AGSA performance audit on rehabilitation of derelict and ownerless mines; SAHRC recommendations concerning unregulated artisanal underground and surface mining activities

Meeting report

Opening remarks

The Chairperson welcomed the Members and the delegation from the Auditor-General of South Africa (AGSA) and the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) to the meeting. The meeting started with the sad note of the Jagersfontein disaster, where it was reported that lives had been lost in the area. The Committee extended its condolences to the bereaved families and pledged their solidarity with those who suffered property and related material losses. He said the Committee would discuss its suggested interventions on the matter later in the meeting.

 

AGSA briefing on mine rehabilitation programme

Mr Kevish Lachman, Business Executive: Operations, AGSA, introduced the delegation from the AGSA and presented the vision, mission and mandate of the Office of the AGSA. He said the Office existed to strengthen the country’s democracy by enabling oversight, accountability and governance in the public sector through auditing, thereby building public confidence. Its vision was to be recognised by all its stakeholders as a relevant supreme audit institution that enhanced public sector accountability. 

Ms Chrisna Janse van Rensburg, Senior Manager, AGSA, presented a background of the audit process, the progress of the rehabilitation programme, as well as key observations on the rehabilitation of derelict and ownerless mines in the country.

The performance audit evaluated measures instituted by management to ensure that resources were procured economically and used efficiently and effectively. Economically, it looked at whether the acquisition of resources was in the right quantity and quality, at the right time and place, and the lowest possible cost. On efficiency, it looked at the optimal relationship between the output of goods, services or other results and resources used to produce them. On effectiveness, it looked at the performance concerning the achievement of policy objectives, operational goals and other intended effects of auditing the entity.

The management commitments that made in 2009 included the signing off the national strategy, and serious efforts to effectively implement it to rehabilitate derelict and ownerless mines. The national strategy was signed off in December 2009, but no subsequent reviews were performed and the implementation plan was not costed. It did not include all the key deliverables as per the strategy.

The high-risk commodities would also be identified and listed in the national strategy, and the ranking process would guide the future implementation of rehabilitation projects. The ranking was finalised, but the implementation plan did not include other high-risk commodity mines, as it was limited to only asbestos mines and holings. No risk ranking was also done for 2 238 of 6 100 mines, as the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy (DMRE) did not confirm its liability.

The DMRE had also committed to timeously updating and integrating the derelict and ownerless mine database with other databases. However, the database was not continuously reviewed and updated on its accuracy and completeness.

Some of the key contributors to the deficiencies included leadership and oversight, funding, intergovernmental coordination, contract management and operations. There was a lack of strategic importance to reduce the high number of remaining derelict and ownerless (D&O) mines, insufficient budget, the Department did not deal with the rehabilitation of the D&O mines, and there was a lack of processes and procedures to direct programmes, amongst other deficiencies.

On the key recommendations on leadership and oversight, she said the DMRE had to reassess their strategic importance by:

• Reviewing the national strategy every five years and compiling a comprehensive implementation plan to achieve national strategy objectives;
• Determining the strategic importance of D&O mines' programmes within the DMRE’s strategic objectives, given competing priorities and available funding;
• Finalising and adopting the national mine closure strategy (NMCS), which should include compiling a comprehensive national mine closure policy and implementation plan;
• Assessing (including research) and deciding on an approach to rehabilitate or repurpose all 6 100 D&O mines, instead of focusing only on rehabilitating and closing D&O asbestos mines and holings; and
• Aligning individual performance contracts of relevant officials to the requirements of the NMCS.

On funding, the key recommendation was that the funding required to meet operational targets and requirements must be secured, and the DMRE must:

• Compile, cost and approve a comprehensive D&O mines' implementation plan that covers all national strategy key deliverables;
• Use this information to compile the DMRE’s five-year strategic plan, rolling three-year plan and annual performance plan;
• Use a costed implementation plan, strategic plan and annual performance plan to support the request for annual funding from National Treasury.

