gevolge van onteiening sonder vergoeding onderneem word, welke studie in Maart 2021 vrygestel is”, het Crosby gesê.

Navrae:

Annelize Crosby

Hoof: Grond en Regsake

Willem de Chavonnes Vrugt

Voorsitter van Agri SA se Sentrum van Uitnemendheid: Grondsake

*************************

 9 June 2021

A socio-economic study was conducted on the Expropriation Bill, the results of which were never released. After Sakeliga submitted a request for information in terms of the Promotion of Access to Information Act, it came to light that it was alleged in the study that Nedlac had supported the bill in its entirety and that Agri SA had also “cautiously supported” the legislation.

These allegations are untrue.

“Agri SA’s opposition to certain aspects of the bill, especially the definition of ‘expropriation’, which opens the door to all sorts of limitations on property rights without compensation being payable (indirect expropriation) and sub-sections 12(3) and (4), which provide for zero compensation, was communicated clearly and repeatedly,” says Annelize Crosby, head of land and legal affairs of Agri SA.

Countless media statements were issued and Agri SA’s views in this regard were expressed at every event where the organisation was in attendance, including its presentation to the Portfolio Committee on Public Works and Infrastructure. The business grouping within Nedlac also made no secret of its opposition to these measures.

“The socio-economic study therefore creates the false impression that Agri SA and the business community support the bill as it stands. Agri SA has in fact incurred considerable expenses to seek legal opinions on the bill and had commissioned an independent study on the possible economic implications of expropriation without compensation, that was released during March 2021,” says Crosby.

Enquiries:

Annelize Crosby

Head: Land and Legal Affairs

Willem de Chavonnes Vrugt

Chair of Agri SA ‘s Centre of Excellence: Land Affairs