SA Back to God calls for fast for SA on May 2

SA Back to God’s Janet Brann-Hollis has made a call for intercessors to unite in fasting and prayer on Wednesday May 2, for the judiciary , the land question and the restoration of cities of South Africa.

In a video introduction [See below] to the fast she says she had a vision of principalities being released to bring chaos and destruction to the nation but that Christians could counter-petition and make a huge impact in the spiritual realm through fasting and prayer.

She urged pastors and leaders to encourage cell groups and other groups to participate in the fast on Wednesday.

She said the fast day was based on the Nehemiah city transformation principle demonstrated when he wept, mourned and fasted for Jerusalem.

Click here for prayer guidelines.

 




Land expropriation and the religious community

The land reform issues has many questioning what to do. (PHOTO: John Fedele)

Land expropriation is a highly political and emotionally charged issue. Freedom of Religion South Africa (FOR SA) is closely monitoring this area since it clearly has the potential to impact on the religious community. We therefore want to bring a balanced perspective to our constituency so that we have a framework of reference within which to formulate appropriate responses at the appropriate time.

The issue of land expropriation has taken centre stage since the ANC adopted a policy at its Congress in December last year, subsequently endorsed by a resolution tabled in Parliament in February 2018 calling for “Expropriation Without Compensation” (EWC). Yet almost immediately, President Ramaphosa stated that there was no cause for alarm, that there would be no land grabs, that it was imperative to ensure that the economy remained stable and food security protected. At the same time, the EFF attacked the government of back-pedalling, saying that this was no more than an electioneering ruse to undermine their more radical and populist approach. The initial EFF resolution called for “the necessity of the State being a custodian of all South African land”. However, placing all land into the custody of the State is not in the interest of any South African, given the well-documented lack of State capacity to optimally administer land for land reform purposes. The undermining of property rights will impact all equally.

At the centre of the debate is whether (or not) there is a need for an amendment of section 25 of the Constitution (the “property clause”) to allow the State to expropriate land without compensation. Section 25 has two distinct parts: Subsections (1) to (4) provide protection against arbitrary deprivation of property rights and define the principles and framework for expropriation. Subsections (5) to (9) describe the State’s obligation to ensure equitable access to land, land reform and redress.

It is argued by some that there is no need for an amendment to the Constitution, since the current provisions do not specify a Rand amount for compensation, but rather use the expression “just and equitable”. If implemented strictly, this could mean that a zero (or nominal) amount of financial compensation could be paid and — if opposed — the courts could decide on whether this is a possible interpretation.

A complex issue with no easy solutions
At the outset, although many believe that land expropriation is a question of justice, there is evidently no easy solution to this problem. It is also arguably more of a political issue than a recognition of a priority demand at grass roots level, as evidenced by a recent survey which showed that a mere 9 respondents out of 2 245 demographically represented people (0.4% of the total) identified land reform as a key unresolved problem. For most South Africans, the issue has little or no significance, with jobs, crime and housing being far more important issues for the majority.

However, the issue of land ownership is highly symbolic, with some estimates showing that the vast majority of land in South Africa is “white owned”, with the obvious related question of “how was this acquired?” At the same time, others have challenged the veracity of these figures because they omit vast land holdings owned by the State and other tribal trust structures. Against this background, it is important to note that this is not a black and white issue but rather many shades of grey. For example:

  • How far back in history do you go when considering what land to appropriate? In this regard, the Khoi San lay claim to the ownership of nearly two thirds of all land in present day South Africa.
  • How do you decide who should become the new owners of the land, especially where you cannot prove previous tenure as in the Western Cape?
  • What framework will the State develop/use to decide which land to expropriate?

The religious sector is clearly worried about this development, which has the potential danger of being very divisive since there is a perception that the traditional churches are significant land owners whereas the more independent (particularly African) churches are often unable to acquire land for economic reasons. However, a Pietermaritzberg based organisation called Church Land has done extensive research on this area and initial enquiries seem to indicate that large scale land ownership by churches is not true and that the religious community is a negligible land owner. Typically if/when churches no longer use land, they sell it.