On contract management and operations, she recommended the DMRE should:

• Develop processes and procedures to direct planning, execution, monitoring and reporting of the D&O mines programme
• Develop monitoring programmes that include roles and responsibilities for implementing corrective actions;
• Amend its current contracts with implementing agents to include enough detail about contractual relationships, document management, and the number and frequency of monitoring activities. Contracts should be monitored continuously to implement corrective actions where needed.
• Allocate roles and responsibilities for maintaining and reviewing the D&O mines database to ensure that information is accurate and complete;
• Revise its current stakeholder engagement framework to include appropriate dispute resolution processes that would address current challenges of disputes between local communities and the DMRE about suspended asbestos mine rehabilitation projects.

Lastly, on intergovernmental coordination, she recommended that the government task team (GTT) functioning should be improved by:

• Directors-general of relevant departments approving terms of reference to direct the GTT’s mandate and functions;
• Terms of reference, including responsibilities relating to mine closures and water management at D&O mines.

The recommendation to the Portfolio Committee was to monitor and regularly follow up with the executive authority and accounting officer on the progress of audit action plans implemented by the DMRE and on the rate of rehabilitation against planned rehabilitation rates, and to ensure there was consequence management where targets were not met.

Mr M Mahlaule (ANC) suggested the Committee should take a two-minute break to allow the Committee Secretary to locate the Chairperson of the Committee, as he was unresponsive in the meeting even though his name was visible on the virtual platform.

The Committee Secretary could not get a hold of the Chairperson. In terms of the Committee rules, the Committee could not elect an acting Chairperson because the Chairperson’s name was visible on the platform. She asked for advice from the Members of the Committee on how to progress with the meeting.

Mr Mahlaule was also unsure of how to proceed, because the Chairperson was on the platform. He said they should not do something unlawful, and asked for the opinions of the other Members.

Ms P Madokwe (EFF) suggested that someone facilitate the progress of the programme until the Chairperson was back in the meeting because of time constraints.

Ms V Malinga (ANC) agreed with Ms Madokwe, but was unsure what would happen if the Chairperson could not be located.

The Committee Secretary asked the Members to elect someone who would facilitate the process until the Chairperson was located.

Mr Mahlaule agreed to facilitate the process, and allowed the next presentation to proceed.

 

SA Human Rights Commission briefing on illegal mining

Adv Jonas Ben Sibanyoni, Commissioner, SA Human Rights Commission (SAHRC), said the entity had made the following interventions on the issues of illegal mining:

• Hosted a round table discussion on illegal mining to discuss human rights concerns associated with illegal mining in 2013;
• Hosted a provincial hearing in the mining community of Kommagas, Northern Cape, to address and understand the artisanal mining tragedy that happened at Bontekoe mine in 2013; and
• Held several stakeholder engagements with experts and conducted site visits;

In 2015, the SAHRC undertook an investigative hearing into the issues and challenges of unregulated artisanal underground and above-ground mining in South Africa. One of the objectives of the hearing was to exploit avenues as to how zama-zamas could be counteracted, and how the livelihoods taken away through the retrenchment of workers could be restored with artisanal mining.

The panel received submissions and heard oral testimonies from representatives from the Chamber of Mines, the DMRE, the Department of Health (DoH), the Department of Employment and Labour (DEL), and the national coordination strategic management team on illegal mining, amongst other stakeholders.

The findings of the hearings included the lack of research and literature on unregulated artisanal underground and above mining in the country, and the poor understanding of the profile of the zama-zamas, as not all zama-zamas began with the intention of becoming involved in criminal syndicates, and not all of them were non-nationals and illegal immigrants.

Other findings included that legislation like the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) had failed to prevent criminal and dangerous practices, that artisanal and small-scale mining was linked to other forms of criminality, like the theft of cables and tax evasion, and that some artisanal mining processes had the potential to enable job creation and support informal trade and other economic activities. The SAHRC also found that artisanal mining could not be eradicated if socio-economic conditions like poverty, unemployment and inequality persisted. The current mining legislation did not properly provide for artisanal mining.

The SAHRC recommended that research was essential to identify the size, shape and scope of artisanal mining in the country, build the profiles of zama-zamas, illegal gold trading syndicates and corrupt SA Police Service (SAPS) and security officials, and look at opportunities that artisanal mining could offer for marginalised people.

