Unpacking controversy: Land reform and farm attacks in South Africa

On May 19th, 2025, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa arrived in Washington, D.C., to strengthen diplomatic and economic cooperation with the United States. The visit took place amid the first wave of white South African refugees arriving in the United States, citing targeted attacks on white farmers and the recent implementation of the Expropriation Act of 2024. This legislation, which permits land expropriation without compensation under specific conditions, has been described by critics as discriminatory. This article examines South Africa’s evolving land reform framework within its historical, legal, and socio-political context. It further evaluates the legitimacy and implications of international responses of the United States within the broader discourse of human rights and sovereignty. 

1. Background: South Africa’s( RSA) 

South Africa is historically recognized for overcoming a brutal era of institutionalized racial segregation known as apartheid in the 20th century, starting in 1948. What distinguished apartheid from other types of segregation was that it continued into the 20th century. It was not merely a social system but a codified legal tool imposed by the National Party(NP), a political entity predominantly led by the Afrikaners(descendants of Dutch, French, and Scandinavian settlers). Under the apartheid regime, the government subjugated the majority of the population, categorizing them by race:  the Black population (the majority of the population), the coloured population (the mixed-race population), and the Indian or Asian population. The enforcement of apartheid laws was strict, and violations could result in legal persecution( South African History online, 2022). The discriminatory system ended in 1994 with South Africa’s first democratic and multiracial elections, with Nelson Mandela.

1.1 Overview of the Expropriation Act 13 of 2024: Objectives, Justifications, and Criticisms

The RSA has implemented various land reform measures throughout its history, before, during, and following the apartheid era. The latest advancement in land reform is the Expropriation Act 13 of 2024, enacted in December 2024( Republic of South Africa, 2024).

The first major legislative framework for expropriation was the Expropriation Act No. 63 of 1975. This act granted the state legal authority to expropriate land for public purposes. However, considering its enactment in the apartheid regime, it offered limited protection to black landowners. It followed earlier legislation such as the Land Act of 1913, which restricted land ownership by race. Under this act, Black South Africans were only permitted to own or lease land in designated “Native reserves,” which made up just 13% of the country’s land area. These successive laws exemplify a legacy of land dispossession and racial discrimination. In this context, the 1975 expropriation law essentially provided a legal framework for racially motivated land seizure during apartheid. And this new update removes the racial component of this legislation.

The 2024 Expropriation Act introduces the following key elements:

1. It authorizes the expropriation of property for public purposes or public interest.

2. It establishes procedures for the expropriation and determines the compensation with a just and equitable goal.

3. It outlines scenarios where no compensation, referred to as Nil compensation, may be deemed fair and in the public interest. ( Africa Check, 2024)

A central point of contention in the 2024 Act is the inclusion of the concept of “nil compensation”. This provision allows property to be expropriated without financial compensation under certain conditions. While the Act emphasizes fairness and public interest, critics argue that this clause raises concerns about property rights, legal protections, and the broader implications for economic stability.

2. Refugee claims and Human Rights concerns

2.1 Reports and Evidence of Attacks on White Farmers in South Africa

Between 2014 and 2024, a total of 635 murders of farmers were recorded. In an earlier period, from 1991 to 2001, 1,254 farmers were killed, as reported by the South African Police Services in 2003. While these figures are alarming, they must be considered within the broader context of the country's crime rates. As of 2024, the country experienced an average of 70.6 murders per day(BusinessTech,2024). These statistics include victims of diverse backgrounds and are largely attributed to widespread issues such as poverty, insecurity, and weak law enforcement.

Globally, the average murder rate in 2023 was approximately 6 per 100,000 people. In contrast, South Africa recorded a significantly higher rate of 21 per 100,000 people in 2023. Encouragingly, this dropped to 10.6 in 2024 and further declined to 9.1 in 2025 per 100,000 people( Data Pandas,2025). Nonetheless, this remains above the global average, indicating continuous safety concerns. Importantly, available statistics suggest that both farm owners and ordinary citizens are affected, implying that the violence is not necessarily racially motivated.

2.2 U.S Policy Toward South African Asylum Seekers

In response to the Expropriation Act, U.S. President Donald J Trump issued an executive order document alleging that the South African government targets white farmers for land confiscation without fair compensation.

The order characterized the Act as part of a broader pattern of discrimination and human rights violations against a minority group. The U.S administration declared its intention to suspend aid and cooperation with South Africa unless corrective measures were taken. While this stance acknowledges genuine concerns about racial equity and land rights, critics argue that the issue has been politicized. On one hand, the U.S raised concerns over alleged human rights violations and genocide; on the other, it leveraged diplomatic pressure to influence domestic policy in South Africa. It is essential, however, that such concern for South African asylum seekers is consistently extended to other vulnerable populations facing similar threats worldwide.

