The failed expropriation of two pieces of land in Limpopo that comprised the Akkerland Boerdery farm has, since 2018, been used as a dog whistle by conservative commentators in the debate around expropriation without compensation.
The facts around the Akkerland Boerdery, while a failed expropriation, have been used selectively to spark fear and drive divisions over the sensitive and highly charged issue of land reform, and at a time when the debate is centred on how just and equitable value will be calculated.
But court documents show that the state intended to pay Akkerland R20.7 million as part of the expropriation, a fact that has not been concealed, but rather carefully glossed over.
The fact that the farm was then sold after the expropriation was halted has similarly not been stated upfront, and those involved in using the case as an example of the risks of the new act say the subsequent sale is irrelevant.
In 2018, the Akkerland story made international headlines, stating that the ANC government had started stripping white farmers of their property. But the story disappeared – until US President Donald Trump on Sunday launched a broadside at South Africa, falsely claiming that the government was "confiscating land".
He was swiftly contradicted by President Cyril Ramaphosa, but the often-heated debate sparked by Trump's actions has not slowed.
Akkerland has been used by Southern African Agri Initiative (Saai) director Theo de Jager – who was involved in the initial case in 2018 – with the financial backing of AfriForum and closely linked trade union Solidarity, to stoke fears around expropriation without compensation.
Saai is a rights group that focuses exclusively on supporting farmers and has litigated extensively against the government over land issues since its creation in the wake of the Akkerland case in 2018.
Court documents show that between 2015 and 2017, the department had made three offers to Akkerland – first at R17 million, then at R20.7 million, twice. All three offers were rejected, without direct reasons provided for the rejections. The farm was primarily operated as a hunting farm, with old price lists for game available to be hunted still available on the Akkerland Hunting Ventures Facebook page.
The documents show that after a first approach by Coal for Africa in 2011 to buy the farms – for which it offered R18 million – Akkerland's owners had their own valuation done, arriving at a figure of R200 million.
The valuation shows that it was heavily influenced by the potential income that could be derived from the mining of coal on the farms. Since the promulgation of the Mineral Rights Act in 2002, landowners do not own the minerals beneath the ground – that right vests with the holder of the prospecting or mining rights holder.
VIEWPOINT -The Consequences of the Signing of South Africa’s Land Expropriation Bill
It would, however, affect the value of the land, and De Jager admitted the land was subsequently valued at around R80 million.
De Jager claimed on Friday that the government never substantiated how it reached its R20.7 million value, despite the fact that a valuation report carefully setting out the valuation was produced prior to the expropriation attempt and filed as part of the state's court documents.
The reasons behind government's insistence on getting hold of the land has been speculated about extensively, including claims by AfriForum in 2018 that the "SA government abuses land reform as pretext for obtaining minerals and facilitating Chinese expansion in SA".
While there is indeed Chinese interest in a coal mining firm that is setting up a coal mine in the area, there has been no evidence of collusion found to date.
The government's decision to expropriate the farms was legally flawed – incorrect processes were followed, and the land claims relied on were not proven, making it doomed to fail from the start.
De Jager presented this as a significant victory, claiming that the court blasted the government with a costs order, giving the impression of a fully-fledged legal battle when, in fact, the government backed down.
After filing a few documents, the state agreed to a settlement, and the Land Claims Court made the settlement a court order in early September 2018. It took just five months from the date of the expropriation notice being served to have it overturned, where land claims and other land reform issues often take decades to resolve.
By 14 November 2018, Akkerland had sold the farms for the sum of R80.5 million to a subsidiary of the same mining company AfriForum had cited – Coal of Africa, now known as MC Mining.
But De Jager has not, in his public comments, always told this full story – and while he has been careful not to expressly refer to the Akkerland case as an example of expropriation without compensation, he has reignited the saga at a time when the debate is squarely centred on the issue of expropriation without compensation.
De Jager, in response to a News24 fact-check on Wednesday said on X that the report was "false news".
But the News24 report specifically stated that Akkerland was never a case of expropriation without compensation and pointed out that many of the proponents of the case had failed to directly inform the public of the sale of Akkerland just weeks after the court case in 2018 was wrapped up – for the sum of R80.5 million, almost four times what the government had wanted to pay, or that the government had intended to pay for the land as part of the expropriation.
In response to detailed questions, De Jager maintains that the report was false.
"It is false because it presents only half of the story… while the facts are that the landowner could only sell the farm at R80 million after he fought off the expropriation at R20 million. The state would have inflicted on him a loss of R60 million if the officials could have it their way," he said.
He referenced a post on X by News24 legal journalist Karyn Maughan, quoting a passage of the story to confirm this view, without directly engaging with the content of the piece.
In a 5 March 2021 article authored by De Jager and published on Saai's website, he referred to the Akkerland case as the "first test run of expropriation without compensation" without mentioning the sale of the farm or that the state wanted to pay for the land.
He denies, however, that he has ever expressly referred to the Akkerland case as an example of expropriation without compensation, saying he was presenting Akkerland as an "example of less than market value compensation, and never said that the offer was 0 compensation".
