The Long-Shadowed Legacy of Apartheid and Land Inequality in South Africa
South Africa has grappled with what is known as the "land question" for decades. This issue is deeply rooted in the country’s history, particularly the apartheid regime, which was dismantled in the 1990s. Apartheid left behind a painful legacy of land inequality, as policies systematically pushed non-White South Africans off their land to benefit White people. The Native Lands Act of 1913 was a turning point, limiting Black ownership to just 7% of the land. Later, this was revised to 13%, but the damage was already done. Today, more than a century later, Black South Africans make up 81% of the population but own only 4% of private land, according to a 2017 government land audit. This stark disparity has fueled ongoing debates about land redistribution and justice.
The Expropriation Act: A Step Toward Redress or a Divisive Policy?
In an effort to address these historical injustices, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa signed the Expropriation Act in January 2025. The act allows the government to seize land and redistribute it, with the aim of righting the wrongs of apartheid. While expropriation without compensation is permitted in certain cases, it must be deemed "just and equitable and in the public interest." However, no land seizures or confiscations have taken place yet. Proponents argue that the legislation is necessary to address the glaring inequalities in land ownership, particularly in rural areas where vast stretches of land remain in the hands of White farmers, while Black and non-White families are forced into overcrowded townships.
Despite its aims, the act has been met with sharp criticism, both domestically and internationally. It has reignited long-standing racial tensions and has been seized upon by global figures like US President Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk. Both have claimed that the law discriminates against White farmers, despite evidence to the contrary. Musk, who was born in South Africa, has accused Ramaphosa’s government of implementing "openly racist ownership laws," a stance that has been widely condemned by many in South Africa, including some White South Africans.
Reactions to the Expropriation Act: A Mix of Support and Criticism
The Expropriation Act has sparked intense debate within South Africa. While some view it as a necessary measure to address historical injustices, others argue that it is poorly implemented. Henk Smith, an attorney with the Land Access Movement of South Africa (LAMOSA), believes the law is well-intentioned but clumsy. He advocates for "just and equitable compensation" for expropriated land, except in cases where land is reclaimed from mining companies or state-owned enterprises that have not used the land productively.
On the other hand, David Van Wyk, a White South African farmer, has dismissed claims of discrimination against White farmers as "nonsense." He points out that White South Africans continue to enjoy far higher incomes than the Black majority, who still own very little land. Van Wyk supports the Expropriation Act, emphasizing that it is driven by the urgent need to address land inequality. His views reflect the broader recognition among many South Africans that the status quo is unsustainable and that meaningful land reform is essential for the country’s future.
Trump’s Intervention and the Broader Implications
The debate over the Expropriation Act has taken an unexpected turn with the involvement of US President Donald Trump. In an executive order issued in early 2025, Trump revoked all US aid to South Africa, citing the government’s "actions fueling disproportionate violence against racially disfavored landowners," a claim that has been widely discredited. The order also halts $440 million in annual US assistance, most of which goes to South Africa’s health sector, including HIV and tuberculosis programs. This decision has been met with concern, as it threatens to undermine critical health initiatives that have already been impacted by previous cuts to US foreign aid.
Trump’s move has also raised fears that South Africa could lose its eligibility under the African Growth and Opportunities Act (AGOA), a trade agreement that provides Sub-Saharan African countries with preferential access to US markets. Removal from AGOA would deal a significant blow to South Africa’s agricultural and automotive industries, with citrus farmers and automakers likely to be the hardest hit. The South African government has scrambled to respond, dispatching a delegation to Washington in an effort to negotiate and mitigate the fallout.
Addressing Misinformation and the Way Forward
Despite the sensational claims made by Trump and others, there is no evidence of large-scale land seizures or confiscations in South Africa. AgriSA, a trade organization representing South African farmers, has dismissed allegations of land grabs as "disinformation." Johann Kotzé, AgriSA’s chief executive, has emphasized that no land has been expropriated without compensation, and isolated incidents of trespassing or land grabs have been dealt with through legal channels.
Meanwhile, the Solidarity Movement, a network of Afrikaner community organizations, has condemned the Expropriation Act as one of many "race laws" that it claims make White South Africans "second-class citizens." However, the movement has distanced itself from claims of widespread land seizures, stating that it did not accuse the government of race-based land grabs or distribute false information. While some groups, such as AfriForum, have long claimed that White farmers are being targeted in a "large-scale killing" or "ethnic cleansing," these claims have been debunked by independent research. The Institute of Security Studies (ISS) has noted that South Africa’s high murder rate affects all communities and is not specifically targeted at White farmers.
A Resilient Nation’s Response to Global Pressure
In the face of mounting pressure, both from within and outside its borders, South Africa has reaffirmed its commitment to land reform and social justice. President Ramaphosa has vowed that South Africa will not be "bullied" or deterred from addressing its internal challenges. While acknowledging the potential impact of US aid cuts, especially on health programs, Ramaphosa has expressed confidence in the resilience of the South African people.
The land question remains a deeply divisive issue, but there is widespread agreement that meaningful reform is necessary to heal the wounds of apartheid and build a more equitable future. As South Africa navigates this complex and contentious terrain, the support of the international community will be crucial. However, the country’s ability to chart its own course and resist external interference will ultimately determine whether it can achieve the justice and equality that its people deserve.
