Mpumalanga, Limpopo and Gauteng Oversight Visit Report

This premium content has been made freely available

Mineral Resources and Energy

21 October 2020
Chairperson: Mr S Luzipo (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

Tabled Committee Reports

In a virtual meeting, the Committee convened to consider its oversight report and to address the logistical concerns Members had with the visit to Mpumalanga, Limpopo, and Gauteng. Committee Members welcomed the report.

There was discussion around the Mining Charter; stakeholder engagement between mining companies and the community; and concerns about Templar being linked to the Guptas.

A Member said the narrative of three people who died in Lily mine must be dispelled.

There were concerns regarding the Regional Manager of Mpumalanga being absent during the visit. This absence must not be taken lightly as this speaks to undermining he officials who need to hold people accountable.

The Committee requested more investigation and recommendations on the illegal mining activities. Members want to criminalise it, and believe the Department’s method of issuing a notice of compliance is not productive. Members discussed different methods to combat illegal mining activities.

Members also discussed logistical concerns; the use of security presence and the manner in which the police conducted itself.

The Report was not finalised

Meeting report

The Committee Report was read out by a member of staff of the Portfolio Committee.

The Chairperson said the purpose of the meeting was to table the Report on the Committee’s oversight visit and to address the logistical concerns Members had. Members must be able to express thoughts freely without reference to physical character. There must not be insults and there must be respect between Members. This is the only way to raise and deal with the Member’s concerns. He said the House Chairperson gave permission to visit Petro South Africa (PSA) during the first weekend of November. However, more deliberations must be made. If this visit does happen, the oversight visit to Mpumalanga, Limpopo, and Gauteng reports will be merged with the Petro SA report.

He noted concern about the first page, in the place where it discusses the community’s operations. He corrected this to reflect the mine’s operations, and not the community’s. He brought attention to the repetition previously discussed and corrected by the Committee. The Report makes reference to the retrieval of bodies, twice. It uses the word ‘compromised’ instead of ‘comprised’, referring to comprising the business rescue plan. The question of the first meeting with the local entrepreneurs must be removed, as the managers were not present. The statement on the first meeting with the managers must be changed to ‘representative’s’ of community.

Mr K Mileham (DA) started with the top of page three of the Report. He said it reads strangely. He referred to the bottom of page three, and corrected the number in surface building plan to R500 million, not R5 million.

Also, the underground recovery plan would cost between R100 million and R200 million. With regard to Optimum, the report says it went under business rescue, was then sold, and placed under business rescue again. He said this did not come across clearly. On page seven, where it refers to Templar, the Committee needs to highlight its concerns more firmly, as there is a perception it may be a Gupta linked company.

With regard to Northam on page eight, Mr Mileham corrected the statement made saying 50% of the employees of the mine must be from the area. He said there is no factual or legal basis to this. Mine companies move employees around to different places, so this requirement, discussed on page nine, would be hard to fulfil.

He said there needs to be more female mine workers. The Mining Charter does not refer to Tier One, Tier Two, and Tier Three. Northam went beyond classifying localisation. Government should only interfere with who mining companies do business with insofar as the Mining Charter prescribes.

Non-compliant suppliers meeting the threshold of compliant suppliers, does not mean the company itself is non-compliant. Page ten, paragraph three, agrees there needs to be more consultation. However, it makes sense the Mining Company wants to know what the municipal goals are regarding the social labour mining plan. He said the Company did meet the social labour mining plan requirements, and this was not reflected in the report.

Regarding illegal mining, his concern is for the manner in which the Department handles illegal mining, as the Department simply issues compliance notices. He suggested there should be a stricter approach towards illegal mining, and it should be criminalised.

There should be an illegal mining task force focusing on arresting illegal miners, dealers, and so forth. Illegal mining not only affects the economy, but also infrastructure and the environment.

The Committee received a comprehensive response from Northam’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO). Mr Mileham believes requesting the CEO to be at the Committee’s beck and call is extreme. He is concerned there is no recommendation for illegal mining, as he referred to earlier. All in all, he had no issues with the recommendations.

