Eskom bid for land expropriation rights

Eskom has asked parliament to give it the right to expropriate land to use for power lines – but sceptical MPs say the request is unlikely to be granted.

In a submission yesterday to the parliamentary portfolio committee on public works, Eskom claimed negotiations with farmers unwilling to sell servitutes for power lines were holding up electricity generation and costing it millions of rands.

A servitude is a right that one person has to use or enjoy the property of another person without holding a lease.

The Eskom submission formed part of the public participation process on the proposed new expropriation bill, which will regulate the government’s right to buy land in the public interest or for a public purpose.

Eskom claimed it took an average of two years to get all relevant farmers to agree to a servitude for a single power line, and cited an example of a planned power line from Orkney in North West to Dealesville in the Free State where a single unwilling seller had held up the process for six years. Eskom said the delay had cost it R110-million in unavailable energy and R3-million in penalty payments.

Another power line linking two parts of the Vaal Triangle had been held up for four years and Eskom feared huge infrastructure build projects like Dube in Durban, Coega in Port Elizabeth and Saldanha in the Western Cape would be similarly held up. It therefore wanted parliament to grant it the same rights to expropriation which water agencies, Transnet and the South African National Road Agency (Sanral) already possessed.

The power utility claimed agricultural unions were in favour of the change, provided they had recourse to courts to ensure market-related pricing.

But MPs were critical of Eskom’s request.

The South African Institute of Race Relations (SAIRR) has also objected to the proposed bill, claiming it would leave traditional rural communities destitute because municipal powers to expropriate land was too great.

Dr Anthea Jeffery of the SAIRR claimed the bill was unconstitutional because it undermined property rights, did not require the state to prove the constitutionality of its actions nor guarantee recourse to the courts.

The SAIRR claims were hotly denied by deputy minister of Public Works Jeremy Cronin.

The SAIRR proposed that “just and equitable compensation” for expropriated land be more clearly defined, and that, if contested, the expropriating authority (usually the state) must prove the constitutionality of its actions and its offer before a high court.