The association believes sections 25 and 33 of the constitution make a further introduction of an expropriation policy superfluous.

Sapoa legal head Tsakane Shilubane says the c onstitution provides protection for land and property owners, something the proposed bill must respect as the c onstitution is the dominant legislation when it comes to expropriation and any secondary legislation must yield to it.

“Section 33 of the c onstitution says that everyone has the right to lawful, reasonable and fair administrative action, which is further supported by the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 3 of 2000.”

Shilubane says there must be adequate notice of expropriation , a reasonable opportunity for property owners to make their own representations, a clear statement of the administrative action being proposed, and adequate notice of the right to appeal.

He says the bill states that the expropriation of land or property can occur only in the “public interest”. He says this term is introduced by the c onstitution.

“It’s a well-known term and has come to mean those purposes that benefit the public, rather than the individual . So there is little room for misinterpretation.”

But Sapoa CEO Neil Gopal says Sapoa has “nevertheless identified a need for greater clarity in the compensation provisions in order to protect commercial and industrial property owners”.

“The c onstitution says that compensation must be just and equitable, and reflect an equitable balance between the public interest and the affected parties, taking due consideration of the market value of the property,” says Gopal.

Sapoa believes the Expropriation Bill does not entirely reflect these c onstitutional provisions and that this must be corrected, he says.

But Gopal says Sapoa believes the adoption of the bill will provide adequate protection for land and property owners in the event of expropriation.