Enq. : Motjoadi R.F. 01 November 2013
Cell: 082 256 0854
Phumla Nyama
Portfolio Committee on Rural Development and Land Reform
Parliament of Republic of South Africa
P.O. Box 15
CAPE TOWN
8000
Madam
RE: SUBMISSION ON THE RESTITUTION OF LAND RIGHTS AMENTMENT BILL :
PLATINUM CITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (TY) LTD , REPRESENTING THE FOLLOWING LAND CLAIMANTS
A. SELOANE LAND CLAIM: REF. NO. Vol 517 Pretoria, 11 July2008, No. 31220
B. TLADI YA KGAHLANE LAND CLAIM: REF. No. Vol 476 Pretoria, 11 February 2005, No. 27235
1. The above matter refers:
2. My company, Platinum City Development Corporation (Pty) Ltd, Reg no 2010/007002/07, has been furnished with POWER OF ATTORNEY to represent the above-named communities with regard to their land claims.
3. The company is responding to your document “RESTITUTION OF LAND RIGHTS AMENDMENT BILL, OCTOBER 2013/ NEW BILL.”
4. Despite the limited time-frame, we thank you for the opportunity given to highlight matters of common socio-economic, cultural and political significance with our government.
5. We would like to be considered for participation in the Provincial (Limpopo) and national public hearings scheduled for November 2013 and January 2014.
6. We are directly affected by this matter because the two communities, like other communities throughout South Africa, are still waiting impatiently for their land claims to be settled and land to be restituted.
7. The New Bill seems to perpetuate the legacy of apartheid instead of redressing the past by:
7.1 Failure to come up with the support mechanisms which will lead to finalization of many outstanding and backlogged restitution claims
7.2 Attempts to accommodate greed by traditional leaders in their quest to claim (All) land at the expense of the respective communities entitled to land through CPAs
7.3 Perpetuation of Bantu Authorities Act of 1951 as well as the implementation of the provisions of the Act, a move which undermines little which has already been achieved through community-instituted structures such as CPAs and Trusts
7.4 Causing further dispossession of land on the part of those who had already lost land and having no technical and financial capability while coming to land to be restituted,
7.5 a move which takes all dispossessed to square one as long as our government is not prepared to give financial support to claimants
7.6 Costly restitutions and lack of financial support on the part of the government to enable claimants to realize restitution automatically mark the failure of former good intensions
7.7 Putting conditions to land to be restituted is a clear indication that poor and rural communities cannot get what is lawfully belonging to them by virtue of their birth-right
7.8 Indirectly putting former Tribal Authorities on top of democratic institutions and to a significant extent turns the historical clock back. In short, the new Bill undermines democracy in South Africa
7.9 Imposing Betterment processes as part of redress marks re-emergence of tribal system as chiefs under Bantu Authorities Act of 1951 were already entitled and as such we cannot have two systems (democracy and tribalism) which repel each other on the other hand work together
7.10 Institutionalization of Traditional Councils through Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act (TLGFA) and failure of former Tribal Authorities to be (fully)democratized in line with the TLGFA for the purpose of compliance indicates resistance on the part of traditional leadership to respect and embrace current democratic dispensations for the overall transformation
7.11 The move in 7.9 means that as long as Traditional Councils are still undemocratic, illegal and intransigent, they will not be valid recipient institutions in which land could be transferred
7.12 Putting a lot of strain and doubt on communities still in waiting. The contradictions and flaws coming with the New Bill leave much to be desired and for that reason claimants in general and rural communities in particular are hard hit by the New Bill
7.13 Lack of (proper) consultation with rural communities , as these are directly affected by this matter , generates a feeling that the matter should be withdrawn, or if need be , reviewed and amended by the Department to avert whatever negative implications this may entail.
