State Attorney advises against dictionary definitions in Expropriation Act challenge
The State Attorney has urged legal representatives challenging the Expropriation Act not to rely on dictionary definitions when interpreting the constitution. This occurred during the third day of arguments at the Western Cape High Court, where AfriForum, the DA, and the Institute of Race Relations IRR are contesting sections of the Act. The Association for Rural Advancement, the Rule of Law Project, and the Society for the Protection of Our Constitution were admitted as Amicus Curiae. Advocate Mark Oppenheimer argued that every word of the constitution, specifically "payment, amount and compensation" in section 252, must be considered, asserting that compensation cannot be zero as it implies rectification and not confiscation. He highlighted the historical context of land dispossession without compensation, stating it should not be repeated. Advocate Kessler Perumalsamy, for the Rule of Law Project, contended that section 123 of the Expropriation Act alters the "just and equitable" standard, suggesting it allows for expropriation without compensation without a clear rationale like funding issues. In response, the State Attorney argued that opposing parties have misinterpreted section 25 of the constitution, stating that section 123 does not breach section 25, or if it does, it is a justifiable limitation under section 36. The State Attorney emphasized that section 252b must be read in the context of section 25 as a whole, guaranteeing only "just and equitable compensation,"