To clear up the mess, I turned to Gabriel Crouse, a fellow at the Institute of Race Relations, who’s got the data to back it up. Because, you know, not everything on the internet about land expropriation without compensation, is gospel.
The most interesting point of this blog is the reality check on land ownership and economic consequences—particularly how the widely accepted narrative on farmland ownership is misleading and how expropriation without compensation could backfire economically, especially in sectors like agriculture and automotive exports.


It dismantles the myth that white South Africans own the majority of land while highlighting how community property associations (CPAs), trusts, and government-held land significantly change the ownership picture. Then, it connects land policies to real financial risks, showing how South Africa could lose billions in trade benefits under AGOA if property rights are weakened.
This is a bold, fact-driven take that challenges misinformation and forces readers to think critically about land reform beyond just the political rhetoric. Here’s why, land expropriation without compensation (EWC) is not solely a racial issue—it is a national issue that affects all South Africans, regardless of race.

How Much Land is Actually ‘Farmland’?

First, let’s address the age-old question: how much of South Africa’s land is farmland? It’s not as simple as it sounds. Farmland is kind of a vague term—kind of like how everyone claims they can ‘cook,’ but not everyone can make a decent roast chicken. If we’re talking about the land actually used to grow food (the good stuff, not the kind that makes you question your life choices), it’s a small percentage. But, according to the government’s 2017 land audit (the big one they actually bothered to do), there’s around 100 million hectares of land categorized as ‘farmland.’ Yes, million. And all land in South Africa? 122 million hectares. So, we’re not exactly talking about a tiny backyard farm here.

Who Owns This Farmland, Really?

Now, here’s where it gets a little messy. People love to throw numbers around about how much farmland is owned by white folks versus black folks. In the 2017 Land Audit, individual black ownership of farmland was about 1.5% (Department of Rural Development and Land Reform, 2017). That’s not much, right?


But hold up—here’s where things get interesting. The audit doesn’t count land held through trusts or community property associations (CPAs), which is how many black South Africans have gained access to land. CPAs, established under the Communal Property Associations Act of 1996, allow communities to collectively own and manage land (South African Government, 1996). Think of CPAs as a big ‘we’re all in this together’ pool for land ownership. In fact, 3.5 million hectares of land—mostly in the Eastern and Western Cape—are held under CPAs (Institute of Race Relations, 2020). That’s a lot more than 1.5%, right?


And if we’re talking about trust land and government-held land, which is essentially the government saying, “Hey, we’ll hold onto this for you for now,” there’s a sizable chunk that’s technically under black control. In reality, when you factor in all of that, the land actually controlled by white South Africans in 2017 was around 22%—not 66%, not 50%. Just 22% (Institute of Race Relations, 2020). So let’s just kill that myth right now. The 66% figure you might see circulating? Completely misleading.

The Sectional Title Thing: A Whole Other Ballgame

Let’s talk sectional title property—because it’s a major factor in urban land ownership, especially where people own flats. But it’s not just flats. Sectional title ownership refers to a system where multiple individuals own separate units within a larger complex or building, like townhouses, apartments, office parks, and even retirement villages. Unlike freehold property, where you own the land and everything on it, sectional title owners share common property like corridors, gardens, and parking areas, usually managed by a body corporate.
Now, back in the day—specifically, apartheid-era South Africa—sectional title ownership was overwhelmingly white. The reason? Black South Africans were legally barred from buying property in most urban areas. When sectional titles became more common in the 1970s and 80s, these properties were predominantly owned by white people, simply because no one else was allowed to buy them.
Fast-forward to 2017, and the government’s Land Audit Report found that white South Africans still owned about 50% of sectional title properties (Department of Rural Development and Land Reform, 2018). That’s a big chunk, especially when you consider the country’s demographics. But does that mean white South Africans still own everything? Not quite.
Over the years, there’s been a rise in black South Africans entering the sectional title market, particularly in middle-class areas. However, historical disadvantages, economic barriers, and delays in issuing title deeds have slowed this transition (South African Cities Network, 2020).
So while sectional titles are now legally open to everyone, and the legacy of apartheid-era policies still lingers, the landscape of urban land ownership today has changed drastically.

