Die voorgestelde wysiging van artikel 25 van die Grondwet van die Republiek van Suid Afrika, 1996, om, uitdruklik, voorsiening te maak vir die onteiening van eiendom sonder vergoeding, het reeds die gramskap van baie organisasies en indiwidue ontlok.
Die voorgestelde wysiging en gevolglike uitnodiging om kommentaar te lewer het meegebring dat die parlementêre ad-hoc komitee oorweldig is met meer as 200 000 geskrewe voorleggings, die meerderheid waarvan die wysiging teenstaan en die katastrofiese gevolge van so ‘n wysiging beklemtoon. Die normale parlementêre norm is om organisasies en indiwidue wat geskrewe voorleggings gemaak het, ook toe te laat om mondelinge voorleggings te maak, die aangeleentheid te debateer en vrae oor die voorgestelde wetsontwerp te vra.
Die parlementêre ad-hoc komitee het egter besluit dat dit nie mondelinge voorleggings van diegene wat reeds skriftelike voorleggings gedoen het sal toelaat nie. Die voorsitter van die komitee het hierdie besluit verdedig deur te sê dat lede van die komitee geletterd is, die voorleggings kan lees, en dat daar nie ‘n behoefte aan mondelinge voorleggings ontstaan het nie. Dit wil egter voorkom of die werklike motivering vir die besluit die komitee se doel is om die keerdatum vir die afhandeling van die proses teen 19 Maart 2021 te haal.
Daar is ‘n aantal ooglopende probleme met die oorhaastige deurdruk van een van die belangrikste grondwetlike wysigings in die geskiedenis van Suid Afrika.
Die oënskynlike eensydige besluit van die komitee is teenstrydig met die gevestigde norm waarvolgens wetsontwerpe geprosesseer word en sal ‘n baie gevaarlike presedent vir die toekoms skep. As so ‘n kritiese wysiging, sonder in ag neming van parlementêre norme, deurgedruk word, hoeveel te meer sal die regerende party nie hierdie belangrike norme ignoreer by die prosessering van “minder belangrike” wetgewing nie? Dit sal eenvoudig aanleiding gee tot die verdere omseiling van parlementêre norme.
‘n Meer kommerwekkende gevolg van hierdie besluit is die feit dat die regering sy grondwetlike verpligting om publieke deelname toe te laat wanneer wetgewing ingestel of gewysig word afwater. Landsburgers is diegene wat juis deur wetgewing of die wysiging daarvan geraak word en om hulle die geleentheid te ontneem om insette te lewer oor besluite wat hulle raak, is nie net ‘n eienskap van ‘n totalitêre staat nie, maar ontneem hulle van hulle grondwetlike reg tot natuurlike geregtigheid.
Dit is eenvoudig onmoontlik om te glo dat die parlementêre ad-hoc komitee 200 000 geskrewe voorleggings gelees, oorweeg en beoordeel het in hulle soeke om die wil van die mense vas te stel. Dit is duidelik dat die besluit om die voorgestelde wysigings te implementeer reeds deur die regering geneem is en dat die openbare deelname proses niks meer as oëverblindery is nie.
Dit is duidelik die regering se standpunt dat die politieke wil van die regerende party sal seëvier en dat hulle die belang van die burgery misken.
EXPROPRIATION WITHOUT COMPENSATION
GOVERNMENT TURNING A BLIND EYE
The proposed amendment of section 25 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, to, explicitly, allow for the expropriation of property without compensation has already attracted the ire of many organisations and individuals.
The proposed amendment and the subsequent invitation to comment thereon have resulted in the ad-hoc committee being inundated with more than 200 000 written submissions, the majority of which oppose the amendment and set out the dire consequences such an amendment will unleash. The normal parliamentary procedure would be to allow organisations and individuals who made written submissions to also make oral submissions, debate the issue, and ask questions in respect of the proposed Bill.
However, the parliamentary ad-hoc committee has decided that it will not allow oral submissions from those who have already made written submissions. The chairperson of the committee defended this decision by stating that the members of the committee are literate and can read the submissions, and that the need to hear oral submissions did not arise. It seems, however, that the real motivation behind this decision is the committee’s desire to meet its deadline to conclude the process by 19 March 2021.
There are a number of obvious problems with rushing one of the most significant constitutional amendments in the history of South Africa.
The, seemingly unilateral, decision by the committee flies in the face of long-established procedures relating to the manner in which bills are to be processed, and will create a very dangerous precedent going forward. If such a crucial amendment is rushed through, with such total disregard for parliamentary norms, how much more will the ruling party simply ignore these very important norms when processing “less important” legislation? It will simply open the floodgates for further circumvention of parliamentary norms.
Another, even more alarming, consequence of this decision is the fact that government is diluting its constitutional obligation to allow public participation when legislation is being introduced or amended. The citizens of the country are the very people affected by legislation and amendments thereto. To disallow them the opportunity to provide input into decisions which directly affects their rights, is not only characteristic of a totalitarian state but also denies citizens their constitutionally entrenched rights to natural justice.
It is simply impossible to believe that the ad-hoc committee has read, considered and weighed more than 200 000 written submissions in their quest to determine the will of the people. It is becoming abundantly clear that the decision to effect the proposed amendments has already been taken by government and that the public participation process was no more than a sleight of hand.
It is obviously government’s stance that the political will of the ruling party will prevail and the citizens be damned.
