The previous version of the bill was withdrawn from Parliament in late 2008 amid a storm of protest that it was unconstitutional and would fatally harm SA’s constitutional order and the carefully crafted property clause in the constitution.

Mr Mabuza gave no details of the latest version of the bill, but said it again would allow expropriation for both a public purpose and a public interest. While the constitution does allow expropriation in the public interest, the previous bill had a very broad definition of that.

The old bill would have allowed the expropriation of movable as  well as immovable property, even shares, if it was deemed to be in the public interest. For example, it would have allowed the expropriation of a farm and all machinery on that farm in the interests of speeding up land reform.

In much the same way as the so-called "secrecy bill", or Protection of State Information Bill, led to a coalition of civil society organisations mobilising against it, so too did the Expropriation Bill lead to a coalition of organisations campaigning against it. It was widely welcomed when then public works minister Geoff Doidge withdrew the bill.

At the time, former president FW de Klerk criticised the sections that allowed compensation to be determined by officials, with the courts specifically barred from reviewing such compensation.

"The consequent perception of arbitrary deprivation of property, I believe, will have a very negative impact on national and international investor confidence, and will seriously damage SA’s international credibility," he said.