Residential Homes: A Bigger Picture


When it comes to residential land ownership, things get a little trickier. Unlike farmland and sectional titles, there’s no single, comprehensive survey that breaks down exactly who owns what (strange right?). But what we do know is that homeownership among black South Africans has significantly increased, especially in urban areas.
In fact, if you ask people whether they own their homes, the number of black South Africans who say “yes” is nearly ten times that of white South Africans (Statistics South Africa, 2018). Sounds promising, right? Well, here’s where it gets complicated.
Many homeowners—particularly in historically disadvantaged communities—believe they fully own their properties, but they don’t actually have the title deeds to prove it (Centre for Affordable Housing Finance in Africa, 2020). Even when homes have been fully paid off, title deed backlogs and slow government processing have left many residents in limbo. This means that while they occupy and control the property, they can’t sell, transfer, or leverage it for financing like someone with formal ownership papers.
This is a big deal because title deeds are crucial for building generational wealth. Without them, homeowners can’t access formal credit, which limits economic mobility and investment opportunities (World Bank, 2019). It’s an issue the government has acknowledged, but progress in resolving it remains slow.
So, while homeownership among black South Africans has undoubtedly grown, the lack of formal ownership documents means the picture isn’t as clear-cut as it seems.

Expropriation Without Compensation: The Big Scary Threat


Let’s talk about the elephant in the room—the Expropriation Bill and its controversial “expropriation without compensation” (EWC) clause. It sounds drastic because, well, it is. In simple terms, the government could seize land without paying for it (South African Government, 2021).
But here’s the part people often overlook: who’s actually at risk? While some assume this will mostly affect white landowners, the reality is that black South Africans—particularly those owning residential land in urban areas—could be the hardest hit (Institute of Race Relations, 2020). Why? Because urban property holds the most financial value, and without compensation, it could mean wealth destruction for those who have recently gained property ownership.
Of course, this isn’t just a racial issue—it’s a property rights issue. If expropriation without compensation becomes widespread, everyone who owns property—whether it’s a farm, a sectional title flat, or a family home—has reason to be concerned. The uncertainty surrounding property rights could shake investor confidence and make it harder for all South Africans to build wealth through property (World Bank, 2022).
Bottom line? If you own anything—land, a flat, or even your great-grandmother’s house—you’ll want to keep a close eye on this.


Trump and the US’s Stance: A Little Confusing


Now, let’s talk about Trump’s reaction to South Africa’s land policies. When the Expropriation Bill started gaining traction, Donald Trump publicly criticised it, even ordering his administration to look into the issue (BBC News, 2018). He wasn’t the only one concerned—global investors and trade partners started paying close attention to what was happening with property rights in South Africa.
Here’s why this matters: South Africa’s international standing in terms of property rights has a direct impact on trade agreements, particularly AGOA (African Growth and Opportunity Act) (United States Trade Representative, 2021). AGOA gives South Africa preferential access to US markets, boosting exports. But if the government undermines property rights, there’s a real risk that South Africa could lose these trade benefits—and that would hurt industries across the board, particularly in sectors like automotive and agriculture.
In agriculture, South Africa exports products like citrus, wine, and nuts to the U.S. worth $2.5 billion annually (South African Government, 2020). In the automotive sector, AGOA has supported a major boost in exports, with the U.S. market importing over $2.5 billion worth of South African vehicles each year (South African Automotive Manufacturers Association, 2022). These industries would face a significant loss of export revenue if the country were to lose access to AGOA benefits.
So, yeah, this isn’t just a local issue—it’s a global one. The way South Africa handles expropriation could affect its economy, foreign investment, and international trade relationships.


The Future: What’s Going to Happen?


Where does all this leave us? Frankly, the picture does not look good. The government is stuck between two options: on one hand, there’s President Ramaphosa pushing the expropriation agenda, and on the other, there’s the legal fight to defend property rights. It’s a battle that’s going to play out in the courts, and, Crouse think we’re going to win it. At least, I hope we do. But if things go south, this could get really ugly, really quickly.
Bottom line: everyone’s property rights are under attack, not just one group. This is not about race and it’s about time we all start paying attention to what’s going on before we lose more than just our land.

Conclusion


Here’s the thing: This whole land issue is not about “us” versus “them.” It’s about protecting property rights for everyone, no matter who they are. Politicians keep painting it as a race war, but the reality is that the government has control over a massive chunk of land—more than the white population combined. The stats don’t lie. So if you’re a landowner—black, white, or anything in between—start paying attention. Your rights are under attack. And trust me, this battle’s far from over.