Whatever policy may be adopted, it will need to consider the reality that there are existing and different property ownership systems in South Africa. In particular, huge tracts of land are owned by traditional rulers in the form of customary land, where in many cases an individual owns the land on behalf of the community. An example of this is the Ingonyama Land Trust, where some 3 million hectares in KwaZulu-Natal are owned by the Zulu King, who has already stated that his people will defend their land in needs be. This traditional system contrasts with the “Roman Dutch” law model of private ownership evidence by title deeds. The State — via multiple government departments and State-owned enterprises (SOEs) — also has vast land holdings.

However, at present there is no definitive audit available of land ownership in South Africa — hence President Ramaphosa ordering this to take place, with an ad hoc Committee due to present a report on this by August 30 2018. This is imperative, because it will provide essential information that will inform the process of policy development which will then be used for any subsequent EWC actions.

No “free for all” land grab
While there is a tendency to panic, it is important to note that any amendment to section 25 which might take place will not affect other pertinent provisions of the Constitution, which will remain in effect and be applicable. It will not be a “free for all” land grab because the rule of law and legal rights framework would not disappear. This includes:

  • It is the State that must implement the expropriation process, not an individual. You therefore cannot lay claim to a property simply because you want one — you must be able to prove legitimate cause.
  • Expropriation must be justified, eg if there are six farms for sale in an area, it would be difficult to justify the expropriation of a seventh.
  • Procedural principles in the Constitution will still apply, such as any expropriation must be non-discriminatory eg you cannot just expropriate Afrikaner-owned farms.
  • There must be just administration — the principle of proportionality will apply to any legislative provision in the Bill/Act.

However, there is no doubt that there have been historic injustices in the current status quo of land ownership in South Africa. It is therefore important to look at how we arrived at this point and to consider what sacrifices we are prepared to make to remedy situations. This is particularly so where unjust land ownership transfer took place under Apartheid and both those who benefitted and those who were the victims are still living with the consequences. This would apply to eg forced land removals, the consolidation of homelands etc, where land was often acquired for nothing or a nominal payment. In such cases — which are also symbolic and evidently issues of justice — expropriation without compensation would seem appropriate.

Need for constructive engagement
The bottom line is that even if strong political will is exerted — which has been noticeably lacking in this area since 1994 — there is a long process ahead before any significant shifts are likely to take place. While it is very important to stay abreast of developments and to be well informed about (and involved in) the process, there is no need for undue alarm but rather for constructive engagement in this important national issue.

FOR SA will keep monitoring this issue — in particular with regard to the potential impact on religious communities in South Africa — and inform our constituency of developments and any opportunity for input in this regard.

*With thanks for the input of Adv Mike Pothier of the Southern African Catholic Bishops’ Conference (SACBC) Parliamentary Liaison Office.




Invader snakes inspire land-debate approach — Africa Mhlophe

Part 2 of a two-part series on the land issue

Read Part 1

I stay in a suburb that seems infested with poisonous snakes. In my garden, I have encountered a viper and boomslang on two separate occasions.

When I shared my predicament on Facebook, some users suggested that I kill these dangerous creatures – as a preemptive measure to protect my family and me. No doubt this was an attractive proposition, especially considering that some members of my household have a morbid fear of snakes.

One evening we discussed this fear and myths about snakes. I was shocked when a university student who shares the house with us confessed to a fear of having a snake chase her around the house. We used the evening to allay such fears and demystify myths regarding the behaviour of snakes.

Now allow me to link this incident with the protracted land debate currently taking place in South Africa. The link is purely for the analogous benefit and nothing more.

Let me start by telling you how I handled this snake problem. I took the option of paying a snake catcher to safely remove and release the snakes elsewhere.

I figured that snakes have as much right to live as I do. I also suspect that our suburb is built in a space that used to be their habitat. And if I am correct then the snakes are not the intruders – we are.

But as humans, we can coexist with poisonous snakes – if we pay the price to find solutions to nagging problems and demystify persistent myths.

As you would know, different types of snakes behave differently. And the same is also true of human beings. You can’t generalise and say that all whites in South Africa are against making concessions on land. Also, you can’t say that all blacks favour the wholesale expropriation of land.

There are nuances in between. Therefore, progress is only possible when we remove the veil of ignorance. For instance, we can’t be blind to the fact that some politicians are not only leading this debate for egalitarian reasons – but also for political mileage.

Personally, I am wary of the socialistic approach wherein the state should own all land – with citizens merely tenants. Most South Africans are paying less attention to this. Others are imagining a type of resettlement scheme where private homes will be expropriated and given to new owners.