Regarding logistics, he agreed security is needed in some circumstances, but he did not agree with the use of blue lights to get people off the road, as it is illegal and is only allowed in an emergency. He did not agree with the manner in which it was handled, and does not believe it paints a good perception of members, or the perception which members should portray.

Mr M Mahlaule (ANC) said the narrative of three people who died in Lily mine must be dispelled. Point 3.1 in the report discusses three people who were tragically buried. This needs to be re-examined as it creates the wrong impression.

He agreed with Mr Mileham on the R 5million versus R500 million issue, and the R100 and R200 million point.

On the matter of the logistics of oversight, he agreed with the comments on unnecessary use of blue lights. He said he wants to avoid an elite narrative, and asked the Committee not to instruct the police how to conduct services. He does agree it should not be in the manner in which it behaved.

The Committee can do two things, which must be done in writing, namely; the Committee makes it known it does not need security or, the security cluster should know the Committee does not agree with how security services were conducted. It must instruct on ways in which this should be done in the future.

He raised dissatisfaction of Mr Mileham’s behaviour on Lily mine. Here he was referring to his heated exchange with a family lawyer. Mr Mahlaule said parliamentarians must rise above petty issues, especially in front of the public.

He noted concern about the exchange between Mr Mileham and Mr Herman Mashaba, as it is political. Mr Mileham undermined the Chairperson, and he found it disrespectful. The CEO of Northam Mines should have been present. The uncertainty as to who the general manager was is problematic.

Ms C Phillips (DA) said Templar is very connected to the Guptas, especially in Dubai. She questioned what the actual debt of Templar was for, and what the amount was. With the absence of the CEO, she said there was a high powered team there to respond to questions, and all questions were answered.

Ms V Malinga (ANC) welcomed the Report. She repeated Ms Phillips’s point regarding the CEO not being needed, especially since this is the Portfolio Committee, not the executive body. She made reference to Mr Mahlaule’s point on practitioners who wanted 50% of the mine workers to work in an area where the miners are from.

Regarding security, she said the illegal miners could be very dangerous, as illegal miners have heavy firearm machinery. This makes the security provided, reasonable and needed.

She referred to a parliamentarian who died due to insufficient security and transport. Ms Malinga was happy with the service provided and believed it is not up to the Committee to govern how the police carries out its business.

She discussed the exchange between herself and Mr Milehem, saying it was not his place to engage with her in the manner in which he did. Illegal miners must be dealt with. She disagreed with the point which said a task force would not be effective in finding a possible illegal mining syndicate. There is a need to criminalise this.

Mr M Nxumalo (IFP) welcomed the Report. He voiced three main concerns. Firstly, the Regional Manager of Mpumalanga was absent, and this was problematic. This absence must not be taken lightly as it speaks to undermining officials who need to hold people accountable. Secondly, as Members of Parliament, members’ behaviour in public speaks to the integrity of parliament. Lastly, there is a disconnection between the communities and the companies.

The Chairperson said it must be appreciated the Committee went to these mines on the Speaker’s instruction. It was not by choice. The Committee must consider this. He agreed with the corrections about the amount of money. He did not recall it was the practitioners who wanted 50% of miners to be local.

The Mining Charter proposes an integrated system between mining companies and the municipality. It must be a joint exercise to develop the community. The Mining Charter does not refer to consultation. Consultation must be done with the communities and must be factored into integrated plans. Part of the problem is the Department is not ensuring community engagement. He said the Committee has a duty to ensure the Department engages with the community, and agrees with the risks which come with over-regulation.

He did not believe there is anything wrong with the CEO not being present. The issue is there was no apology given, and no understanding regarding why the CEO was not present. A letter from the Regional Manager of Mpumalanga was also not received. He agreed with Mr Mileham on the matter of security services complying with the rule of law.

He made a Committee ruling relating to the points raised by Mr Mileham on site, in public. He questioned if Mr Mileham recognised him as the Chairperson, and asked him to explain himself.

