Commission on Restitution of Land Rights Annual Report: briefing

Meeting Summary

A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.

Meeting report

LAND AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS SELECT COMMITTEE

LAND AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS SELECT COMMITTEE
21 June 2005
COMMISSION ON RESTITUTION OF LAND RIGHTS ANNUAL REPORT: BRIEFING

Chairperson:
Rev P Moatshe (ANC, North-West)

Documents handed out:
Commission on Restitution of Land Rights Annual Report 2004/2005 PowerPoint Presentation
Commission on Restitution of Land Rights Annual Report for the Year Ending March 2005 (available shortly @
http://land.pwv.gov.za)

SUMMARY
The Commission on Restitution of Land Rights briefed the Committee on its Annual Report for 2004/05. The expenditure of R 1 182 226 000 had mostly been spent on the Commission's core programmes, which included land acquisitions, financial compensation and development grants. It had settled 10 634 land claims in that period. Some of the challenges that the Commission faced were fraudulent land claims cases; present owners deliberately over inflating the prices of their land; problems with the support of the municipalities around aspects of the land restitution process; and difficulties in verifying rural land claims due to a lack of historical documentation. The initiatives implemented in order to solve these problems were also outlined. The Chief Land Claims Commissioner noted that the government would perhaps need to intervene in the land claims process through implementing ceilings on land prices, exploring expropriation, or by introducing a land tax based on land size. Such interventions would encourage the restitution process. The Commission noted that overall excellent progress had been made in the land restitution process.

In the ensuing discussion, Members raised questions about: outstanding rural land claims; how rural lands claims were verified if documentation was missing or never existed; whether the Commission was co-operating with AgriSA; whether the Commission had agreements with municipalities on land restitution matters; whether a tax could be imposed on owners that had benefited from selling land to the Commission at over inflated prices; what action was taken against landowners and evaluators that colluded to overvalue land; and how it was dealing with traditional leaders that believed they owned restituted land and not the communities. It was noted that in order to redistribute 30% of the land in South Africa by 2015 it would take a joint effort from all the levels of government so that at least 1.7 million hectares was redistributed every year for the next ten years.

MINUTES

Commission on Restitution of Land Rights Annual Report 2004/2005: Briefing
Mr T Gwanya (Chief Land Claims Commissioner) began by outlining the Commission’s mandate and strategic objectives, which was to provide redress to the victims of apartheid land dispossession. He noted that through the land restitution process, the Commission was involved in promoting national reconciliation, stability and poverty alleviation.

Mr Gwanya then discussed the Commission’s 2004/05 budget figures. It had been allocated a budget of R 933 225 000, which was a 10 % increase. However, actual expenditure for 2004/2005 was R 1 182 226 000, which meant that there had been a budget overspend for the financial year. Most of the Commission’s had been directed towards its core programmes: land acquisitions, financial compensation and development grants. It was noted that the Commission’s budget had been steadily increasing since 2001 and would increase even further in the future. This demonstrated the extent of the political support that existed for the land restitution process. In an overview of the donor funding that the Commission had received, Mr Gwanya highlighted the role that the Belgian government had played. For example, it had provided a grant of R 400 000 to the Commission in 2004/2005 for the fast tracking of claims. Added to this, it had pledged R 40 million for post-settlement support in 2006/2007.

Mr Gwanya stated that the Commission had settled 10 634 claims during 2004/05. Of these, 10 270 were urban claims while 364 were rural claims. Although 364 rural claims seemed a small figure, the number of households that had benefited from these claims numbered in the thousands. This was due to the nature of the rural land claims whereby communities tended to receive restitution rather than individuals. He highlighted some of the high profile claims that had been settled: the Mkambati land claim, the Bakwena-ba-Molamo family land claim, the Hlahlindlela community land claim, Mtititi community land claim, Tubatse community land claim and the Kwasibange community land claim. Added to this, he discussed some of the prominent Land Court rulings that had been made such as the Richtersveld community vs Alexkor case.