Adv Mluleki Marongo, Research Assistant, SAHRC, said the SAHRC believed that its recommendation was relevant and would engage the DMRE to monitor the implementation of its recommendation and engage with experts to develop a wealth of information and conduct further research on artisanal mining to develop data-based recommendations.

The SAHRC suggested that Parliament use its section 55 powers in terms of the Constitution “to ensure that all executive organs of state in the national sphere of government” who had a role to play in terms of the Commission’s recommendations, fulfilled such a role. The Commission asked Parliament to request an update of reports from all the organs of state that had a responsibility in terms of the Commission’s report, and to consider having periodic meetings with the Commission on progress in the implementation of the recommendations of the report.

Lastly, the Commission asked Parliament to consider establishing an ad-hoc committee that would also include a Commissioner of the SAHRC, to look at the issue of artisanal mining, especially as contained in the Commission’s report.

Mr Mahlaule said the Chairperson of the Committee was back on the platform, and handed over to him to lead the meeting.

The Chairperson apologised for his disconnection from the meeting as the area he was in had bad connectivity. He asked Members to ask their questions about the presentation from the AGSA.

 

Discussion on AGSA presentation

Ms Madokwe said one of the things referred to as the major root causes of illegal mining included mines that were not properly closed, as well as mines that were not rehabilitated, and the dates for when the mines would be closed or rehabilitated were too far in the future. She asked what strategies were available to ensure that the rehabilitation and closing of mines would be done more quickly. Understanding the budget challenges, she also wanted to know the other alternatives that could be undertaken in that regard.

She also realised there was a focus on asbestos mines, and was interested to know what was happening at other mines regarding their closure and rehabilitation. She found it alarming that there was no national mine closure strategy, which should have been compiled and completed about 11 years ago. She was interested in finding out why that had not been done, and what informed the current approach to dealing with mining rehabilitation and closure.

She also wanted to know why the mining database was not up to date, and said that to solve a problem, the scope of the problem needed to be understood because without an updated database, the projections might be highly inaccurate. The issue of the DMRE not having a mine-closure and rehabilitation plan in its three to five-year plan was also a cause for concern, and the Department would need to explain it.

Ms Malinga wanted to know how soon the DMRE could be able to update its national strategy, and why the plans were not costed and aligned to key outcomes. She asked how soon the DMRE planned to have a mine-closure strategy completed for implementation.

Mr Mahlaule said some of the things that the AGSA had presented were out of the Department's control, but working with the Committee, some of the issues raised could be solved.

He welcomed the proposals from the SAHRC, and said the Committee must consider the proposal to establish an ad hoc committee, because the issue of derelict and ownerless mines needed a special focus. He said the courts may judge that a situation like the Jagersfontein Mine Dam that collapsed could not be regulated in the MPRDA, because what happened might not be considered a mining activity. He wanted to know at what point the SAHRC would decide to intervene in the situation and protect the rights of the people who were affected.

 

Response by AGSA

Mr Lachman said all the questions from Ms Madokwe and Ms Malinga on why the strategy was not in place needed to be posed to the DMRE, because the Department had already committed to implementing the strategy and other plans, and some of them should already have been implemented.

The Chairperson said Parliament had, from its inception, adopted a top-heavy system where there was too much invested in the Executive and too little on the oversight institutions, such as the legislature. For example, the Portfolio Committee had one researcher who was responsible for a Department that had many researchers, but the Portfolio Committee could not hire consultants, while a department could have all the required services it wanted, and still be allowed by law to hire consultants.

Institutions such as a Portfolio Committee would continue to need close interactions with Chapter 9 institutions -- not only based on what they should do, but also on how they should perform a specific level of oversight accountability. Nothing should stop the AGSA and the SAHRC from asking the Department why the plans were not implemented so that when they reported to the Portfolio Committee, it could have a basis on how to intervene in the matter.

He said good financial results or audit outcomes did not necessarily translate to good service delivery audits. There were about 6 100 derelict and ownerless mines, and only R124 million was allocated per financial year to deal with that, so in terms of the input cost of the exercise, the challenge could not be addressed. Therefore, the annual performance targets and five-year strategic plans did not project a hopeful picture, because the annual performance always had to be guided by what was available to enable the Department to perform the task.