The Chairperson said no Member would be able to say Mr Mileham was suppressed. The incident was put on record. The letter discusses the matter between Mr Mileham and Mr Bloem,, the community representative, as resolved.

Mr Milham said he has no animosity or problem with any Member of the Committee. He does have a problem when issues are dealt with inconsistently and unfairly. He is not aware of any letter in regard to the conversation with Mr Bloem.

He gave his recollection of the event, and said Mr Bloem was not social distancing, and yelling while the Members were getting their temperatures checked. Mr Bloem was complaining about security protocols taking too long, and Mr Mileham tried to defend these protocols.

According to Mr Mileham, Mr Bloem was quite insulting toward him. This is what the so-called heated exchange was about. This issue was resolved amicably as the parties agreed to disagree. Mr Mileham did not know what Mr Mahlaule was referring to when he mentioned Mr Mileham’s interaction with Mr Herman Mashaba.

He said he did not interact with Mr Mashaba at all. When Mr Mileham withdrew his comments, it was regarding his comments toward Ms Malinga, as the Chairperson said Members cannot respond to other Members’ statements. He made his own observations, and when he did this, Ms Malinga made comments from her seat, and he responded.

He asked for this incident to be recorded, and it was not. Mr Mileham has concerns about Members being suppressed. He has respect for the Chairperson, but he has a right to voice his opinion. There is no need to get personal. He accepted the ruling and if anyone else still has an issue with these incidents it should be reported to the Ethics Committee.

Lastly he said, in addition to the speed at which the police was travelling, what happened in Pretoria was illegal. As parliamentarians, Members swear to uphold the law and should not be privy to police officers who break the law.

The Chairperson said he does not think the draft Report will be completed in the current meeting.

Mr M Wolmarans (ANC) said the Chairperson’s changes are more than welcome. In regard to Lily Mine, he said the community is putting its (the community’s) lives into the hands of Members. He believes Members are the community’s last hope. Around the mining towns, the problems remain the same, namely, communities do not know how the mining companies work and the effect it will have. There is a lack of communication. It is the right of members to note the CEO was not present, and in this instance the Committee felt undermined. Stakeholder engagement must be met. He has mixed feelings in regard to the logistical concerns, especially if one were to question ‘what if’ something were to happen, and if the security would be sufficient.

Ms Malinga welcomed the directive the Chairperson gave. She said the issue of security is not the mandate of the committee. Mr Milham undermines the Members of this Committee, and the Committee Members feel like the outcasts. She asked the CEO to provide a letter to the Committee, with a reason for the absence. Furthermore, the Regional Manager must be dealt with by the department.

Ms Phillips asked for the name of the business rescue practitioners.

Mr Mahlaule said the Chairperson must not allow Mr Mileham to take the Committee for fools. The previous week, Mr Mileham asked for logistics to be discussed, and the Committee disagreed with this. The Chairperson then suggested the logistical issues be discussed in the current meeting. Mr Mahlaule said Mr Mileham cannot now say this must be referred to the Ethics Committee. This behaviour undermines the entire Committee and brings it into disrepute.

Mr Mileham raised a point of order. He said the appropriate manner of dealing with conduct must be dealt with by the Ethics Committee.

The Chairperson said this should be dealt with in the Committee, and this is not in order.

Mr Mahlaule said the Committee has been taken for a fool, which was a phrase coined by Mr Mileham. He asked for protection from Mr Mileham.

The Chairperson addressed Mr Mileham. He wants to look for a recording of what happened on the day. He does not fear people with constructive comments who will take the Committee forward. Most of the Members respect his (the Chairperson’s) rulings, even if Members do not agree. The Chairperson said he does not suppress Members. He did not close the matter. He asked for a report from the Department, and this must be analysed before the Committee Report is finalised. More investigation is needed into finding the best way to deal with illegal miners. Speaking on the Mossel Bay issue, the Chairperson suggested a visit on the week of the 6th, where the Committee will travel on the Friday and come back on Sunday.

The meeting was adjourned.

Documents

No related documents

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: