A lot of people are quibbling over the Expropriation Act and what it may mean.

But the situation is way worse, because it is not a standalone piece of legislation.

The worst of these is the Land Courts Act, which has been passed and signed but not yet promulgated.

At present, the Expropriation Act allows a large number of state entities (including the Land Affairs Ministry, run by the PAC) to seize land before a trial, and to calculate the value of the land against the value of any development the state intends to perform on that land.

Other criteria for expropriation include if the property "is being used for speculation purposes" - this is hard to define, and leaves a lot of leeway for the state to confiscate any property not directly owned by its residents.

A most concerning one is if the land is "unused" or "abandoned". This can include land which has been seized by squatters.

The Ramaphosa administration has also passed an Act which prevents anyone from removing squatters or preventing entrance into their property by any means except a verbal warning, and forces them to resort exclusively to the police (who seldom respond in any reasonable time) to defend their property.

If the squatter sets up any form of structure (this can be as little as an outhouse-sized tin shack and a folding chair), they cannot be removed except by court order.

The court can, and has in many instances, ruled that the occupiers have a right to remain until alternative housing has been provided by the state or the property owners, and in some cases, has expropriated property in order to transfer the land to the state or the residents for the purpose of township upgrades - free housing, water and electricity reticulation.

These strict squatters rights laws are defended by the PIE and ESTA Acts. And in the past, these expropriations had to be compensated. Now they don't.

This is very similar to the methods used by Robert Mugabe to seize farms - they were simply seized, and transferred after the fact.

In many cases in South Africa, these land grabs include building hijackings, and on open land, ANC and EFF branch members and organised crime plotting out swathes of land which they then extract rent from.

This is widespread, and lucrative. But so far, we have had the courts to resort to for removals, even if it is expensive, sluggish and often unsuccessful, and the court system still allows landowners to appeal expropriation under the new Act (after the land is already taken - they will have 40 days to clear out once they have received notice)This is why the Land Courts Act is so much more pernicious.

This Act of Parliament establishes a new court system explicitly for the streamlining of accelerated expropriation. It will be selected directly by the Presidency, and the JSC will act only in an advisory capacity.

It will have equal jurisdiction to the High Courts, leaving only the Supreme Court of Appeal and the Constitutional Court itself as a means of appeal.

The judges of this court will also be immune from all forms of prosecution or legal summons except for acts of domestic violence.

‍"13. (1) Proceedings under this Act may be instituted by-

(a) the Commission;

(b) any person acting in their own interest;

(c) any person acting on behalf of another person who cannot act in their own name;(d) any person acting as a member of, or in the interests of, a group or class of persons;(e) any person acting in the public interest; or

(f) any association acting in the interests of its members."

‍This opens the way for anyone to launch proceedings to expropriate any piece of land for any purpose, from an expropriating authority, to a historic land claimant, to just someone who wants something they like.

Witnesses and anyone who accompanies them to court are to be monetarily compensated.

And here’s the kicker - hearsay, and documents without providence have the same weight as any official document:

‍"21. (1) The Court may, in the case of claims under the Restitution of Land Rights Act admit evidence, including oral evidence, which it considers relevant and cogent to the matter being heard by it, whether or not such evidence would be admissible in any other court of law.

(2) Without derogating from the generality of subsection (1), it is competent for any party before the Court to adduce-

(a) hearsay evidence regarding the circumstances surrounding the dispossession of a land right or rights and the rules governing the allocation and occupation of land within a claimant community at the time of such dispossession; and

(b) expert evidence regarding the historical and anthropological facts relevant to any particular land claim.

(3) The Court must give such weight to any evidence adduced in terms of subsections (1) and (2) as it deems appropriate.

(4) Whenever a judgment, order or other record of the Court is required to be proved or inspected or referred to in any manner, a copy of such judgment, order or other record duly certified as such by the registrar of the Court under its seal is prima facie evidence thereof without proof of the authenticity of such registrar's signature."

‍Additionally, the Court will have the right to deny the submission of any evidence it wishes if it will speed up the process and reduce cost.This means that we will utterly abolish the right to a fair trial.

The defences of this particular kind of court lie, however, in traditional "African ways of knowing", where oral history is regarded as equally valid to written state records.

Whether the Constitutional Court system will buy this is anyone's guess, but it strikes me as an enormous gamble to pretend that sense and justice will prevail in this case.