The Committee had asked the Department how much it would need to address the issue of derelict and ownerless mines, and the Department had said it would need over R14 billion. He asked to what extent consideration of collaboration between the Department and the Council for Geoscience (CGS) could be made.

Mr Lachman said the AGSA, as a Chapter 9 portfolio, was focused on moving towards looking at service delivery and the impact on citizens' lives through either the performance audits or the real-time audits. The AGSA worked closely with the DMRE to give them the opportunity within their leadership to come up with commitments that they felt were feasible and achievable with their resources and capacities.

The Department had a national strategy that needed to be implemented 11 years ago, and the work they had committed to must be work that they could close off on, considering their strategic priorities and discussions with the relevant role-players in the sphere of rehabilitation. They would also need to consult with Treasury because funding must be established to perform such functions and tasks, and to commit to the establishment of the process.

He said they had held several discussions with the entity and the Executive, and the commitments made by the Department had risen from those discussions. The AGSA would follow up on those commitments in follow-up audits and in the yearly financial audits, and this would be discussed with the audit committees to ensure that it formed part of the monitoring system.

 

Discussion on SAHRC presentation

Ms Malinga found Adv Marongo’s likening illegal mining to artisanal mining disturbing. She commented that illegal mining referred to people mining without being given the right or permission or licence by a state or a mining company. Artisanal mining or small-scale mining, referred to informal mining activities done using low technology or minimal machinery, which was legal. She was confused by the implication of Adv Marongo that illegal mining was acceptable because the people had to support their families, and said the Portfolio Committee was advocating that the DMRE and mining companies should support artisanal mining to support people who were laid off or retrenched by mining companies, or people who were unemployed due to the scaling-down of mining companies.

The Chairperson clarified that the Committee received information from concerned entities, which were Chapter 9 institutions, on the artisanal, derelict and ownerless mines. The information received by the Committee in the meeting would help them decide how they would use it -- for example, by inviting the Department to answer specific questions based on the information received. The Department would not be allowed to respond during the meeting because they would have their chance to respond when the AGSA and HSRC gathered information from them.

Ms Madokwe wanted to understand the difference between unregulated artisanal mining and illegal mining, and whether, during the hearings they had with the stakeholders, they would be able to make a link between illegal mining and people not being able to get mining licences.

On the proposed establishment of an ad hoc committee, she wanted to know who the ad hoc committee would be comprised of and where they stood on the conversation on illegal mining, as well as who they accounted to, because there was already a national coordinating team that had been established. She asked if the ad hoc committee would not be replicating the work already done by the national coordinating team.

When the Committee had raised the question of how far they were in implementing the recommendations from the report to the Department, the Department had said they had responded and written to the SAHRC, but the impression in the meeting was that the SAHRC was still waiting for responses from various departments. She wanted to know the engagements between the SAHRC and the various departments since the report was released in 2014 and the challenges in progress, because some of the things noted in the report could have been done years ago.  

The Chairperson was also unsure whether the Committee and the SAHRC shared the same understanding of artisanal mining because, as the Committee understood, artisanal mining was regulated by the Act and only needed policy and regulations to be developed by the Department. The concern was that the current policy developed by the Department on artisanal mining did not speak to underground mining.

He said not every illegal mining activity contained acts of violence and criminal aspects. He recalled their visit to Burgersfort last weekend, where one could not say the mining that was happening there was hardcore criminal. The issues raised by the Burgersfort community included that three multinational monopolies occupied a huge space for them to be able to do mining, and they had to find means of surviving. Secondly, their work was made even more difficult by the licensing regime, specifically because the DMRE was not doing what it was supposed to in terms of fast-tracking the process of licensing for locals to undertake mining activities.

In terms of derelict and ownerless mines, the problem was that the legislation predating 2002 and 2004 never assigned responsibility for the rehabilitation of mines. As a result, there were several D&O mines without any liability for rehabilitation. None of the mining companies could be held accountable because the law did not apply retrospectively. He asked the SAHRC to advise on the human rights angle that could be looked at when trying to solve the issue of the liability and responsibility for D&O mines.