In a video posted on social media titled The First Farm Expropriation in SA: the True Story of Akkerland, De Jager does use the terminology "at less than market-related value" when referring to the expropriation of Akkerland. But he prefaces the video by speaking about the Expropriation Act, and the risks of expropriation without compensation.
It was repeatedly pointed out to De Jager that the expropriation of Akkerland, that was never going to be without compensation, was an example of the legal system working as it should.
He maintained, however, that it was irrelevant that the farm was sold. What mattered, he said, was that the expropriation occurred.
"Akkerland is an excellent example of the risks, woes and financial burdens which a land owner faces when his number comes up for expropriation at sub market value. None of those issues have been addressed in the new act. It's still the individual landowner who must fork out the money for expensive litigation against the state, who carries no risk, and fights you with taxpayers' money," he said.
Akkerland, Gayton!
"Show me one white farmer who has his farm forcefully taken by the South African government without recourse?" asked Gayton McKenzie, the Patriotic Alliance opposition party leader, on X on 3 February.
A day later, De Jager responded without tagging McKenzie: "Akkerland, Gayton! As Limpopo farmers we had to fight the expropriation of Akkerland in the courts at massive cost and trauma, until the court found the expropriation fundamentally unjustified, based on fabricated land claims. We saw this movie before."
He included a link to a 2018 Politicsweb article that was written as the matter was in court and makes no mention of the subsequent sale.
He has, in the past, referenced that the farm was sold for 25% of its value but never clearly articulated when the sale took place, or why he was referring to this case in the context of expropriation without compensation – when the expropriation was intended in 2018 to be with compensation but failed because of the legal guard rails in place.
"The issue is that Akkerland was expropriated at less than market value, even though the ANC, various organisations and News24 denied it. [News24's report was specifically debunking that the farm was expropriated without compensation] What happened to the farm after the expropriation notice was overturned in court, what is now farmed or mined there, how it is maintained or not, and even what the farm's name is now, is irrelevant to the argument. It serves, at best, to show what loss the expropriation at less than market value would have been inflicted on the landowner if we didn't fight it at great expense, sacrifice and effort in court," De Jager said.
"That the farm was eventually sold for four times the expropriation amount is not relevant to the argument, no matter how many times it could have been sold afterwards again," De Jager told News24.
In a 5 March 2021 article published on Saai's website, De Jager referred to the Akkerland case in the context of expropriation without compensation, without mentioning, at all, that the farm was sold later.
"Already in the first test run of expropriation without compensation in Limpopo, the rotten agenda behind it was exposed. The farm Akkerland was expropriated under the banner of land claims so that connected cadres could draw material benefits from a massive Chinese mining development. A small band of organisations, including AfriForum, Solidarity, Agri-Limpopo's former directors and TLU-SA exposed the injustice, overturned the expropriation and obtained a costs order against the minister, the land claims commissioner and the registrar of deeds," he wrote.
A media conference on 3 September 2018 with (from left) Solidarity’s Marius Croucamp, Akkerland Boerdery co-owner Johan Steenkamp, director of AfriForum Kallie Kriel, then chairman of Agri Limpopo Leon Borcherds and chairperson of TLU SA Louis Meintjes. (Niceo van Burick)
Unanswered Questions About Expropriation SAAI
"The heated debate at the time was about changing the Constitution to allow for expropriation without compensation, and it was in the context of that debate that I said in an article about how cadre deployment and nepotism are hampering beneficiaries of land reform to develop into a class of profitable black farmers, and quoted the Akkerland experience where land claims were abused to camouflage the interests of mining companies to get their hands on the land without paying for it," he told News24 on Friday in response to questions about the 2021 piece and its framing.
Fair value
"It is not about what our farms are worth to myself and my partner, (Arnold) Cloete. It is a matter of principle," Akkerland co-owner Johan Steenkamp told a media briefing, flanked by AfriForum boss Kallie Kriel and other directors of Solidarity on 3 September 2018.
Despite this, the issue of fair value is used to prop up the Akkerland deception as a case of an overreaching government, with many commentators centring on a value of R200 million. This was the same figure used in the international media reporting and has again surfaced in recent debate around the case.
According to deeds office records between 2009 and 2017, MC Mining subsidiary Fumaria Property Holdings bought 12 farms totalling 6 319.49 hectares for a combined R68.2 million.
The highest prices it paid were in 2017 for the farm Daru 889, at R21 787 per hectare, and R22 499 per hectare for Coen Britz 646 and 881 in 2015.
For the Akkerland farms alone, the mining company paid R25 511 per hectare – for a total of R80.5 million – the single-largest purchase by the coal mining operation.
"I agree that the debate around land reform is an extremely sensitive topic, with deep emotional and historical meaning for millions of South Africans, but deny that I have done this debate damage by fearmongering and spreading disinformation," De Jager said.
"I offered evidence that, contrary to the ANC's claims, there was indeed a case study of a farm being expropriated where the interests of the state and the interests of the land owner was not balanced, and that the new expropriation act doesn't address the concerns of land owners that any one of them could suffer the same fate," De Jager said.
DISCLAIMER
The views and opinions expressed in this program are those of the speakers and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of any entities they represent. The information contained in this website is for general information purposes only. The information is provided by [business name] and while we endeavour to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the website for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.