Now, let me share what I think will break the land impasse. For the last two years, my wife and I have been facilitating an empowerment project between an Eastern Cape farmer and his employees.

The farmer bought more land to expand the farming operation with long-serving workers as the main shareholders and beneficiaries.

Business plan and off-take agreements are in place for what would become a multimillion-rand project. We have now seen the project through tedious government bureaucracy to a place of implementation.

I imagine that if there was an attempt to invade this particular farm, the workers would become a bulwark against such an action. They would want to protect what they own.

What excites me about this project is its social improvement plan. It involves the creation of an NGO to oversee things like job creation, educational needs, healthcare, recreation, etc. There’s even talk of a pre-school and multipurpose centre for the community. So there is a multi-generational focus.

My point is, for South Africa to work, we have to work together. There has to be compromise from all sides. In my case at home, I am not prepared to move out and make room for the snakes. But I am prepared to pay for them to be settled elsewhere.

Let me finish off with Genesis 3:15. God said to the snake, “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel.”

Notice that enmity between the snake and the woman is multi-generational, and that as long as this enmity exists, there will be bruising on both sides.




Getting to the heart of the land issue — Afrika Mhlophe

Part 1 of a two-part series on the land issue

Read Part 2

The land issue has got South Africans into a knot. It has brought a terrible stench and revealed fractures lying below the surface. The debate is opening up old wounds, some say, while others are grateful that wounds that were festering are now finally being attended to. The positions are so irreconcilable and divisions deeper than we care to admit. So deep, in fact, that they cut across every sector of society – including the Church.

This issue is piercing through pleasantries and platitudes — to the core of our being. Brother is now rising against brother, as Cain did against Abel. You must understand that Cain did not just kill Abel because of jealousy over a rejected offering. He did so because he “belonged to the evil one” (1 John 3:12). In other words, his heart was captured elsewhere even though he had an offering directed towards God. A commitment to religion overshadowed a right relationship with God.

The heart of the matter
Jeremiah tells us that the heart is deceitful above all things. So much so that it hoodwinks its very owner. Perhaps this is why Solomon tells us to Guard your heart above all else, for it determines the course of your life — Proverbs 4:23. Your life course is not determined by politics but by what is swirling in your heart. The real battlefield is your heart, rather than the parliament of South Africa. The battle itself is not just over land but over the future of this country.

Do we want a country where race continues to be an arbiter of a person’s future? As Christians, there are two things that we share as a common inheritance. The kingdom of God and an earthly place called South Africa. We must advance God’s kingdom, rather than extend our fiefdoms. We can’t keep land in perpetuity for our descendants, but we must steward and use it as part of our mission to advance God’s kingdom.

Remember Peter tells us that the earth and the works that in it will be burned up” — 1 Peter 3:10. So it is not worth destroying our eternal bonds for something that will pass away.

The heart is the wellspring of life
Personally, I knew that the land issue would surface at some point. But I am shocked at the fractious response from the church. Before Cain killed his brother God said to him: “Why are YOU so angry?” the LORD asked Cain. “Why do YOU look so dejected?” (Genesis 4:6, emphasis mine). God wanted Cain to take personal responsibility for how he felt. He didn’t want him to follow the example of Adam who transferred blame to his wife Eve. Well-known author and communicator, Andy Stanley, in the book Enemies of the Heart, says that a person can have a life-threatening heart problem that can go on undetected for years.

This issue can manifest itself through certain symptoms which are often treated as isolated issues unrelated to the health of the heart. The benefits from this kind of intervention are short-lived because the real problem (health of the heart) is left untreated and thus leaving it to worsen (2006:11). If you press a tube – let’s say of toothpaste – only what is inside the tube comes out. So when you are pressed, what comes out of you? Anger and hatred? Or kindness and love?

Let me use an example surrounding H&M, the Swedish retail giant, whose stores were recently trashed by Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) supporters. H&M faced the wrath of EFF when they produced an ad of a black boy wearing a sweatshirt with “coolest monkey in the jungle” on it. When H&M realized their marketing blunder, they apologized and removed the offending items. However, this was not enough to appease EFF supporters.