He recalled a time at the Harmony Gold Mine in the Free State Province, where the issue of zama-zamas was very high and several people lost their lives during underground mining, most of whom were from Lesotho. As much as it was understood that not all zama-zamas were foreign nationals, they should be careful of painting a picture that the locals were prejudiced against foreign nationals.

There was no doubt that as long as there were social challenges and issues of inequality and poverty in the country, crime would continue to be one of the serious challenges government would face. The fact of the matter was that no matter how many zama-zamas got arrested, they would not be dealing with the root cause of the problem, because there were syndicates in operation.

He had expected a solution that would make gold a strategic and scarce mineral at risk, and the creation of legislation that would give global approval of gold as a scarce mineral, and for it to be treated as such. There was also a possibility that the professional and normalised gold mining sector could also be part of the problem, because the illegal gold mining activities could have been indirectly subsidising legal mining.

He said in Krugersdorp, women had said they were no longer willing to speak on issues relating to rape because it was something they experienced daily. There might need to be a balance between people’s daily lived experiences and whether they were farfetched or not, and if the country could solve the problem of crime and the problem of zama-zamas on its own, or if the Southern African Development Community (SADC) might need to intervene.

 

SAHRC's response

Adv Sibanyoni said as a chapter 9 institution, the SAHRC had no mandate to deal with matters that were before the courts, but the constitution said it was imperative that they monitor the observance of human rights in the country. Individuals had the right to approach the SAHRC when they felt their human rights were violated.

Adv Marongo said their report was on the hearing of the issues and challenges concerning unregulated artisanal underground and surface mining activities in the country, and page 26 of its report read as follows:

“The Mineral and Resources Petroleum Act focuses mainly on large-scale mining with a few exceptions. Section 23 of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Amendment (MPRDA) Act describes the permitting process for allowing small-scale mining on an area not exceeding five hectares, which can be mined optimally within a period of two years. Unlike the mining rights for large-scale mining, obtaining a mining permit does not require an economic or social and labour plan, yet this process can still be quite onerous, as it requires submitting technical applications and environmental management plans and applications for environmental authorisations, which may not be clear or doable for small-scale miners, and certainly out of reach for artisanal miners.”

He referenced the discussion document on artisanal mining which confirmed the challenges found by the Commission as follows:

“Section 27 of the MPRDA, which deals with the licensing regime for the artisanal mining industry, had been seen largely as prohibitive to the development and growth of the sector. This was mainly because the Act does not define concepts. It does not cater for the artisanal mining industry. Small-scale miners were virtually treated the same as large-scale miners in terms of requirements for environmental management, water use, land use, health and safety, and financial provision.”

The main point was that the Commission found that many people who made submissions to the Commission could not satisfy the requirements for their recognition as artisanal miners. As a result, many of them were criminalised and subjected to police raids, prosecution and media scrutiny, and assumptions were made about them being illegal miners and that some were not even supposed to be in the country. He said most of the points made by the Chairperson of the Committee required this level of scientific knowledge that the Commission had said was lacking within the industry in its report.

He said there might have been a mixture in their use of the terminology in the presentation, but the main point was that their presentation spoke to the people who should be regulated in terms of the legislation but were unable to access or fulfil the legislative requirements, which led them to being criminalised and unable to engage meaningfully and sufficiently in artisanal mining to provide for their families.

Mr Chris Nissen, Commissioner, SAHRC, said artisanal mining should be focused not only on the mine dumps, because that was where they were normally led to mine, especially in the Northern Cape. He agreed with the Chairperson that not all artisanal miners and not all foreign nationals were criminals, but there were major problems where there was domination of one group and instances where people were digging holes in their own houses because of the belief that there were diamonds everywhere.

In his opinion, the elephant in the room was the non-rehabilitation of mines. This had two legs, the first being the environmental leg in which mines were just left, and the second was that even if mining companies built clinics or schools, they had no sustainability because they just left the areas. He said the remedy to this would be for the Department to hold the companies accountable, because, in the event of non-rehabilitation and the absence of the sustainability of the social responsibility compact, there were a lot of problems where people became worse than before the mines were opened in the areas.