2.3 International Human Rights Perspective: Does This Constitute Persecution?

For the 1951 United Nations Refugee Convention, persecution is defined as systemic mistreatment or serious harm directed to individuals or groups based on race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Individuals who face such treatment qualify for refugee status and international protection.

For an act to qualify as persecution under international law, the perpetrators must typically be: Government authorities such as police, military, or intelligence agencies; ruling political parties or regimes; state-sponsored militias or paramilitary groups; and finally, non-state actors exercising significant control in the absence of state protection.

When we apply this definition to the South African context, we must ask: Do the state or state-like actors deliberately target Afrikaners? While the murder of farmers is a serious concern, data indicates that violence in South Africa stems from broader societal problems, such as crime, poverty, and lack of policing, rather than racial campaigns.

Regarding the Expropriation Act of 2024, there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that land is being seized from Afrikaners specifically due to their race. It aims to support public development, not to take land based on race. Considering that the white South Africans still own approximately 83% of agricultural land (Brand South Africa,2021),  it is most likely that the land of the white farmers will be expropriated; nevertheless, other landowners will also be affected. 

For comparison, in the United States, local governments may expropriate private land for public projects such as highways, schools, or transit systems. This action is called eminent domain in the U.S. A Notable example is the expansion of Interstate 10 in Texas, which involved the expropriation of numerous homes and businesses to improve traffic infrastructure( Padua Law Firm, 2022).

3. U.S and South Africa Relationship: Cooperation or Conflict?

3.1 Overview of the U.S. and South Africa Relationship

The diplomatic relationship between the two states has historically been complex. During the apartheid era, the U.S. government expressed criticism of the regime’s racial policies; however, its foreign policy emphasized countering the spread of communism, which drew criticism from anti apartheid activists.

Following the end of apartheid in 1994, the United States strongly supported South Africa’s transition to democracy, initiating a new era of cooperation. This included economic partnerships such as the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), under which South Africa became the regional leader in Africa for U.S.-Africa relations (Ray C.A., 2025).

Recently, from the 2010s onward, South Africa has diversified its international partnerships, strengthening ties with other nations such as China, Russia, and Iran. Moreover, RSA has adopted a non-Western stance on global conflicts, including nuanced positions on issues in the Middle East and increased focus on African regional development and sovereignty( Carroll A, 2017)

3.2 Key Issues During President Ramaphosa’s Visit to the U.S

President Cyril Ramaphosa’s visit to Washington, D.C., was largely focused on addressing concerns surrounding allegations of “genocide” against South Africa’s white minority population. Particularly, the white farmers' murders and land reform policies. In their discussions, President Ramaphosa emphasized that violent crime in South Africa affects all communities, not only the white minority. The visit served as an opportunity to reaffirm bilateral relations and clarify the broader context of domestic security issues in South Africa.

3.3 Recent U.S. Responses to South African Policy Developments

In 2024, the South African Parliament enacted the Expropriation Act No. 13, which includes provisions for the seizure of land for public interest. In certain cases, without compensation, referred to as “nil compensation”.This development prompted a strong response from the U.S. administration, which issued an executive order addressing this action. Specifically stating that this act targets white farmers.

The executive order framed the legislation as part of a broader pattern of discriminatory policies and human rights concerns. As a result, the U.S. indicated it would consider suspending aid and other forms of bilateral cooperation if the South African government did not address the alleged injustices. This response reflects the heightened sensitivity of land reform issues in international diplomacy and underscores the challenges of balancing national sovereignty with global Human Rights standards.

4. Looking Ahead: What comes next?

There are positive and negative aspects to consider in this dynamic between South Africa and the United States. On a positive note, the fact that leaders from both nations engaged in direct dialogue is encouraging, as it shows that the issues are being acknowledged at the highest levels. For South Africa in particular, the opportunity to defend itself against allegations that have to be verified.

On the negative side, the situation highlights the potential for the United States to use its status and influence, particularly through aid provision, as a tool for political leverage. This raises broader questions regarding the capacity of states to function independently of external assistance. Moreover, the controversy exposes governance failures within South Africa that continue to impact its citizens.

Moreover, the executive order of the U.S. may be interpreted as an infringement on South Africa’s sovereignty, as it appears to influence domestic policy decisions through the threat of non-cooperation. Sanctions are typically justified in cases of clear violations of international law. However, in this instance, the concerns raised, such as the alleged targeted killings of white farmers and land expropriation, do not appear to be substantiated by evidence of persecution. Instead, these issues stem largely from internal structural challenges the South African government must address.

While calling out injustice and discrimination wherever they occur is important, such efforts must remain impartial and universally applied. Selective outrage undermines the legitimacy of international advocacy and may set a dangerous precedent.

