Land reform cannot end at the farm gate

Analysis · 15 September 2026

South Africa can spend an entire election arguing about who should own a farm without answering who will have the money, authority and support to work it after a transfer.

That is the uncomfortable question beneath the fight over the Expropriation Act. Property owners need protection against arbitrary state action. People excluded from land need a credible route to secure rights and a livelihood. A failed handover can damage both the production on a farm and the family who was promised a future there.

The court argument deserves close attention. So does a body of official work that was warning about implementation long before this Act was signed.

Motlanthe’s panel left a difficult record

The High Level Panel chaired by former president Kgalema Motlanthe reported to Parliament in 2017. Its conclusion about the obstacles to land reform was more demanding than a simple argument over the compensation clause.

The panel identified corruption, benefits diverted to elites, weak capacity and insufficient political will as serious constraints. It also argued that government had not used its existing expropriation powers effectively and recommended using the constitutional framework more boldly.

Both parts belong in the discussion. The report challenged failures within government while supporting stronger action to advance land reform. It cannot fairly be reduced to a slogan for either side.

That was a 2017 assessment. It is not a fresh audit of every project in 2026. Its continuing relevance lies in the questions it gives Parliament to put to the departments: which obstacles were fixed, which recommendations were acted on, and where can beneficiaries see the result?

The constitutional fight is real

Business Day’s account of the August High Court hearing describes a dispute over the statutory treatment of nil compensation. AfriForum argued that Parliament’s categories could encourage authorities to start from paying nothing rather than assessing just and equitable compensation. The opposing argument was that the provisions guide the application of the constitutional standard.

Judge Vincent Saldanha questioned whether the provisions guided courts rather than compelled an outcome. The exchange illustrates why a litigant’s argument must be kept distinct from a judgment.

The Act’s text provides for consideration of nil compensation in specified circumstances and contains procedures for disputes. Its commencement clause requires a presidential proclamation. A signature on the legislation and the operation of a particular provision are separate legal steps.

For people facing an actual notice, the applicable law, dates and facts would matter. Campaign claims about the fate of every farm or every mortgage cannot replace that examination.

Ownership, use and the bank

A land transfer involves more than one set of interests. There may be an owner, a lender, tenants, workers, a beneficiary group and people with other rights. Some have registered documents. Others rely on rights that are less visible on a title deed.

Section 16 of the Act addresses compensation where a mortgage or deed of sale is involved, including agreement between the relevant parties and court involvement in disputes. It would be misleading to promise that all debt simply disappears. It would also be misleading to announce one inevitable financial result for every owner without considering the transaction and legal position.

For an incoming farmer, security matters just as much as access. A person asked to invest in fences, breeding stock or an orchard needs to know what rights they hold, how long those rights last and on what grounds they could lose them.

A lease can support a business when its terms and enforcement are dependable. Ownership can still leave a farmer struggling if working capital and market access are absent. The practical test is whether the arrangement enables a person to make decisions and sustain a livelihood.

A failed farm needs a proper explanation

A diagnostic report prepared by the University of the Western Cape’s land researchers for the parliamentary panel found livelihood benefits weaker than expected. It also cautioned that complete failure was less widespread than some assumed, and examined the uneven benefits of private partnerships.

That is a reason to insist on better measurement. A national failure percentage should identify the projects counted, the period studied and the definition of success. A leased farm, a smallholder enterprise and a large commercial operation cannot automatically be assessed by the same output measure.

For agricultural projects, the questions can still be concrete. Was production sustained? Who received the income? Were jobs retained or created? Did support arrive before the planting season? Who could intervene when a dispute prevented work?

Those questions are harder for a department to evade than a photograph of a handover. They also make room to learn from projects that work, instead of treating every beneficiary as evidence for a predetermined argument.

What would change the argument?

Public reporting should follow land beyond acquisition: the rights transferred, the intended beneficiaries, the support budget and the outcomes over time. Where a project fails, the explanation should distinguish administrative delay, poor design, misconduct and commercial or climatic losses.

That would put pressure where it belongs. A successful transfer should be visible in the lives of the people it was meant to benefit. A failed one should have an accountable decision trail.

The country owes that much to people who lost land through injustice, to farmers who produce its food and to taxpayers funding the next promise. The farm gate is where implementation begins.

www.thepeoplesa.com