InsiderBLM Africa
South African civil rights organization AfriForum has announced its intention to send an official letter to the United States government, urging President Donald Trump to focus on holding South African politicians accountable rather than penalizing the country’s citizens.
In an interview with The Associated Press on Tuesday, AfriForum CEO Kallie Kriel placed the blame for the U.S. government’s threat to withdraw aid to South Africa on the ruling party. He stated that the responsibility lay squarely with the African National Congress (ANC) and President Cyril Ramaphosa, whose policies, he argued, were directly responsible for the potential repercussions.
Kriel asserted that by signing the land expropriation bill into law, Ramaphosa had jeopardized the future of the country’s poorest citizens, who would be the most affected if the U.S. decided to halt its financial assistance. He emphasized that the economic consequences of such a move would disproportionately harm vulnerable South Africans.
“We believe the ANC, as the dominant political party, and President Ramaphosa himself must be held accountable. They are the ones responsible for this situation. It doesn’t take an economist to understand that infringing on property rights scares away investors and damages relations with countries that strongly support the free market. That is precisely what happened when President Ramaphosa signed the Expropriation Act at the end of last year,” Kriel stated.
He further noted that AfriForum had repeatedly warned Ramaphosa and the ANC that passing the Expropriation Act, along with the enforcement of South Africa’s existing racial policies, would have severe negative implications for investor confidence in the country. He stressed that these concerns had been ignored, leading to the current crisis.
Kriel also dismissed claims that AfriForum had played a role in misleading the U.S. government about South Africa’s stance on property rights. He argued that such accusations were unfounded, given that the U.S. has extensive diplomatic and intelligence capabilities that allow it to assess the situation independently.
“People are now saying that we misinformed the U.S. government, but that accusation is ridiculous. The U.S. government has a State Department and embassies that actively monitor developments in South Africa. Do those making these claims think the U.S. is incapable of reading and analyzing the situation for itself? Anyone can read the Expropriation Act and see what it entails. The U.S. government does not simply rely on what we say,” Kriel said.
During a press conference in parliament on Wednesday, presidential spokesperson Vincent Magwenya commented on the influence that South African-born entrepreneur Elon Musk may have had on shaping perceptions regarding the policy. He suggested that Trump’s decision to target South Africa, a key U.S. trade partner in Africa, could have been fueled by Musk, who has frequently criticized his home country.
Magwenya hinted that Musk’s interpretation of the law, which he has described as an intentional move to seize land from the white minority, may have played a role in the U.S. president’s reaction. He noted that the South African government had engaged with Musk to address these concerns.
“We have had open discussions with Elon Musk. Given these recent developments, it was necessary and logical for the president to engage with him directly to clarify the realities of what is happening in South Africa. We also needed to highlight our concerns regarding the misinformation that surfaced in President Trump’s announcement, as well as Musk’s own reaction to our statement. The president was unequivocal in affirming that South Africa does not have racist ownership laws. All our laws are rooted in the principles of our Constitution,” Magwenya said.
The issue has sparked mixed reactions among South Africans, with some supporting the Expropriation Act and others raising concerns about its impact. Heidelberg resident Jimmy Tsoari expressed his belief that the law could benefit Black South Africans who aspire to work in agriculture.
“White people have taken all of our land, and I see expropriation as the right thing to do. But I also think we might struggle because most of us Black people don’t have extensive farming knowledge. White farmers have the experience, and that’s why they employ us. This is an opportunity for us to own farms and make a living,” he said.
Meanwhile, local fruit trader Dirkie Griesel emphasized that any expropriated land must be put to productive use to contribute to the country’s economic growth.
“Just Before taking a farm, they need to have a plan for how it will be used. It’s not enough to simply take ownership of land without ensuring it serves a purpose. If land is expropriated but not cultivated or utilized in a way that helps the economy grow or provides food for South Africans, then the process is pointless. The land should not be taken without a clear and beneficial plan,” he said.
As South Africa faces potential economic consequences stemming from U.S. actions, the debate over land expropriation continues to divide public opinion. While the government maintains that the law aligns with constitutional principles, critics argue that it threatens investment and risks damaging international relations. AfriForum remains firm in its stance that responsibility for these repercussions should fall on the country’s leadership, rather than its citizens.