The other problem was that because several mining company bosses were connected politically, they just did as they pleased, as there were mining companies that were irresponsible environmentally and in terms of the socio-economic compact.

Ms Chantal Kisoon, Chief Operations Officer, SAHRC, said their teams had been on the ground in the Free State since Monday and were monitoring the humanitarian situation and how they could unlock emergency support to the people that were affected. Secondly, they would take the monitoring information and intervene with other organs of state so that some reforms of a more immediate and short-term nature could be unlocked.

The Commission would also provide support to the people who may need assistance of a different type, whether legal or another type of support, that was within the jurisdiction of the Commission. This would happen despite the court judgment, not to usurp the court judgment, but to provide humanitarian support where human rights were rendered vulnerable.

She said rape and crime were not isolated in the country. The President had termed gender-based violence (GBV) a second pandemic, and this pandemic should not be linked and confined to a specific area and a specific group of people. The Commission brought the report to the Committee's attention because it largely explored the broader human rights dimensions and recognised that the issues needed to be scrutinised beyond just legislative or regulatory reforms.

The Commission also wanted to understand their social nature, who the zama-zamas were, what drove them, who they were made up of, whether they worked in isolation or in groups, and whether South Africans were complicit and enabling as well, but were invisible or undisclosed. They wanted to know whether mines operating through the formal process but too costly were enabling the zama-zamas in any way, and what the economic costs of the zama-zamas were to the country.

The case models in Asia, South America, the Pacific, as well as East and West Africa, had been analysed by the Commission in the research that allowed them to explore whether the issue could be brought into a more regulated scenario. They had explored whether it could have better conditions applied that may mitigate against some of the consequences that were happening now, such as the power struggles between communities and those who wanted to continue operating their businesses.

The Commission had recognised back then that this was a complex situation and that some of the zama-zamas may not want to be regulated and would have preferred to continue working in the shadows. The Commission then encouraged the closed social research and benchmarking of regional research while reflecting on what could work in the South African context.

The classification of “illegal” needed to be reflected on, not because what the people were doing was not illegal, but on whether it was illegal because the perpetrators were in the country illegally, or the tools and implements had been illegally obtained, or if it was because it was conducted outside of the regulatory framework that applied to small-scale and artisanal mining.

Ms Kisoon said there was also a need for awareness, because it would be very problematic if certain stereotypes were to be allowed to be perpetuated, not because what the communities told them was untrue, but because it was true, but not confined to a particular group of people in the country or people of a certain social origin. One should guard against the messaging that is sent out, and more should be done positively to create awareness.

In its recent hearing on the impact of mining on mining-affected communities, which also took a very human rights-based look into the situation in mining communities, the Commission was grateful for the high-level inter-ministerial committee that was convened after the hearing report and had engaged with the Commission on how it could take the recommendations forward. There had been fruitful engagement between the Commission and the Department, but unfortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic had gotten the better of them and nothing further had happened beyond the two meetings of the task team to take forward the recommendations.

She said there was an appetite from the Commission to continue to support the work of Parliament, even in the provinces, so they could share the reports on their investigations and findings with them and engage with the Department and other departments on how they could work more constructively on such issues going forward. She said they were willing to receive requests for support from Parliament and would attempt to support them to the best of their ability. The Commission was also resource-constrained in terms of the number of people it had on the ground to assist with monitoring and inspecting environmental rights and so on.

Adv Sibanyoni thanked the Committee for the opportunity to present to them, and gave an assurance that the Commission would continue to implement its mandate as one of the chapter 9 institutions.

 

Concluding remarks

The Chairperson said the Committee had a duty to do follow-ups with the Department and its entities to account on the issues that had been brought to its attention by the AGSA and the SAHRC. They may need to ensure that the institutions were also part of the meeting so that they could respond if they needed to make any interventions.