Mr Gwanya outlined the challenges that the Commission had faced during this period. The Commission had experienced problems in verifying certain rural claims because of a lack of proper historical records. Added to this, some rural claimants lacked documentation such as identity documents or birth certificates. As a result of these difficulties the President had extended the deadline for the finalisation of the land restitution process by three years. Another problem faced by the Commission was that most urban claimants wanted compensation rather than land restitution. Unfortunately, claiming compensation was not a solution to poverty nor did it alleviate the imbalances of land ownership in South Africa. Post settlement support initiatives were also proving to be problematic. For example, there had been problems with rolling out mentorship programmes for rural claimants. Other problems that the Commission experienced included fraudulent claims cases; delays in the procurement of goods and services; problems with municipal support in handling land reform and the provision of infrastructure; traditional leaders wrongfully believing that they owned restored land and not the claimant communities; and collusion between certain landowners and evaluators to inflate land values.

In order to address these problems the Commission had undertaken various initiatives. For example, it was seeking to shorten the rural claims cycle from three years to one year in order to fast track claims. Where there had been cases of fraud, the Commission was taking the necessary legal action. The Commission was also implementing a Supply Chain Management programme. Mr Gwanya noted that the government would perhaps need to intervene in the land claims process through implementing ceilings on land prices, exploring expropriation, or by introducing a land tax based on land size. Such interventions would encourage the restitution process. Mr Gwanya concluded by highlighting that South Africa had made excellent progress in restoring land rights when compared to other countries such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada.

Discussion
Mr M Mzizi (IFP, Gauteng) asked how many rural claims were still outstanding.

Mr Gwanya responded that there were 6 000 outstanding rural claims, which needed to be resolved within the next three years.

Mr Mzizi noted that the Commission had stated that it would verify rural land claims by tracing family ancestry. Up until 1963 many black people in rural areas were not issued with birth certificates. This would affect the ability of claimants to prove that they were descended from the original landowners. He asked how the Commission would address this problem.

Mr Mzizi observed that the claims process would not be re-opened because there would be too many new claimants. The Commission had, however, stated that any future claimants would be referred to the other land reform programmes. Mr Mzizi asked for more details regarding these other land reform programmes.

Mr Gwanya replied that the other programmes were the Land Tenure Reform Programme and the Land Redistribution and Agricultural Development Programme. These programmes made land available to communities through the provincial Departments of Agriculture.

Mr L Van Rooyen (ANC, Free State) commented that various provinces had raised questions around the sustainability of rural land restitution because the claimants often lacked capital or the expertise to use the land productively. Mr Van Rooyen asked whether the Commission had any programmes to ensure that rural land resettlement was sustainable.


Mr M Mokono (Regional Land Claims Commissioner: Limpopo Province) responded that the Commission’s mandate was to deal with land claims and return land to the rightful owners. It was not mandated to establish post-settlement programmes. Nonetheless, the Commission had become involved in attempting to organise post-settlement programmes. The Commission had, therefore, established settlement and support units that examined how claimants could be helped once they were resettled. For example, the units had examined the possibility of inviting strategic partners to help skill people in using farmland productively. This included identifying markets for the produce and offering mentorship programmes.

Mr Van Rooyen enquired whether the Commission had an agreement with the South African Local Government Association (SALGA) or the municipalities to address the problems, which the municipalities had experienced due to the land restitution process.

Mr Mokono noted that in the past there had been some difficulties with certain municipalities. However, the Commission had worked hard to ensure that municipalities realised the responsibility that they had as development agencies in areas where there had been land restitutions. The Commission was also involved in the municipalities’ Integrated Development Plans (IDPs) in order to ensure that they accommodated the land restitution process. This allowed the municipalities to plan in advance for land resettlements. Of course there were still challenges, which included certain municipalities lacking adequate capacity and resources.

Ms L Faleni (Regional Land Claims Commissioner: Eastern Cape) added that the provincial governments had also assisted the Commission in explaining to the municipalities the role that they should play in the restitution process. An understanding now existed between the Commission and the municipalities around the need for co-operation. In the past the Commission would often be in competition with municipalities for land. For example, municipalities would identify a piece of land for housing developments, while the Commission would identify the same piece of land for land claims. Such issues were now being resolved. Ms Faleni noted that the Commission was seeking to enhance its relationship with SALGA.

