Indaba preview
South African mines are old and have become
deeper and more difficult to mine.
South Africa, by way of example, provides
that investors who invest in either country
before the BIT is terminated, will continue
to enjoy the rights under the agreement
for a further 20 years after the agreement
is terminated.
Although foreign investors who
currently own property would have
a legal foot to oppose expropriation,
there is nothing that scares potential
investors more than knowing that your
property rights might be in danger of
being revoked a few years down the line.
However, changing the Constitution
would not be as easy as some in the
ANC would like to believe. According
www.miningmirror.co.za
to Professor Robert Vivian, professor
of finance and insurance at the Wits
School of Economics and Business
Science, amending the Constitution will
require a 75% majority vote in the South
African National Assembly.
“The South African Constitution is
based on the supremacy of the rule of
law and the advancement of human
rights. The right to enjoy undisturbed
ownership of own property is achieved
through the rule of law and is a basic
human right protected by section 1 of
the Constitution. Changing section 25
to allow general expropriation without
compensation would violate section
1 and render any legislation derived
from this, including the mere changing
of section 25, to be unconstitutional
and open to legal challenge,” he says.
Therefore, amendments to section 1
would require a 75% vote, and not 66%
as some might believe.
So, whether for or against the
amendment, EWC has increased
the pressure in the South African
cooker exponentially and has kept
eager investors at arm’s length.
While exploration and junior mining
companies flock to the rest of Africa
in search of big deposits, South Africa
remains in limbo. b
JANUARY 2019 MINING MIRROR
[19]