Sunday Times columnist Barney Mthombothi, was disgusted and wrote the following concerning the EFF, “Rage, after all, is their only currency.” He says with the departure of their gift horse – former President Jacob Zuma – the party will look for something to be “perpetually angry about.” In the Bible, anger is justified, but actions resulting from it are not. And this is why God presented Cain with another option. God said: “You will be accepted if you do what is right  — Genesis 4:6.

In my next article, I will share my views on “what is right” regarding the land issue. For now, I want to encourage you to keep guarding your heart.




Facing the elephant in South Africa: land redistribution — Enoch Phiri

Church leader, author and television personality Pastor Enoch Phiri tackles the land issue in South Africa. It’s a biblical priority and the Church should be at the forefront of finding solutions, argues the founding pastor of Restoration House in Soweto.

South Africa is at a crossroad yet again. The unfinished business of transition to a democratic nation has caught up with us and we can no longer hide.

The conversations we are having and decisions we are making today have the potential to change the future of our nation for better or worse.

It is no longer just the conversations of the ruling elite that matter now, but those of every South African.

This was clearly demonstrated when an individual in Durban expressed her thoughts about holidaymakers in Durban.

What began as Penny Sparrow’s views and perhaps a reflection of conversations she may have been having with her friends, opened a can of worms and has forced the whole nation to face the reality that we have never really dealt with all the issues coming into this new democracy.

We got caught up with the euphoria of a new democracy, the international attention we received and we were under the Madiba magic, so we did not pay attention to the details of the agreement that was reached.

It is for that reason I am grateful for the opportunity to be part of this discourse, to share my thoughts around the subject at the heart of tension in the nation — the land and economic transformation subject.

We got caught up with the euphoria of a new democracy, the international attention we received and we were under the Madiba magic, so we did not pay attention to the details of the agreement that was reached.

Does South Africa need land redistribution?
South Africa is a beautiful country. This country is well endowed with gold, silver, diamonds and many other minerals.

The land of South Africa is fertile and we have such diverse weather patterns that as a nation we should have food security and also not be lacking in mineral resources.

However, this is not the case as we all know.

The land of South Africa that is endowed with minerals does not unfortunately benefit the majority of the people of the country.

South Africa has amongst the highest income inequality gaps in the world.

Since the dawn of democracy we have seen the country’s economy rise but with very little impact on the lives of the majority of the inhabitants of the land.

The dialogue of land and economic transformation
And we are now at the point where we cannot just hope the situation will resolve itself as the economy grows but it’s time to speak and for all of us to take responsibility to contribute towards this dialogue of land and economic transformation.

Since 1994 we have adopted many policies aimed at addressing the subject of economic transformation.

We started with RDP (Reconstruction and Development Programme), then GEAR (Growth, Employment and Redistribution), and then ASGISA (Accelerated) until we ended up with the National Development Plan and now we are talking Radical Economic Transformation.

All these powerfully-articulated policies failed to archive their intended goals.

While there are many issues surrounding policy implementation, such as lack of capacity, I believe the policies fall short of transforming the economy when aimed at economic transformation that is entirely disconnected to the subject of land.

Whenever God wanted to free people from bondage He promised them land. … Whenever God promised to restore a people, He promised them land.

Why land? — Biblical lessons
I would like to refer to the bible, as we all know it is not just a holy book but the bible is in fact, a historical record of true events of how God dealt with nations on many subjects.

One of the subjects that is clearly close to God’s heart is the subject of land.

Whenever God wanted to free people from bondage He promised them land.

This was the case when He delivered the children of Israel from Egypt which at the time was an economic super power (Exodus).

Whenever God promised to restore a people, He promised them land.

This was the case when the children of Israel were in exile.

He spoke through the words of the prophet Jeremiah when the land had been destroyed and the city of Jerusalem destroyed and said that He would redeem them from captivity and restore the land back to them.

Coveting land given to others
God also warned the children of Israel not to covet the land He had given to other nations.

He set boundaries for the land He was giving to Israel, to ensure they knew clearly what their portion was, and that anything beyond that was pure ambition and perhaps greed.

Everyone was meant to sit under their own vine and fig tree.

What the bible also teaches us is that in His wisdom, God knew that people being people would be led by their ambitions and in dealing with each other, some would lose their lands and become slaves.

Even if the slaves brought it on themselves for whatever reason, God did not intend for anyone to die in a state of slavery and bondage.

He gave laws that every seven years slaves must be released and their debts be written off.