8. GENERAL GUIDELINES: PROBLEMS IN OUR AREA
8.1 SELOANE LAND CLAIM
Though we encountered a lot of problems due to the fact that the claim has been handled by many government officials, this is the current state of affairs:
8.1.1 The claim is in the final and an advanced staged.
8.1.2 It will be prioritized in the first quarter of the financial year 2013/2014, according to Jerry Phukubje, the government official responsible for the
land claim
8.2 TLADI YA KGAHLANE LAND CLAIM
In this case, the claim is finalized but there is a counter claim by Kgosi Mokgome Matlala. According to history, Kgosi Mokgome Matlala is from Mashadi, Jane Furse, another village of Sekhukhune in the Limpopo. He arrived at Mohlalaotwane with his father, Kgosi Shikoane Matlala in 1957. Mohlalaotwane is not even adjacent to three farms (Boshhoek, Nooitgezien and Ongezien). Tladi Ya Kgahlane and their environs who have been inhabitants of the land prior to 1913 (in 1870). Kgosi Mokgome Matlala, who inherited chieftainship after his father’s death, was elevated by the then Lebowa Government, which was a direct establishment of both Bantu Authorities Act of 1951 and Tribal Authorities Act of 1958. As time went by, in the early 1990s, Kgosi Mokgome Matlala brought his subjects on Boschoek; started demarcating land for them and embarking on agricultural activities which by then formed part of Betterment processes. After Tladi Ya Kgahlane claimed the land, it was learnt that Kgosi Mokgome Matlala counteracted the move. He regarded himself and his community as the ones entitled to the land and not Tladi Ya Kgalane community. The matter has been undergoing adjudication since then.
8.3. EFFECT OF THE NEW BILL ON THE PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED
In the case of Tladi Ya Kgahlane, Kgosi Matlala is taking an advantage of Betterment processes and Bantu Authorities Act of 1951. In the first place he never settled at Boschoek, Nootgezien and Ongezien. He brought his people at Boschoek, Nooitgezien and Ongezien for grazing purposes and now he claims land. Kgosi Mokgome Matlala is also leveraged by Bantu Authorities Act of 1951 as well as the implementations of the provisions of the Act, a move which led to formation of Tribal Authorities. This tribal system coupled with the Betterment processes makes Kgosi Mokgome Matlala to be more hierarchically elevated, respected and revered than Tladi Ya Kgahlane community while coming to the matter under review. The New Bill as quoted somewhere in the text could also open room for the abuse of power by chiefs and subject those communities again to the authority of the very same traditional leaders.
9. POSSIBLE PROBLEMS AREAS
OUTSTANDING CLAIMS
There is a backlog of over 20 000 claims that have not yet been fully resolved. This makes up 25% of the total claims lodged since the beginning of the restitution programme. We are aware that many restitution claimants have been waiting to have their claim resolved (this includes the transfer of title or settlement support) for over 10 years.
Do you have an unfinalised Claim? YES
If so: give much detail as possible:
§ When was the claim lodged?
A. Seloane Land Claim : 1998
B. Tladi Ya Kgahlane : 1995
§ Why, in your view, hasn’t it been finalized?
In the case of Tladi Ya Kgahlane, Kgosi Mokgome Matlala is the stumbling block for Tladi Ya Kgahlane community to receive their land
§ Did the Commission not accept or support your Communal Property Association (if you had one)? We do not have one, as in the case of both Tladi Ya Kgahlane and Seloane Land Claim, the formation is still pending
§ Did traditional leaders interfere with the process? YES! Kgosi Mokgome Matlala with special reference to Tladi Ya Kgahlane, is a thorn in the community’s flesh
§ Has there been any communication to or from any government bodies? If so, include the details and dates thereof. Yes
§ Have there been any court orders? If so, include as much information as possible about the case. NO
You should attach copies any correspondence that you refer to. As well as any court orders you may have received. N/A
· What effect, do you think, would the lodging be of many new claims (some of them potentially overlapping with your own land) have on your claim, or on any land you may already have received? The lodging of the new claims prior to the finalization of the former claim will result in many counter claims to the detriment of the former and chiefs will abuse their power to lodge overlapping claims which will undermine the process already begun. The new claims, prior to the finalization of the former, will add more financial problem than ever anticipated on the part of the Department in particular and government in general.