Mr Van Rooyen asked whether a capital gains tax could be introduced, which would target landowners that attempted to sell their land to the Commission at prices that were higher than the property’s market value. For example, could a capital gains tax be introduced that heavily taxed the difference between an asking price and the market value of a property?

Mr Gwanya responded that the Commission had not considered implementing such a tax. The Commission did not want to set a precedent by paying the full amount for overvalued land. As a result, the Commission was not willing to accept exceptionally high prices and, therefore, a tax on over priced land would be unnecessary.

Mr Mokono added that profit on any property that exceeded R 1 million was already subjected to capital gains tax. The Commission wanted to pay fair market value for land and not over inflated prices. Nonetheless, Mr Gwanya commented that the Member’s proposal was interesting.

Mr Van Rooyen asked if organised agriculture was playing a role in the issues surrounding the land reforms process. He also enquired whether the Commission was co-operating with the provincial agricultural unions.

Mr Gwanya replied that the Commission had a draft memorandum of agreement with AgriSA and its provincial affiliates, which outlined areas were co-operation could take place. This included the post-settlement mentorship programme. Indeed, AgriSA had informed the Commission that it had a development arm, which could assist in the mentorship programme. When the Commission attempted to access this development arm it was discovered that AgriSA wanted to charge for its services. This meant that claimants would have to use a portion of their grants if they wished to access the development arm of AgriSA. In the light of this, the Commission felt that it had not received enough support from AgriSA.

Mr Mokono commented that the extent to which the Commission co-operated with the provincial affiliates of AgriSA differed from province to province. The Commission had received an indication from the Mpumulanga and Limpopo AgriSA affiliates that they would be willing to assist in identifying strategic partners to aid with the post-settlement programmes.

Kgoshi L Mokoena (ANC, Limpopo) enquired whether the Commission had mechanisms to identify cases of collusion, which involved evaluators and landowners deliberately overvaluing land.

Mr Gwanya answered that the Commission would not tolerate landowners and evaluators colluding to overvalue land. The Commission had briefed a senior counsel to start litigation against people that had benefited from land sales where the land had been deliberately overvalued. It was, however, very difficult to implement a proactive strategy to detect such abuses. Most of the evaluators were white middle aged men and very few people of other races were entering into the evaluation profession. Due to this, the probability of collusion between the current evaluators and landowners was high. It was difficult to deal with this issue. The Department had agreed to appoint its own evaluators to undertake valuation process examinations. In this way, it was hoped that collusion would be addressed.

Kgoshi Mokoena asked whether the Commission had the ability to recover money, which had been spent on fraudulent land claims. Specifically, there had been a case approximately three years before near the Mozambique border where the Commission had been misled and ended up handing over land to people who should not have been claimants. He noted that in the interim this had been reversed. However, had the Commission recovered the money that it had spent on processing these false claims?

Mr Gwanya replied that he knew about this case but the land had not been given to wrongful claimants. It was important to understand that the land had been returned to the community and not individuals. As such, a registered Community Property Association (CPA) owned the land. A few members of the CPA should not have been beneficiaries. These members would be dismissed from the CPA and their names would be removed from the CPA. This did not change the fact that the community, which included the majority of its members, was the rightful claimant.

Kgoshi Mokoena responded that there were legitimate claimants on the CPA’s Board of Trustees. However, the list that was submitted to the Commission contained names of people from Mozambique that were now confessing that they were not the rightful claimants. He was happy that the Commission had clarified the situation and that it was in the process of verifying the legitimate claims and addressing wrongful claims.

Kgoshi Mokoena noted that some traditional leaders incorrectly believed that they, not the claimant communities, owned land that had been returned to tribes. He enquired what the Commission was doing in order to address this problem.