And He knows that the basic human need of shelter means there must be land upon which this shelter can be built. So to God, land is just a starter pack to life.

Provision to start afresh
He gave provision for people to start afresh every seven years. But His generosity didn’t end there, He also made provision that those who may have lost or sold their land should be able to recover it at the end of 49 years.

This meant in every generation, each family would be given an opportunity to start again on the land of their forefathers. If parents had lost it because of bad fortunes, the children stood a chance to recover the land and rebuild.

Why would God see fit to put such laws in place? Why would He not want people to rot in jail as we often say?

He reminded the children of Israel of how He took them out of bondage in Egypt.

His compassion and love is with those who are oppressed.

God does not desire to see the people He created rot, because every person is made in His image and He has put treasure in each person and He desires to see people fulfil their purpose.

And He knows that the basic human need of shelter means there must be land upon which this shelter can be built. So to God, land is just a starter pack to life.

What went wrong in Africa?
If we remember the story in Exodus, Moses came to Pharaoh a number of times and Pharaoh refused to let the children of Israel go.

But after he came under pressure when God had confronted him with a number of plagues, he began to agree to let Israel go but he wanted to keep their wealth and their children and therefore grant them only partial freedom.

Many Israelites at that stage were ready to accept any deal from Pharaoh just to get some relief from their hard labour he had put them under. And I believe that is what we did in our country, we accepted partial liberation.

We agreed to leave our wealth and our children behind. And today we have an opportunity to reflect with the benefit of hindsight to come back to the negotiating table, this time to negotiate true liberation.

After World War II when it became clear that the colonial projects in Africa were no longer sustainable and that nations needed to be liberated, the Pharaoh spirit rose up in the colonial nations.

The colonisers began to devise strategies to ensure that Africa would just receive partial liberation.

When people are dispossessed of land and its minerals that is supposed to feed them, violence becomes a norm of society.

Negative effects of ignoring land redistribution
In Jeremiah 34:8-22, the children of Israel were now settled in the land and were in charge, however they refused to proclaim liberty to their slaves.

The bible says they were to proclaim freedom but they changed their minds.

When God saw how they changed their minds concerning liberation of the poor, how they came up with new plots to enslave them again, he said: Therefore thus says the Lord: ‘You have not obeyed Me in proclaiming liberty, everyone to his brother and everyone to his neighbour. Behold, I proclaim liberty to you,’ says the Lord — ‘to the sword, to pestilence, and to famine! And I will deliver you to trouble among all the kingdoms of the earth.’

When they refused to grant liberty and restore people, God gave them over the sword, to pestilence and to famine.

This does suggest to us that violence is deeply connected to the subject of restoration.

When people are dispossessed of land and its minerals that are supposed to feed them, violence becomes a norm of society.

So what should be done?
Civil Society represented here and elsewhere must wrestle with the initiative from the politicians in leading the land debate because of the biblical calling about the issue of land.

It is clear that after 23 years of democracy the politicians have failed the people on a matter so crucial, on a matter as deeply spiritual as land.

The failure to resolve this matter also reflects badly on the faith communities and it is clear that we have been found wanting and slumbering, allowing the issue of land to now become the next political football ahead of the next elections.

Neither tthe extreme of rampant and disorderly land occupation, nor the continuation of a land policy that has clearly failed will move our nation forward.

The sudden change of approach by the ANC on the issue of land, while I welcome it, must be approached with caution.

Suddenly there is a willingness to look at a radical approach to the issue of land.

We need to ask ourselves why? The answer seems quite simple to me — once again the hopes of our people are being toyed with — something that we as the faith community have a responsibility to resist.

The failure to resolve this matter also reflects badly on the faith communities and it is clear that we have been found wanting and slumbering allowing the issue of land to now become the next political football ahead of the next elections.

A national land CODESA
I believe that the nation must pray for a sustainable solution for the resolution of the land question. But we must also do something to bring the nation together in a ‘land CODESA’ to ensure that the resolution of the land question can bring our communities together and not leave them asunder.

Is this even possible? This answer must be found following a thorough national dialogue and soul searching about how the dispossession of land must be reversed the same way that God envisaged for His children in the scriptures.

Until we face this dilemma the land question will remain a hindrance to true liberation.

The Church must take leadership to steer the nation in this dialogue for the sake of the future of our country.

