Public Works and Infrastructure Minister Dean Macpherson faced scrutiny in the Western Cape High Court this week regarding his decision to file only an explanatory affidavit rather than substantive legal papers in the ongoing constitutional challenge to the Expropriation Act of 2024. The Minister, who is the first respondent in a case brought by the Democratic Alliance, has indicated he will abide by the court’s ruling rather than engaging with the merits of the legislation.
Judicial Scrutiny Of Ministerial Position
During proceedings on 5 August 2026, Judge Vincent Saldanha questioned why the Minister opted to remain neutral in a matter central to his departmental mandate. Judge Saldanha suggested that the decision to withhold a formal position on the law’s merits might reflect political considerations rather than a purely legal strategy.
Well, we would certainly like to know what the minister’s position is on the merits, but it’s not in our mouths to force him to tell us; that’s his election to make. All we’ve pointed out is that he’s a member of the executive; he’s firmly involved in this Act and the eventual application of it. He really doesn’t want to express a view on the merits, which I suspect may not necessarily be a legal decision. It might be a political decision.
Minister Macpherson has maintained that he remains available to assist the court on technical legal issues if requested. His office has consistently stated that his primary role in this instance is to facilitate the judicial process by abiding by the final outcome.
Political Context Of The Challenge
The legal showdown, which began its hearings on 3 August 2026, highlights the complex internal dynamics of South Africa’s Government of National Unity. Minister Macpherson, a senior member of the Democratic Alliance, is tasked with implementing the Expropriation Act—the very legislation his own party is currently challenging as unconstitutional.
This case follows the signing of the Expropriation Bill into law by President Cyril Ramaphosa in January 2025. The court’s eventual ruling is expected to set a critical precedent for how the state manages land reform and property rights under the new legislative framework. The court is expected to deliberate on the submissions as the hearing concludes later this week.