Abstract
LL.M. (Human Rights Law)
Land reform has become a hot topic recently. In particular the slow pace at which it is being pursued has prompted calls for an amendment to the property clause. This is due to the rising sentiment that section 25 is a guarantor of the status quo and not a tool for reform. My dissertation examines whether this sentiment holds water by analysing the reformative potential of the property clause. In doing so the constitutional matrix, a single system of law, and a purposive interpretation approach are all considered in detail as elements that illustrate the property clause is a tool for reform. The structure of the property clause is also considered with particular attention given to one of the pillars of land reform, namely land restitution. The conclusion drawn is that the property clause is a tool for reform and not a guarantor of the status quo and that the courts have understood this clearly. Conversely, what has been driving the status quo is in fact political impotency when it comes to pursuing the land reform agenda. In this regard the Restitution of Land Rights Amendment Act is discussed in light of a recent Constitutional Court case. Market-value compensation for expropriation is also an impediment in many cases, and in this regard the recent Msiza judgment is briefly discussed as being the progressive method for calculating the compensation. Finally, the conclusion is that calls for an amendment to the property clause are premature, as the full potential of section 25 to accommodate land reform has not yet been realised.