He hoped that the Committee would not encounter a careless attitude from mining bosses because of political connections when they dealt with the Jagersfontein matter, as had been mentioned by Commissioner Nissen. The court order had said the DMRE had no jurisdiction in the Jagersfontein matter and according to the MPRDA, mining rights, in general, could be made in the mineral industry space, which meant that a private entity would have the privilege of issuing a mining right without the due regulation of the state.

He was sure that the question from the Committee would be whether the Department should have appealed the Court decision, because there was an existing case study, which was the ruling that was made in favour of the DMRE when it was taken to court by the industry to say it had no rights to the minerals beneath the soil. The court had ruled that the Department and the state remained the custodians of the ownership of the minerals beneath the soil on behalf of the people. The question of surface rights did not necessarily equate to the issue of mineral rights. The main dilemma was ensuring that the court decision on the Jagersfontein matter did not put the Department and the state in a similar situation.

There were also many other aspects that had raised questions regarding the D&O mines, including the needs of the existing mines -- for example, the people digging in their own houses for minerals. This would pose a serious problem in the future, as those mine dumps would make it difficult for the residents to reside, and it needed to be attended to.

The other issue that had to be looked at was the disharmony within the legislation, because some of the legislation fell outside the ambit of the Committee. When a person received a mining right, they received it through the conditions and regulations as prescribed in the MPRDA, but when they were faced with serious challenges, they would go through the route of the insolvency procedure in the Companies Act. That created a problem, because the mines would remain non-operational for a long time and would become an attraction for others to conduct illegal activities, which was why there was a need to consider harmonised legislation, where the principle of ‘use it or lose it’ must apply.  

He thanked the delegation from the AGSA and the SAHRC for availing themselves to the meeting and presenting to the Committee. He allowed them to exit the meeting as the Committee focused on internal matters.

 

Committee matters

Correspondence

The Committee Secretary said the first correspondence was from Mr Aubrey Langa, who had requested intervention from the Mineral Resources and Energy Committee and the Committee on Agriculture concerning the failure of provincial rural development involving Ivanplats and Anglo American Platinum mines.

The second correspondence was from the Office of the Speaker on the Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse (OUTA) report, saying the Committee must deal with it in whatever way it deemed necessary.

The third one was a comment from the Minister of Environment on the Bill that the Committee advertised. The Minister had made inputs on the Bill, stating that she had an issue with the DMRE not having included what they had discussed and agreed upon.

The last correspondence was Thursday’s Announcements, Tablings and Committees (ATC), which withdrew the Amendment Bill from the Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy, so the Gas Amendment Bill was no longer in Parliament.

The Chairperson said the Committee would also discuss the Jagersfontein issue based on the reports they had received.

He asked if Members were comfortable with implementing the first correspondence.

The Members agreed.

He asked if the Members agreed to make time to invite OUTA to speak to the Committee, just as the AGSA and SAHRC had done in this meeting.

The Members agreed.

He asked if the Committee agreed to table the correspondence of the Minister of Environment when they dealt with the Upstream Petroleum Resources Development Bill, and forward the letter to the DMRE for the attention of the Minister.

Mr Mahlaule agreed, but the Committee should note that they had advertised the Bill only to receive views from the public. He was unsure that the Minister of Environment’s response to the Bill was allowed according to the laws of Parliament, as the Minister was a Cabinet member, and he asked the Committee to consult the legal team on the matter.

The Chairperson noted Mr Mahlaule’s concern, and asked the Committee support staff to ensure that they already had a legal opinion on how to deal with the matter when they dealt with the Bill. Under normal circumstances, the chairperson from another Portfolio Committee would write to this Committee, noting that they were interested in the Bill because it affected some of their oversight interests. He said the Committee would refer the letter to the Minister because it spoke about Executive authority concerns.

The Members agreed.

 

Jagersfontein discussion

The Chairperson had had an engagement with the House Chairperson as well as the Chief Whip, and the view was that the Committee would have to visit Jagersfontein, but it would be impossible to go on Wednesday or Thursday, so the Committee would have to go on Friday. The Committee would take a flight to Jagersfontein on Thursday evening and return to Johannesburg on Friday after the visit to Jagersfontein.

The Committee Secretary explained the logistics of the visit, and the Committee discussed the details.

The meeting was adjourned.