|
|
Post by cjm on Feb 28, 2016 6:14:01 GMT
Hier word te kenne gegee dat daar nie 'n probleem is nie. Hier en hier en hier is dit 'n ander storie. Miskien is die verduideliking wysigings wat ter elfder ure aangebring is. Dit lyk vir my die ernstigste kwessie is die onsekerheid oor hoe die waarde van eiendom bepaal word en die verskuiwing van die onus na die eienaar toe. Die val van die Rand tydens die begrotingsrede het miskien meer met onteiening doen as die Pravin se uiteringe.
|
|
|
|
Post by cjm on Mar 12, 2016 19:05:12 GMT
Die heiliges wat ween oor Skipskop en Distrik 6 moet miskien 'n oomblik 'n toekomsblik werp oor gedwonge verskuiwings en uitsettings in 'n nuwe kleed.
|
|
|
|
Post by cjm on Jun 16, 2016 10:06:01 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by cjm on Jul 27, 2016 16:44:44 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by cjm on Jul 31, 2016 6:36:43 GMT
LETTER: Jeremy Cronin is off base regarding the role of AfriBusinessJuly 30 2016, 09:20 DEFENDER: Deputy Public Works Minister Jeremy Cronin has consistently defended the bill, claiming it was fully compliant with the Constitution’s property clause. Picture: PUXLEY MAKGATHO JEREMY Cronin’s research on AfriBusiness and its affairs seems to lack knowledge and understanding — similar to the research he did regarding the impact of the Expropriation Bill on SA as a whole. We are, in fact, an apolitical business rights watchdog that strives for flourishing equality in the business sector for all. One of our key focus points is to ensure steady, fair and predictable business environments within SA. The Expropriation Bill will inevitably have a negative influence on business environments as it will hold a proverbial axe over the heads of business owners, by forcing them to give up ownership of their property for the sake of your constitutional commitment to land reform. If every next individual/company has to give up their property ownership for that commitment, under the veil of "public interest", what would the outcome be for the economy? We are already facing slow growth and immense unemployment figures. This bill seems to be nothing more than a politically motivated endeavour, pursued not in the interest of all South Africans but that of the current South African government. Will economic growth be weighed up against "public interest" where business assets are expropriated at the expense of job creation and economic growth, for the sake of fulfilling political goals? Regardless of the reason President Jacob Zuma referred the Bill back to the National Assembly speaker and the National Council of Provinces (NCOP), the persistent problem throughout this bill’s history leading up to its acceptance has been issues surrounding its constitutionality. No-one has denied what is enshrined in section 25 of the Constitution regarding property and land reform, but the Bill seems to want to reach further than what the Constitution envisioned, and this is where the problem lies. Cronin stated in his letter that he, as an act of courtesy, has made a comprehensive presentation on the draft bill to the House of Traditional Leaders in 2013, where the broad principles were positively endorsed. But this raises the question whether he made any further presentations on the five different versions of the Bill released in 2015 thereafter. The final bill of 2015 has significant amendments since the draft bill of 2013: surely these changes should also have been brought to their attention? AfriBusiness has already consulted various senior legal advisers and received legal opinions regarding the bill’s constitutionality, and should it be signed into law we will test the final Act in a court of law. In the end, as with any new legislation, if its application in practice seems to undermine any form of constitutional rights or if the process leading up to its acceptance into law was invalid, the Constitutional Court will have the final say, as was the case with the Restitution of Land Rights Amendment Act. Armand Greyling Law and Policy Analyst, AfriBusiness
|
|
|
|
Post by cjm on Dec 30, 2020 18:27:44 GMT
stamp
|
|
