South Africa and Namibia are grappling with the complex issue of land redistribution in their post-colonial contexts. 

The nuances in the land debate in both countries underscore their commitment to addressing the critical nexus between land and development. 

While both countries seek to correct the historical injustices of land dispossession, their approaches to land reform depict certain similarities and differences as well as strengths and weaknesses. In both contexts, land reform is a critical intervention for land redistribution to the landless. 

Land reform typically occurs through revolutionary change or government-enacted legislation. 

However, in both South Africa and Namibia, land reform has not been the product of a revolution. Instead, it is guided by constitutional provisions. 

The latest developments, particularly in South Africa, have intensified the debate on land expropriation.

The global debate

Recently, South Africa’s Expropriation Bill, signed into law by president Cyril Ramaphosa on 23 January 2025, has become the subject of global news, and sparked significant debate. 

One such opponent of the new expropriation law is the Afrikaner interest group AfriForum, which sought the intervention of the United States’ government. 

On 3 February 2025, United States president Donald Trump stated that South Africa was “confiscating land” and perpetrating “a massive human rights violation”.  President Ramaphosa, journalists, political commentators, certain land pressure groups and strategic stakeholders have strongly expressed that Trump is misinformed about South Africa’s expropriation efforts. 

This sentiment was also echoed during the general debate of the state of the nation address by various members of parliament on 11 to 12 February 2025.

South Africa’s expropriation Bill

In South Africa, land reform is grounded in Section 25 of its Constitution. Section 25(2) of the South African Constitution states that property may be expropriated only in terms of a law of general application. The Expropriation Act of 1975 is the law of general application, which will be replaced by the provisions of the Expropriation Act of 2025.  

The 1975 Expropriation Act required the state to compensate landowners based on the ‘willing seller, willing buyer’ principle.  The most controversial aspect of the Expropriation Bill signed into law on 23 January 2025 by president Ramaphosa is that it allows for land expropriation by the state with “nil compensation to be paid where land is expropriated in the public interest…” 

Neither the Constitution nor the Expropriation Bill allows for random acts of expropriation by the state for no compensation.

While the amendment proposal to explicitly allow expropriation without compensation failed in 2021 due to disagreements between the African National Congress (ANC) and the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) on the terms of their cooperation, the new Expropriation Bill makes it possible for land to be taken in the public interest without compensation, provided certain criteria are met. 

The Constitution and Bill set out a range of requirements and standards to be met before expropriation may take place. 

Both proponents and opponents of land reform have signalled intentions to challenge president Ramaphosa’s decision and the provisions of the legislation, potentially delaying its implementation.

Namibia’s land reform challenges

Article 16 of the Namibian Constitution permits that “the state or a competent body or organ, authorised by law, may expropriate property in the public interest, subject to the payment of just compensation by requirements and procedures to be determined by the Act of Parliament”. 

Like South Africa, land may be expropriated for public purposes or in the public interest, with just compensation based on fair market value as determined by law.  While the Constitution mandates just compensation for expropriated land, the lack of clear legislation raises concerns about how compensation is assessed and enforced. 

Namibia has two key land rights laws, namely the Agricultural (Commercial) Land Reform Act 6 of 1995, which governs the acquisition of freehold commercial land for resettlement, and the Communal Land Reform Act 5 of 2002, which regulates communal land tenure.

The Minister of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform committed the 7th National Assembly to table a new Land Bill and follow the necessary legislative process, but no progress was made. 

Instead, the minister introduced the National Resettlement Policy 2023-2033, raising public doubts about whether the Land Bill will ever be addressed. 

These concerns are also raised in the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Claims of Ancestral Land Rights and Restitution, which highlights perceptions of unfair land distribution and the failure of existing policies to address historical land dispossession. 

Submitted to late president Hage Geingob on 24 July 2020, the report affirms the “perception that the current national resettlement policy and land reform programmes are insensitive to the needs of the landless and those dispossessed of their ancestral land, benefitting instead the rich, powerful and politically-connected”. 

The commission recommends establishing a Land Claims Commission and Land Claims Court through Acts of Parliament to ensure substantive justice for communities dispossessed of their lands, territories and resources. 

Despite the above proposals, the government’s persistent failure to exercise expropriation powers has significantly hindered land restitution and reparations. 

The rare application of expropriation, such as in the Ongombe West Farm case, where the government lost, reflects a systemic reluctance to address historical land injustices and entrenched inequality.

Shared struggles 

One key similarity between South Africa and Namibia is the historical reliance on the ‘willing seller, willing buyer’ principle in their land redistribution efforts. 

This principle is a market-based approach to land reform, where the government buys land from willing sellers at market prices. 

Both countries have encountered criticism for this model’s slow pace and limited scope of land redistribution. 

In South Africa, this model was seen as too costly and inefficient, leading to calls for more radical approaches, such as expropriation without compensation.

In Namibia, the slow implementation of the National Resettlement Programme (NRP) and the continued dominance of commercial farms by white landowners have led to frustration among those who feel the process is not moving quickly enough.  We are yet to see whether the South African government’s approach of enacting expropriation without compensation in exceptional circumstances will accelerate land reform. 

Land reform in South Africa and Namibia remain complex battlegrounds of historical injustices, political realities and economic challenges. 

Land redistribution requires moving away from a market-oriented, neoliberal approach, which fails to address historical dispossession and injustices with the necessary urgency. 

While both countries seek justice for historical land dispossession, their policy approaches continue to ignite heated debates, deepening divisions between those advocating radical change, and those fearing economic instability.

Conclusion

South Africa’s expropriation without compensation has sparked both hope and fear. Will Namibia follow suit, or remain trapped in policy inertia? One thing is clear: without strong political will, land reform risks becoming an empty promise, igniting frustration among the landless. 

Equitable land redistribution is not just a policy issue, but it is about people, their dignity and justice after centuries of dispossession, genocide and endless atrocities. 

As Namibia mourns the Founding President of Namibia and Father of the Nation Sam Nujoma, his words remind us: “A people united, striving to achieve a common good for all, will always emerge victorious”. 

The time for unity and action is now.

*Henny H. Seibeb holds a Postgraduate Diploma in Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies from the Institute for Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies at the University of the Western Cape, South Africa, as well as a Bachelor of Public Management (Honours) in Political Science from the University of Namibia.

*Sharné Zimri is a South African attorney and the Director of Zimri Attorneys. She holds an LLB and an LLM from the University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa and an MBA from The Hague University of Applied Sciences, Netherlands.