Land Access Movement of South Africa and Others v Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces and Others

The applicants, comprising land rights NGOs and several Communal Property Associations, challenged the constitutional validity of the Restitution of Land Rights Amendment Act 15 of 2014. The Amendment Act sought to re-open the period for lodging land restitution claims beyond the original deadline of 31 December 1998 set by the Restitution of Land Rights Act 22 of 1994. The applicants alleged that Parliament, particularly the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) and Provincial Legislatures, failed to facilitate adequate public involvement as required by sections 72(1)(a) and 118(1)(a) of the Constitution during the passage of the Amendment Act. They argued that the rushed NCOP and provincial legislative processes allowed insufficient time for public participation. They also raised concerns that reopening claims would prejudice unresolved pre‑1998 claims and that section 6(1)(g) of the Amendment Act, which required priority to be given to old claims, was impermissibly vague. The applicants approached the Constitutional Court invoking its exclusive jurisdiction.

Parliament was declared to have failed to satisfy its obligation to facilitate public involvement under section 72(1)(a) of the Constitution. The Restitution of Land Rights Amendment Act 15 of 2014 was declared invalid with immediate effect. The Commission on Restitution of Land Rights was interdicted from processing land claims lodged from 1 July 2014, pending re‑enactment of valid legislation, subject to limited exceptions. The NCOP was ordered to pay the applicants’ costs, including the costs of two counsel.

This case reaffirmed and strengthened constitutional requirements for meaningful public participation in the legislative process, particularly within the NCOP and Provincial Legislatures. It underscored that rushed legislative timelines, even for socially urgent legislation like land restitution, are constitutionally impermissible. The judgment had major practical consequences for land reform by halting the processing of post‑2014 restitution claims until Parliament complied with constitutional standards.