The land CODESA must, in my view, deal with the following questions:

  1. Should our constitution be changed to allow appropriation of land without compensation?
  2. How will the government fast-track land distribution and support those who will receive their land back, given the failure to meet its own targets for land redistribution?
  3. How will the change of policy on land be balanced with the needs for nation building, reconciliation and economic freedom?

We cannot be blind to the collapse of social cohesion and any solutions that do not think ahead will result in the disaster that the 1994 settlement sought to avoid after centuries of conflict through colonialism and apartheid

May the good Lord guide us as we grapple with one of the most fundamental questions facing our nation.




Does God have anything to say about land?

Zumaland

President Jacob Zuma, who is seeking to accelerate land reform in South Africa by changing the law to allow expropriation of land without compensation. (PHOTO: Photographer: Michael Nagle/Bloomberg via biznews.com).

cherdudley1

Does God have anything to say about land and does it require a response from us?”…if we do not genuinely work toward seeing land ownership and wealth is increasingly in the hands of the people in South Africa we are courting disaster.
“… government’s inability – to date – to address the matter of skewed land ownership…is increasing inequality, deepening the divide between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots’ and threatening to destabilize the country…”
— Cheryllyn Dudley MP ACDP,  March 5 2017

The bible, which has a lot to say about land and land distribution, supports the view that there is nothing more important to the life of a people than land and that land is essential for a nation to exist and an economy to prosper.

It has been said that “the real wealth of a nation is in the potential of the land and its people” (Landa Cope, God & Justice) – and that a society’s level of poverty is linked to where that wealth is held and how the people and the land are allowed to develop.

The 21st century global reality as Landa sees it, is still that: “where land ownership is in the hands of the government, religious institutions, or a minority elite, nations remain desperately poor and underdeveloped. In some of these poorer nations land is owned almost entirely by one or all three.”

The way I see  we cannot get away from the fact that the distribution of land is closely linked to whether or not economic development actually addresses the scourge of poverty in a society. I am convinced that if we do not genuinely work toward seeing that land ownership and wealth is increasingly in the hands of the people in South Africa we are courting disaster.

Where I differ from the likes of the EFF, however, who express similar aspirations, is that I am just as convinced that due process must ensure protection against abuse.

Due process is scriptural
Due process with checks and balances is scriptural and intended to be a deterrent as far as corruption is concerned. Sadly the reality is that where corruption can take place there are always those who will be corrupt — and it is ordinary people who are taken advantage of and their families lose out.

Just as without reasonable legal protection from state abuse, measures to empower people become a threat to the very same people.

With this in mind it is reassuring that the vast majority in parliament recently upheld the protections in the constitution that pertain to property while acknowledging land must urgently be transferred — in far greater measure — into the hands of individuals, families and communities, if we are to prosper as a nation.

So why then would the President of the country be calling for changes to the constitution in this regard?

The Expropriation Bill — recently passed and more recently sent back to Parliament — which gives all state entities the power to take land from churches, banks, commercial businesses, food producers, miners, and ordinary people if deemed necessary — aims to compensate for the fact that the “willing buyer willing seller” principle has frustrated both land reform and infrastructure development — both crucial if economic gains are to impact the lives of the majority of people.

My take on this is that the president is reacting to the fact that opposition parties have succeeded through the courts in holding up legislative measures needed to move the process forward. He appears to be extremely frustrated by his governments inability, to date, to address the matter of skewed land ownership which is increasing inequality, deepening the divide between the haves and the have-nots and threatening to destabilise the country.

This over-reaction — although understandable — is unfortunate as the protections in the constitution are not there for a select few but for all in South Africa who own or aspire to owning property.

Under the common law, the state is constrained and cannot simply seize property without obtaining a court order and our constitution strengthens these common-law protections.

Valuations court
In addition to retaining the safeguards in the constitution for all who live in South Africa, it would be wise to have the issue of compensation dealt with by a dedicated valuations court which would assess and sign-off on all compensation linked to forced expropriation in line with the constitution.

In my opinion, the land reform process must be prioritised and genuinely supported by all who live in South Africa if we want a peaceful and prosperous future. We simply have no future unless it is a shared future!

It is unwise to give extremists and other agendas fertile ground to use the deprivation of so many to create chaos and fuel their agendas.

Land — whether expropriated where necessary or not — must result in land ownership and the empowerment of families across the country.