The expropriation of the farm was reportedly approved after a long-standing dispute between the unnamed farmer and the DRDLR over the property’s selling price went unresolved. According to TAU SA, which is assisting the affected farmer in the Levubu area, in 2001 the farmer offered the farm for sale to government after the Masakona community lodged a restitution claim against it and other farms in the area. In 2003 the farmer accepted the State’s purchase offer.
“However, a dispute soon arose because certain macadamia handling equipment, worth about R200 000 at the time, had not been included in the farm’s valuation by government,” said Stephen Hoffman, Chairperson of TAU SA – North. “The state wanted this equipment included in the purchase price. So this land transaction fell through.”
Hoffman added that in 2012 representatives of the DRDLR arrived at the farm to conduct a new valuation whereafter they indicated that they were prepared to increase the purchase price by R100 000, a sum that the landowner rejected because he wanted R200 000 for the macadamia processing equipment. The DRDLR then applied for, and succeeded in obtaining, the expropriation order. TAU SA is assisting the landowner to legally contest the expropriation.
Meanwhile the DRDLR explained to Farmer’s Weekly that the option to expropriate land in the case of an unresolved dispute “is provided for in our law”. “If [the landowner] is not happy with the amount given, he can go to court and whatever [the] outcome the department will abide by it,” said DRDLR representative, Nicholas Magada. “However, the insinuation of a land grab that TAU SA – North has made is rejected with the contempt it deserves.
Expropriation of land is provided for in our country’s laws and if the landowner is not happy with the amount offered he or she can approach the courts for relief.” Magada added that the affected landowner had been given ample opportunity to give written reasons to the Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform to contest the original valuation, therefore the expropriation could not be considered a land grab.
TAU SA – North said that it was greatly concerned that government was prepared to expropriate land at below what the farmers’ union believed to be market value, and that it was therefore advising the affected landowner on how to contest the expropriation order. “If the government is not held publically accountable it will make it so much easier for them to take similar actions in other cases too,” Hoffman said.