CPAs
The government current policy is to discourage the formation or registration of CPAs (and other community structures) on communal land. It has already delayed transfers of restitution of land to CPAs in some provinces because of complaints by traditional leaders that CPAs undermine their authority. The government also claims that it wants to do away with CPAs because they are structures that promote conflict and are badly managed.
· Are you a member of a CPA, trust or other community land-holding Structure? Still waiting for CPAs or Trust formation as legal entities in which land could be transferred.
· If so, please describe it. I think a CPA or a Trust will be relevant or legal if not democratic institutions which will curtail the abuse of power by chiefs and to a significant extent abolish nepotism as a socio-cultural, economic and political fraud
· What have been some of your success? Communities in both Tladi Ya Kgahlane and Seloane Land Claim have been standing together despite the odds to ensure to it that they work towards a common goal in terms of realizing their main object-successful restitution of their land
· What have been some of the problems that you have experienced? Please give detail as to what the problems were, and how they came about. Change of government officials dealing with respective land claims and legal contestation by current landowners who do not want to lose land without a battle have posed a major problem in the case of Seloane Land Claim
· What do feel about the government’s policy to discourage CPAs? This is a real contradiction of the actor’s action. The government cannot please chiefs and CPAs on the other hand. The chiefs are on the other hand exerting pressure on the government for their land rights to be entrenched and now that general election is around the corner, the government’s policy to discourage the CPAs in favour of the chiefs is meant for mere electioneering.
· How do you respond to the government’s claim that CPAs by their nature cause conflict and bad management? This is quite unbelievable because CPAs are government’s creation and more so under the current democratic dispensation. So, we cannot afford to have government which is just fond of gullible citizens. The sooner CPAs are not comfortable of certain things like snail paced land claims and start questioning the rationality of the government in such matters, CPAs are no longer desirable and the government wants to replace them with undemocratic structures which serve the government’s make-up.
TRADITIONAL LEADERS
The bill opens the door to traditional leaders to claim ownership of restitution of land on behalf of ‘tribes’ that were delineated in terms of the Bantu Authorities Act of 1951
· How do you feel about this?
In my own view, this is quite true. The danger part of it is that the government cannot take our democracy back by putting land in the hands of illegal institutions which historically perpetuated colonialism and apartheid and caused further land dispossession of the majority of South Africans. For in as much as Tribal Authorities are provisions of Bantu Authorities Act of 1951; and for in as much as Traditional Councils were born out of this defunct institutions and as long as the latter are unconstitutional by virtue of their make-up, transfer of land in these undemocratic institutions shall have far reaching implications in the history of South Africa with special reference to restitution of land and handling of land claims.
· How would you respond to the government’s claim that CPAs by their nature cause conflict and bad management?
In my own view, problems are part and parcel of life. That is why in every organization there will always be mechanisms for crisis management, conflict resolutions, etc. There is no way we can work together without crisis or conflict. What is important is for people to find solutions for their problems. So, CPAs like chiefs, will always have their weaknesses as well as their strengths. The creator of the CPAs, being the government, can always capacitate CPAs to manage the environment in which CPAs find themselves.
TRADITIONAL LEADERS
The Bill opens the door to traditional leaders to claim ownership of restitution land on behalf of “tribes” that were delineated in terms of the Bantu Authorities Act of 1951.
How do you feel about this?
Does your community recognize a traditional leader?
The majority of people in rural areas are no longer having allegiance to traditional leadership due to the undemocratic and myopic way in which they run traditional affairs. High level of consciousness has made most people to move away from the autocratic and tribal/traditional system and embrace the current democratic principles in order to enjoy the fruits associated with democracy. In short, most people are tired about dogmatic systems which are taking the country and its people nowhere.
Would you like the official traditional council for your area to own restitution land on your behalf?
If I understand the word “official”, Yes I can because it would have been established according to the democratic if not constitutional principles; meaning 40% elected membership of which 30% will be women