[JURIST] South Africa’s Parliament [official website] on Thursday approved a bill [materials, PDF] to allow government expropriation of land. The bill will serve to allow a government adjudicator to value a particular piece of land and then expropriate it for the public interest [Al Jazeera report]. The African National Congress [official website] hopes that the enactment will redress the inequality created by apartheid and place more land in possession of black citizens. While some are heralding the new legislation as bringing justice to South Africans some farming organizations and economists are criticizing [Reuters report] the reform, pointing to the effects of a similar measure in Zimbabwe and the lack of clarity in regards to the actual seizure process. As of now, 10 percent of land owned by the white population has been transferred to black owners, only one-third of the government’s target goal.

South African President Jacob Zuma [BBC profile] recently survived a vote to impeach [JURIST report] him after the ANC gave him their support. The move to impeach Zuma came from opposition leaders after the constitutional court ruled that he had ignored their order [JURIST report] to personally repay the amounts determined by the National Treasury, as they relate to the “non-security” upgrades to his private residence. Zuma, a controversial figure in South African politics, was ousted [JURIST report] as the country’s deputy president in 2005 after an aide was convicted of corruption. He was also charged with rape, but he was ultimately acquitted and reinstated [JURIST report] as ANC deputy vice president. In July 2008 the South African Constitutional Court rejected a motion [JURIST report] by Zuma to exclude evidence from the corruption trial. Zuma had argued [JURIST report] that evidence seized in 2005 raids by the Directorate of Special Investigations should be thrown out because the raids violated his rights to privacy and a fair trial. The court upheld the warrants used in the raids, confirming a November 2007 decision [JURIST report] by the Supreme Court of Appeal. He was first charged with corruption in 2005, but those charges were later dismissed [JURIST report] because prosecutors failed to follow proper procedures.