South African President Cyril Ramaphosa approved a law that gives the state the right to seize certain private land on no private land without compensation for the owner, who is the center of the political fire.

The yet-to-be-implemented law has attracted the anger of U.S. President Donald Trump, who believes it is discrimination against white farmers.

South Africa's center-right parties and lobby groups also objected, saying they would challenge the Expropriation Act (such as the law) in court on the grounds of threatening property rights.

The Ramaphosa government said the law stipulates compensation is paid in the vast majority of cases and changes are required to increase black land ownership.

Most of the private farmland is still owned by white people.

When Nelson Mandela came to power 30 years ago, ending the racist racist system, people promised that it would correct this with a willing, willing plan to sell land reform for sellers - but critics say it has proven too slow and too expensive.

Legal experts told the BBC that in rare cases it is the land needed for the “public interest”.

According to lawyers from the South African law firm Waxmanns, this suggests that this is primarily or may only happen in the land reform program.

Although the company added in the comments of experts in the field, Bullwa Mabasa and Thomas Karberg, the company added, although it can also be used to access natural resources such as minerals and water.

Mabasa and Karberg told the BBC that they believe that productive agricultural land cannot be requisitioned without compensation.

They say that any expropriation without compensation (called EWC) can only be done in certain circumstances:

• For example, when the owner does not use the land and uses it for "speculative purposes"
• Or, when the owners “despite their ability to do so, they “give up the land by having no control over the land.”

The attorney said the owners may still receive compensation for buildings with land and natural resources.

Mabasa and Karberg added that the EWC "is not targeting rural land or farmland, which may include land in urban areas."

However, if the compensation is paid, the rules will change and the owner may get less money.

Mabasa and Karberg said the plan was intended to give owners "just and fair" compensation, which runs contrary to the higher "market value" they have reached now.

They added that although this is a "constitution" with the Constitution, it was passed after the end of 1994 and the government has been paying market value compensation.

Attorneys say all expropriation has “widespread procedural equity requirements”, including the owner’s right to go to court if he is not satisfied.

The shift away from market value compensation will also apply to land taken for “public purposes”, such as building state schools or railroads.

This is not the point of controversy, probably because it is “almost not a novel concept”, which is the view of Juristnews, a legal website opened by law students from around the world.

It added: "For example, the U.S. Constitution states that as long as 'fair compensation' is provided, the government can seize private property for public use."

The government hopes that.

Professor Ruth Hall, a land expert at the University of Western Cape, told the BBC that more than 80,000 land claims remain uneasy.

In the eastern part of South Africa, she said, many black people work for free on the farm - in exchange, they can live there and leave their livestock on part of their owner's land.

Professor Hall added that the government wants to transfer ownership of the land to workers and expecting it to pay market value is “unfair”.

She said that over the past three decades, the government has used existing powers to collect appropriate property (below market value compensation) in less than 20 cases.

Professor Hall added that the new law aims to make it easier, cheaper, or forced to become “long-term tenants” because they cannot own the land.

"It's a bargaining chip," she said.

But she doubts whether the government will enforce the law in the foreseeable future, as the “political costs” become too high.

The scholar refers to the fact that Trump opposes the law, saying it discriminates against white farmers whose land is "occupied", an allegation the administration denies.

In February, Trump cut aid to South Africa, and in April, he announced a 30% tariff on South African goods and agricultural products, although it was later suspended for 90 days.

This was followed by the infamous Oval Office showdown last month, when Trump ambushed Ramaphosa and claimed white people were persecuted through videotapes and prints—most of his archives were smeared.

Like Trump, the Democratic Alliance (DA), the second largest party in the Ramaphosa coalition administration, also opposed legislation.

In a statement on May 26, the party said its top leadership rejected the concept of "zero salary".

However, it has agreed to the concept of fair and fair compensation rather than market value compensation, adding that it should be "ruled by the court."

surprisingly, Jaco Kleynhans of the Solidarity Movement of the influential South African Lobby group said that while the new law could “destroy” certain businesses, which he opposed, he did not believe would lead to “massive farmland requisitions.”

“I can’t see the wording of this article,” he said in a panel discussion at a recent agricultural exhibition in the province of Free State of South Africa.

The South African Real Estate Owners Association said it was “irrational” to provide “zero compensation” to owners who hold land for speculative purposes.

"There are many landowners whose sole business purpose is to speculate on the land. They do not have free access to land and their holding costs are high," the association said.

One view, Mabasa and Karberg said, is that the concept of EWC is "legal absurd" because "the intrinsicity in the definition of expropriation of legality is the requirement to pay compensation."

However, the lawyer noted that the South African constitution “implicitly recognizes that in some cases compensation will be just and fair”.

South Africa's public works minister Dean MacPherson defended the legislation, strikes with his party DA.

In fact, he was responsible for the new legalization, and in the discussion panel, he explained that despite some concerns about the law, there were “great improvements” to the previous Expropriation Act and provided greater security for landowners.

The law can also help terminate blackmail claims on the state, and in some cases "zero compensation" can be justified, he said.

He gave examples of the problems faced by Eskom, a state-owned power utility.

It plans to launch a transmission network on about 4,500 kilometers (28,000 miles) of land to increase power supply to end the country's electricity crisis.

He said some conspired with Eskom officials to buy land for R1 million ($56,000; £41,000) before launching, and then demanded R20 million.

"Is it fair to give them what they want? I don't think it's in the interest of the broader community or the country," McPherson said.

McPherson said another example says some inner cities in South Africa are in a "disastrous" state. After the owner left, the building was "super" and "hijacked" to engage in illegal occupations. He said the cost of rebuilding them in the state could exceed their value, in which case the court could rule that the owners were eligible for "zero compensation."

"Zero is a form of compensation," McPherson added.

Johannesburg Mayor Dada Morero told South Africa's Post newspaper that he wanted to use the buildings for "public goods", such as a seating of about 300,000 people on the housing waiting list.

He added that owners of nearly 100 buildings were not available.

"They gave up the building," he said, adding that some owners were from the UK and Germany.

But Mabarza and Kamberg told the BBC that in this case, compensation may still have to be paid for the building, although not land.

They said that if the state cannot find the owner, it must be "deposited to the High Court Master" in case they return or can be traced back later.

The law is in a dilemma, as Ramaphosa (about four months after it agreed) has not set a date for its implementation.

He wouldn't be able to do this anytime soon when South Africa tries to negotiate a trade deal with the United States, because he doesn't want to compete further with Trump.

On the domestic front, DA took the lead in opposing legislation. It said it wanted to conduct a "judicial review" on it while taking court action to challenge the constitutionality of the law.

DA's difficult route is in stark contrast to MacPherson. A few weeks ago, he warned that if the law went on a complete strike: “I don’t know what will happen after that.

"Politically, sometimes you have to be careful what you want because you usually get it," he said.

His comments highlight deep rifts in South African politics, with some political parties, such as Julius Malema’s Economic Freedom Fighter (EFF), deeming that the legislation’s actions are not sufficient to address racial inequality in land ownership.

With such a touching issue as land, there is no easy solution to this dispute - it is likely to continue to create tensions in South Africa and within the U.S. president.