5. Conclusion

Ramaphosa’s visit to Washington signifies an important step towards dialogue, mutual clarification, and the potential for renewed cooperation. However, the diplomatic pressure, especially through aid conditionality, raises difficult questions about international influence and the limits of intervention in domestic affairs. Both nations will benefit from constructive engagement based on mutual respect, open dialogue, and a shared commitment to justice and development. Furthermore,  international responses to complex issues must be founded in evidence and free of political bias.

Bibliography:

1. A history of Apartheid in South Africa. (2022, April 5 ). South African History Online. https://www.sahistory.org.za/article/history-apartheid-south-africa  

2. Republic of South Africa. (2025, January 24). Expropriation Act 13 of 2024. South African Government. https://www.gov.za/documents/acts/expropriation-act-13-2024-english-sepedi-24-jan-2025

3. Africa Check. (2024, January 16). EXPLAINER: What South Africa’s Expropriation Act does and doesn’t allow. https://africacheck.org/fact-checks/explanations/explainer-what-south-africas-expropriation-act-does-and-doesnt-allow

4. BusinessTech. (2024, August 30). The one province in South Africa where murder is on the rise. https://businesstech.co.za/news/lifestyle/825378/the-one-province-in-south-africa-where-murder-is-on-the-rise/
   

5. Data Pandas. (2025, May 20). Murder rate by country 2025. https://www.datapandas.org/ranking/murder-rate-by-country

6. Brand South Africa. (2021, September 24). Unraveling the legacy of land dispossession in South Africa. https://brandsouthafrica.com/127501/legacy-of-land-dispossession/

7. Padua Law Firm. (2022, January 31). Eminent domain in Texas [FAQ]. https://www.padualaw.com/eminent-domain/eminent-domain-in-texas-faqs/

8. Ray, C. A. (2025, April 15). The US-South Africa imbroglio, and its implications for US-Africa relations. Foreign Policy Research Institute. https://www.fpri.org/article/2025/04/the-us-south-africa-imbroglio-and-its-implications-for-us-africa-relations/

9. Carroll, A. (2017, November). Forging a new era in US-South African relations. Atlantic Council.https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Forging_a_New_Era_in_US-South_African_Relations_1128_web.pdf 

10. South African History Online. (2022, April,5). A history of Apartheid in South Africa. https://www.sahistory.org.za/article/history-apartheid-south-africa

11. Africa Check. (2024, January 16). EXPLAINER: What South Africa’s Expropriation Act does and doesn’t allow. https://africacheck.org/fact-checks/explanations/explainer-what-south-africas-expropriation-act-does-and-doesnt-allow

12. Du Plessis, G. (2024, March 21). Land seizure and SA's new expropriation law: Scholar weighs up the act. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/land-seizure-and-sas-new-expropriation-law-scholar-weighs-up-the-act-225107

13. Peoples Dispatch. (2023, August 2). From colonial theft to agrarian justice: South Africa's long road to land reform. https://peoplesdispatch.org/2023/08/02/from-colonial-theft-to-agrarian-justice-south-africas-long-road-to-land-reform/

14. allAfrica. (2025, May 12). South Africa submits revised trade and investment proposal to U.S. https://allafrica.com/stories/202505120057.html 

15. Associated Press. (2024, August 31). South Africans dispute Trump, Musk claims of genocide against white farmers in their country. https://apnews.com/article/trump-musk-south-africa-farmers-genocide-123abc456def 

16. Ndlovu-Gatsheni, S. J. (2021, July 15). Farm attacks or ‘white genocide’? Interrogating the unresolved land question in South Africa. ACCORD. https://www.accord.org.za/analysis/farm-attacks-or-white-genocide/ 

17. The White House. (2024, December 22). Addressing egregious actions of the Republic of South Africa. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/12/22/addressing-egregious-actions-of-the-republic-of-south-africa/ 

18. Meldrum, A. (2023, November 18). US grants asylum to 54 white Afrikaner South Africans, reports say. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/18/us-grants-asylum-white-south-africans 

19. Mchunu, S. (2025, May 10). Minister Senzo Mchunu: Release of 2024/2025 Fourth Quarter Crime Statistics. South African Government. https://www.gov.za/speeches/minister-senzo-mchunu-release-20242025-fourth-quarter-crime-statistics-10-may-2025 

20. Brand South Africa. (2021, September 24). Unraveling the legacy of land dispossession in South Africa. https://brandsouthafrica.com/127501/legacy-of-land-dispossession/

21. Bolhuis, M. (2025, March 20.). Project: Farm attacks in South Africa. https://www.mikebolhuis.co.za/post/project-farm-attacks-in-south-africa 

22. FactCheck.org. (2023, April 5). False data distort complex picture of South African farm murders.https://www.factcheck.org/2023/04/false-data-distort-complex-picture-of-south-african-farm-murders/