Eskom wants to expopriate land

Eskom has requested parliament to give it the right to expropriate land that it wants to use for the construction of power lines.

But, sceptical MPs said afterwards that the request was unlikely to be granted.

In a submission yesterday to the parliamentary portfolio committee on public works, the power utility claimed negotiations with farmers who were unwilling to sell servitude for power lines to be built held up electricity generation and that cost 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, and 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, but cited the example of a planned power line running from Orkney in North West to Dealesville in Free State where a single unwilling seller has held up the process for six years.

The delay has cost Eskom R110-million in unavailable energy and R3-million in penalty payments. Another power line linking two parts of the Vaal Triangle has been held up for four years. Eskom fears huge infrastructure build projects like Dube in Durban, Coega in Port Elizabeth and Saldanha in Western Cape will be similarly held up.

Eskom therefore asked parliament to grant it the same rights to expropriation that water agencies, Transnet and the SA National Road Agency (Sanral) already possess.

The power utility claimed agricultural unions were in favour of the change, provided they had recourse to the courts to ensure market-related pricing. But MPs were critical of Eskom's request.

In her submission, Dr Anthea Jeffery of the SA Institute of Race Relations objected to the proposed expropriation bill, claiming it will leave traditionalist rural communal communities destitute as municipalities' powers to expropriate land is too great. She claimed the bill is unconstitutional as it undermines property rights, does not require the state to prove the constitutionality of its actions and does not guarantee recourse to the courts - allegations denied by Public Works Deputy Minister Jeremy Cronin.

The Institute of Race Relations proposed that "just and equitable compensation" for expropriated land be more clearly defined, and that, if contested, the expropriating authority must prove the constitutionality of its actions and its offer before the high court.