Mr Gwanya commented that there had been a problem in Mpumulanga and the Limpopo provinces where certain people were using the land claims process in order to justify their traditional leadership. A study report noted that one area in Mpumulanga had five chiefs before the apartheid era. The apartheid government appointed new chiefs in order to bolster their control of the area, which eventually saw 75 chiefs appointed. The problem was that the land claims process was being used by some of these illegitimate chiefs to bolster their positions. These chiefs were claiming that if the land claims were successful, then it was an acknowledgement that they were the rightful leaders. Some of the chiefs were also claiming that the land, which had been returned to tribes was their personal property. The reality was that the Commission did not return land to the chiefs but rather to communities. This had been reflected in the title deeds. Mr Gwanya asked if Kgoshi Mokoena could assist the Commission in explaining to the leadership of traditional leaders that any restored rural land did not belong to traditional leaders but rather belonged to the respective communities.

Kgoshi responded that he would address the leadership of the traditional leaders regarding this issue.

Mr R Tau (ANC, Northern Cape) asked if the plans to redistribute 30% of the land in South Africa by 2015 were on track.

Mr Gwanya replied that it would take a joint effort from all the levels of government to reach this target. This included the need for additional resources. Indeed, the increase in the Commission’s budget demonstrated that there was a political commitment to reaching the target. In order to achieve the target, at least 1.7 million hectares would need to be redistributed every year for the next ten years.

Mr Tau enquired about the developments that had taken place in the Richtersveld community vs Alexkor land claims case.

Mr Mokono replied that the Constitutional Court had upheld the Richtersveld community’s claim, including its claim for the mineral rights. Added to this, the community was claiming the loss of past royalties from Alexkor, which dated back to when mining first started in 1927. The geological department from the University of the Witwatersrand was formulating a determination on the exact monetary figure of the lost royalties. On the basis of this, the Court would decide on how much the community should be compensated for lost royalties.

Mr A Watson (DA, Mpumulanga) noted that in the Moropa family land claims case, the current landowner had claimed that the claimants had been willing sellers of the land. Yet, it had been decided that the claimants would be resettled on the land anyway. He questioned whether this was in contradiction with the mandate of the land restitution process.

Mr Mokono replied that the present owner's land was only a small portion of the Moropa land claim. The Commission had established that the Moropa family was the rightful claimant. Most of the land had already been returned to the family, except for the land that the present owner occupied. This meant that all of the owner's neighbours had accepted that the land claim was valid. The landowner in question, Mr Visser, had been willing to sell his property at R 6 million, however, his property had only been valued at R 1.6 million. The Commission was not willing to pay R 6 million for the property. As a result Mr Visser attempted to claim that the Moropa family had originally sold the land voluntarily and that their claim was invalid. However, the claim had been considered valid when the other surrounding farmers sold their land to the Commission. Added to this, it was found that the Moropa family had not voluntarily sold the land but had rather been terrorised into doing so. Mr Visser also claimed that he had added value to the property because he had erected a large house on the land. In terms of the valuators’ rules, a house does not add any value to a rural property. If a barn or structure that was used specifically for farming had been erected then that would add value to the property. Rural land was not evaluated as residential land. Mr Visser also claimed that he had erected a building, which had been an abattoir and this added value to his property. However, the Commission found that the ‘abattoir’ referred to by Mr Visser was not even registered.

Mr Gwanya invited the Committee to the Land Summit in July 2005 and to attend hand-over celebrations in the various provinces. Mr Mokono added that the Select Committee could make a submission to the Land Summit if it wanted any specific issues discussed.

The Chairperson replied that the Committee would like to attend the Land Summit. Ms B Dlulane (ANC, Eastern Cape) felt communities should be given the opportunity to have input into the Land Summit.

The Chairperson noted that the Committee would be continually engaging the Commission because the land claims issue was an important priority. He invited the Commission to come and brief the Committee again after the midyear recess.

Committee Minutes of 17 May: Adoption
The Chairperson noted that the 17 May meeting had been a Joint Meeting. A Member questioned whether the Select Committee could adopt the minutes of a Joint Meeting. She felt that the Minutes of a Joint Meeting could only be adopted at the next Joint Meeting. The Chairperson added that he was unsure of the process that surrounded the adoption of minutes of a Joint Meeting. As a result, the Committee decided not to adopt the Minutes. The Chairperson noted that the issue needed further clarification.

Committee Minutes of 14 June: Adoption
After a brief discussion the Committee adopted the Minutes of 14 June.

The meeting was adjourned.

Audio

No related

Documents

No related documents

Present

  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting

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: