The Democratic Alliance (DA) has filed a legal challenge against the recently signed Expropriation Act, citing constitutional concerns and procedural irregularities.
DA explains why it’s challenging the Expropriation Act
This move comes despite party leader John Steenhuisen’s previous attempts to clarify the Act’s intent to international stakeholders, particularly in light of US President Donald Trump’s decision to cut funding to South Africa.
The DA confirmed on Monday that it had submitted papers to the Western Cape High Court, seeking to have the Act nullified in its entirety. Federal Chairperson Helen Zille has led the charge, arguing that the legislation grants excessive powers to the government.
“The DA was unequivocal in the 6th Parliament: we reject this Act because no government in a democratic country should be given such sweeping powers to expropriate property without compensation,” the party’s statement reads.
The party’s legal challenge is twofold.
First, the DA alleges that the Act was adopted without proper procedural compliance. According to the court papers, five out of the seven provinces that voted in favour of the Act in the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) failed to obtain the necessary provincial mandates.
Second, the party argues that the Act is vague and contradictory in several clauses, rendering it unconstitutional.
The DA has also linked its legal challenge to historical injustices, stating that past expropriation policies were used to forcibly remove communities without adequate compensation.
“History teaches us that true redress requires protecting property rights and ensuring that no government is ever given unchecked expropriation powers again,” the party stated.
Political divisions and international lobbying
The DA’s decision to challenge the Expropriation Act comes at a politically sensitive time. The party is a key player in South Africa’s Government of National Unity (GNU), which includes the ruling African National Congress (ANC).
President Cyril Ramaphosa, who signed the Act into law in December 2024, has framed it as a necessary step toward addressing historical land dispossession.
The DA’s legal action is in stark contrast to Steenhuisen’s recent efforts to reassure the U.S. that the Act does not enable land seizures without compensation.
“It is not true that the Act allows land to be seized arbitrarily. It requires fair compensation for legitimate expropriations in terms of the Constitution,” he said earlier this month.
However, the DA’s legal challenge now risks fuelling the narrative promoted by Trump’s administration and lobby groups like AfriForum, which have portrayed the Act as a vehicle for land grabs.
AfriForum has even urged Trump to target ANC leaders with sanctions rather than cutting funding to the broader South African public.
ANC spokespersons have condemned AfriForum’s lobbying efforts as “misinformation designed to undermine South Africa’s sovereignty.”
What does this mean for the Act’s implementation?
With the DA’s legal challenge now before the courts, the implementation of the Expropriation Act could face delays.
If the court grants an interdict, the Act’s provisions may be put on hold until a final ruling is made. Given the complexity of constitutional challenges, the case could take months—or even years—to resolve.
The challenge also casts a dark shadow over the stability of the GNU.
The DA has positioned itself as a check on ANC policy, but its opposition to the Act could strain coalition relations.
The ANC, which no longer governs with an outright majority, will need to navigate these internal divisions carefully to ensure the effective implementation of land reform policies.
For now, the DA insists it will “stand up for our commitments to the people of South Africa.”
However, its decision to take the fight to court signals a deepening political divide within the GNU and could shape the future of land reform in the country.
