Tag Archive | department of rural development and land reform

Communal Property Bill assists land reform

Reform assisted on communal property 

communal-land-4…sent to clients 21 Oct….The tabling of the Communal Property Associations Amendment Bill could represent a major advance in bringing order to many aspects of government’s land reform policy. In essence, the Bill will ensure that householders have security of tenure and thus have the ability to raise capital before they enter into any agreement on the management of communal land.

The new Bill focuses on developing the practical and legal aspects of ownership of communal land by a communal property association (CPA) whilst at the same time providing security of tenure with a new initial procedure of naming householders to benefit. The draft has now been approved by Cabinet.

Whilst the thrust of government policy on land reform has always been to bring ownership ofland-reform self-sustaining agricultural land to previously disadvantaged communities, the process has been much bedeviled by conflict over land falling under the control of traditional chiefs; the inability of small farmers to raise finance without title and, most important, for households able to enjoy security of tenure.

Communal confusion

An unintended consequence of the original CPA programme launched by government has been that government has not wished to involve itself, nor has any investing entity for that matter, in the community strife and argument over communal land, a feature of many CPAs. Consequently, the CPA system has demonstrated its inability to involve itself in loans, any state support, or receive the support of agricultural assistance programmes.

community-farmIt might be said that CPAs as a structural system is “off the banking radar”, a fact which MPs in parliamentary committee meetings have complained of a number of times.

As a result, expensive trusts have become the order of the day, banks preferring to deal with such entities and even government itself having to use them because of the informality of a CPA and the inability of loan applicant to show security.

The objective of the Act when it was signed into law was to create a new form of juristic person to allow disadvantaged communities to acquire, hold and manage property in common. A community that qualifies in terms of the Act can therefore, on the basis of agreement contained in a written constitution, form a legal entity (the CPA) and thereby become owners of property, including land, via the CPA.

Agricultural reform

A CPA as it currently stands allows its members to become owners of land which has been “prioritised for the provision of infrastructural support to land reform farmers to enable them to create sustainable jobs and alleviate poverty.”

However, over the few years since CPAs were established, it appears from parliamentary Lesedi traditionalportfolio committee meetings, that things have not gone well. In some cases, traditional chiefs had intervened and gained control of land previously under the aegis of the members of a CPA. Meanwhile, traditional chiefs had complained that CPAs were acting like “chiefdoms” in themselves, the department told parliamentarians.

Tweaking and compromising

Some attempts were made by the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform to persuade CPA members to appoint traditional chiefs on an “ex-officio basis” but the situation remained untenable, not necessarily just because of the problem of traditional control but because, due to shortage of staff, they said, had no ability to monitor the situation and no picture of what land was under CPA control, where CPAs were, and their needs.

In addition, no measurement of outcome of any schemes appeared possible, Opposition members complained. Quite clearly, they said, the NDP land reform programme has not been successful to date. Whilst the idea had been along the right tracks, it seemed the system was patently in trouble.

Green Paper study

After two years of investigation, in 2014 the Ministry, produced a Green Paper on the subject. After creating communal property ownership rights, the new proposal in the Paper was to secure individual tenure to each household beforehand, be it a farm-dweller or tenant, and for each household to own its rights at law before the CPA was formed to lock into this.

land-reform-5As per the Act in force, it would be possible for a community or group of persons to have access to a registered title to land through common or joint ownership with every name included (in a deed of transfer) or through a trust (with title vesting in the trustees) or a juristic person (with title vesting in that legal entity). Once registered, the CPA would become a juristic person – that can sue and be sued. It could acquire rights and incur obligations in its own name, in accordance with a CPA constitution.

In a policy statement, a Bill was proposed along these lines with a CPA constitution as before dealing with sub-divisions, servitudes, the right to encumber with a mortgage, deal with leases and settle disputes – all essential to the development of the area concerned but in respect of nominated persons giving those persons therefore security of ownership.

The bigger picture

The new Bill therefore speaks to a process to align a CPA to the broader land reform mandate in terms of the policy statement. The Bill also says a Communal Propertyland-claims-court Associations Office is to be established which is headed by a Registrar of Communal Property Associations. As a result, CPAs will be better equipped, it is felt, to take part in development; its status is recognised and is known to government; and has a secure system of tenure established as a base for ownership.

DHA said the plan was to clearly establish the connection between the land itself and those who live on it and depend on it for agricultural income. With more clearly established security and a need to register for compliance, it is hoped that a CPA structure will present a more viable face to the investing world.
Previous articles on category subject
New approach to land reform – ParlyReportSA
Restitution of Land Rights Act reversed – ParlyReportSA
Land Holdings Bill joins state acquisition trend – ParlyReportSA

Posted in human settlements, Justice, constitutional, Land,Agriculture, LinkedIn, Special Recent Posts0 Comments

Restitution of Land Rights Act reversed

Concourt says land bill “improperly” passed

…,sent to clients 25 August….  The Constitutional Court has upheld anconstitutional-court application that amendments to Restitution of Land Rights Act were improperly processed by Parliament.  The Bill was tabled by Land Reform Minister, Gugile Nkwinti.

Groupings opposed to the legislation successfully argued that the amending Bill went through Parliament without sufficient consultation with affected parties.

The proposal made by the Bill was that further claims may be lodged going back to the 1913 Natives Act but the Bill, about to become an Act, had been in any case “put on hold” for 24 months to allow for existing outstanding claims, some 8,000 of them in terms of previous legislation, to processed first.

Existing claimants brought that particular application against the Bill on the basis that those who lodged claims under the new amendment to the Act would be “jumping the queue” and their claims might or were being ignored. The re-opening of the restitution of land process was therefore greeted by a mixed re-action, a fact not expected by the ANC amongst the populace concerned.

More haste less speed

madlangaOnce again the particular habit now regular of the governing party of hammering legislation through Parliament at the last minute before recess has bounced back on the Cabinet and the Presidency.    Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga said in his finding that the Constitutional Court could find “no cogent reason” for the apparent haste to sign the Bill into law.

He said that there had been a complete lacking in the required public consultative process by all nine provinces as the Bill went through the NCOP process of approval. He described Parliament’s behaviour with regard to the passage of the Bill as “improper”.

How it started

When the Bill was first tabled in a meeting of the National Assembly’s Rural Development and Land Reform Parliamentary Portfolio Committee, Minister Gugile Nkwinti confirmed that the whole process of land restitution for black persons dispossessed of their land was to be re-opened for a period of five years.

Under questioning,he confirmed that no constitutional changes were envisaged, despite the fact that the new Bill would mean an Act that backdated claims to 1913.    Critics of the Bill noted at the time that the tabling of such legislation was, as they put it, “politically motivated” in the light that it was being processed before national elections and with the then forthcoming provincial elections in mind just around the corner. The outcome of those elections would confirm the Minister’s fear and that of the Cabinet.

Critics also stated that there was insufficient time to process the Bill properly. ANC MPs chose to ignore this warning. Thw whole process has therefore been a waste of public funds.

In the kitty

Minister Nkwinti then announced that Cabinet had set aside R47bn for theGugile_Nkwinti envisaged exercise over a period of five years. Opposition members were again alarmed, stating the country had neither the resources nor court time to process such a plan and, in any case, the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform was already facing an uphill struggle to process and finalise the existing claims it had on their books. Opposition members also called for sight of Treasury approval.

During the course of the Minister’s departmental presentation on strategy leading to the budget vote a week later in Parliament, when confronted by opposition MPs asking for a direct answer as to whether he would call for constitutional change on property rights or not, he replied that there was “no such question arising.”

The whole truth

Since that time the tandem Expropriation Bill has also been returned to Parliament unsigned and similarly passed in haste before a recess but, in this case, in the light of a possible adverse opinion by the Constitutional Court.

Minister Nkwinti chose to issue a statement on the the passage of the Expropriation Bill upon its being voted through the National Assembly although not in the domain of his Ministry.

cronin2This statement completely contradicted the declared motivations of Deputy Minister of Public Works, Jeremy Cronin, who had steered that Bill through Parliament declaring his legislation to be necessary for public works to execute infrastructure projects.

Nkwinti’s statement  claimed  that the Expropriation Bill “would bring about the possibility of at last of speeding-up land restitution and reform” thus laying the groundwork of his new land Rights Bill and contradicting the assurances of Cronin.

The numbers game

In his original briefing on the tandem Restitution of Land Rights Bill, Minister Nkwinti stated at the time that since its inception, the state’s restitution programme had benefited some “370,000 households”.    Normally one refers to “claimants” but it was his way of getting to his point using self-serving mathematics.

This meant, he said, that some “1.83m persons had benefited so far from theland-reform process, as against an estimated 3.5m people who had been forcibly removed from their land as a result of colonialisation and racial and discriminatory laws”.

A new closing deadline for lodgement of land claims was set by the Act as mid-2019 and a booklet on how to lodge a claim published.  Mobile lodgement offices were to visit all areas, the department told subsequently told MPs, and the lodgement process required no fees.

Tough words

Whilst the Constitutional Court has now re-affirmed that the right to restitution “could not be overstated” and that “restitution of land rights equals restoration of dignity”, Justice Madlanga was not prepared to overlook the fact that the time line of the parliamentary process had been manipulated.

“As an example, the process of public participation in the Northern areas was reduced to a shambles by haste”, he said, “and as a result of the truncated process of the NCOP, the whole parliamentary procedure had been tainted”. The NCOP was found to have “not applied its mind to the task.”

Give it time

Pending re-enactment of the Act, the Commission on Restitution on Landland-claims-court Rights may continue to receive claims and acknowledge receipt but only process them once existing outstanding claims that had a closing deadline of 1998 are finalised. After 24 months, further consideration can be made on the possible re-enactment of the legislation.

In conclusion, Opposition parties fear that the new Act will allow traditional chiefs with the additional powers granted in terms of legislation favoured by President Zuma to supersede rights on land already granted to communities.

One way only

Disquiet was also expressed by some MPs with the land acquisition claim alternatives as financial compensation was mainly the choice for claimants.

Some MPs expressed the view that they were “uncomfortable” with a monetary solution as a solution to dispossession since this almost amounted to a bribe.

DA MP Thomas Walters said in his view the reason for the slow rate of land occupation was not, as the ANC claimed, the result of whether or not there was a solution on the willing-buyer, willing-seller principle but rather a reflection of the fact that 92% of land claimants preferred to take cash pay-outs instead of working the land and creating jobs.

Minister Nkwinti strongly denied this as did the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform.

Previous articles on category subject
New approach to land reform – ParlyReportSA
Land reform: Something very sad is going on – ParlyReportSA
Minister says need for legislation on land reform a priority
Agri-SA gives views on minimum wage – ParlyReportSA

Posted in cabinet, Land,Agriculture, LinkedIn, public works, Special Recent Posts0 Comments

Spatial Planning Land Use Management Bill moves on

SPLUMB goes to the provinces….

In one of the first parliamentary meetings of the year, the controversial Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Bill (SPLUMB) reached near finality with chairperson Stone Sizani obtaining consensus by the NA’s portfolio committee on rural development and land reform on much of the completely re-drafted “B” version of the proposed legislation.

The Bill is now referred for the approval of the provinces as section 76 parliamentary legislation, a mandate on the Bill’s acceptance being required from all nine provinces. Most members of the NA portfolio committee seemed confident, after nearly seven months of debate, that sufficient compromise will be reached for the Bill to get a relatively easy provincial passage.

Provinces to debate specific areas

The nine provinces via the select committee of the NCOP have defined areas of input yet to be made and mandates will require considerable further debate at provincial level therefore.

The Bill sets out to provide a framework for spatial planning and land use management in the Republic and “to address past spatial and regulatory imbalances” and to provide for municipal planning tribunals. The Bill notes that informal and traditional land use development processes are “poorly integrated into formal systems of spatial planning and land use management”.

Municipalities vs local government

Possible sticking points still surround the relationship between provinces and municipalities over the application of regulation set out in terms of SPLUMB where municipal plans are inconsistent with each other and where site specific differences can allow a departure.

Also being debated are the rules applying to decisions taken by a municipal planning tribunal as defined and what their powers might be on certain subjects and relationships.
In addition, new provisions are being re-drafted on these subjects, coordination between municipal and provincial frameworks being the main issue and the intent of both.

Constitutional background

The Bill is over forty pages long and has as its objectives constitutional imperatives such promoting land planning which takes into account the environment; that enables citizens to gain access to land on an equitable basis; the right of access to adequate housing and sustainable human settlements; and realizes the need of communities to have easily available sufficient food and water.

Land is defined very broadly in SPLUMB, including that which is of agricultural use to mining; from educational to recreational; from residential to commercial. It follows the White Paper on the subject in 2001 and fills the gap of the failed Land Use Management Bill in 2008.

The overall hope, says the Bill, is to bring certainty to land use and therefore safe investment in land and to consolidate the many planning laws that remain currently in operation causing confusion.  Finally, a purpose of the new Bill is to eliminate discriminatory practices of the past.

Posted in Justice, constitutional, Land,Agriculture, Public utilities, Trade & Industry0 Comments

Extra constitutional time needed to draft land use bill

Muduzi Shabane, director general, department of rural development and land reform (DRDLR), told parliamentarians that there were so many challenges surrounding the Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Bill that there was not sufficient time left to process the Bill in order to meet the Constitutional Court deadline of 17 June.

The Bill was therefore not proceeded with.

Once again the problems related to the apartheid era on the land issue and the fact that this had left a legacy of challenges around land use and planning, causing distortions brought about by separate development policies and Group Areas Act, were explained by DRDLR when briefing the relevant portfolio committee on the long delayed Bill.

Accompanied by Dr Nozizwe Makgalemele, deputy director general, DRDLR, Shabane said it had been known since independence that the legislation clearly had to be repealed but in June 2010 the Constitutional Court had ruled certain provisions of the anchor act and legislation on land use as it stood to be unconstitutional and invalid.

A decision had been taken to repeal that legislation and to replace it with the Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Bill, but it was now clear that the Bill could not be passed before the deadline and the Constitutional Court was being asked to extend the deadline for a further two years.

Questions arose from parliamentarians regarding the ability of smaller municipalities to manage the processes envisaged by the new Bill; what would happen in the case of conflict between the spheres of government; whether argument on the separation of powers would arise on what government wanted and what Parliament would accept and whether DRDLR realized that a two year delay would possibly cause more confusion, argument and insecurity.

These were indeed some of the questions being wrestled with, said the departmental representatives, and called for the right amount of time for further debate, consultation with legal experts, particularly on constitutional issues, and regain consensus thinking.

The Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Bill, DRDLR said, had been an attempt to bring about repeal on some of the issues that were causing blockages but it was impossible to debate these fully and hold public hearings across the country on the basis of the present document in the time allowed.

“ The matter was not going to go away”, Shabane told parliamentarians. The Bill will probably have to be re-introduced.

 

Posted in Cabinet,Presidential, Land,Agriculture, Public utilities0 Comments


This website is Archival

If you want your publications as they come from Parliament please contact ParlyReportSA directly. All information on this site is posted two weeks after client alert reports sent out.

Upcoming Articles

  1. MPRDA : Shale gas developers not satisfied
  2. Environmental Bill changes EIAs
  3. Border Mangement Bill grinds through Parliament

Earlier Editorials

Earlier Stories

  • Anti Corruption Unit overwhelmed

    Focus on top down elements of patronage  ….editorial….As Parliament went into short recess, the Anti-Corruption Unit, the combined team made up of SARS, Hawks, the National Prosecuting Authority and Justice Department, divulged […]

  • PIC comes under pressure to disclose

    Unlisted investments of PIC queried…. When asked for information on how the Public Investment Corporation (PIC) had invested its funds, Dr  Daniel Matjila, Chief Executive Officer, told parliamentarians that the most […]

  • International Arbitration Bill to replace BITs

    Arbitration Bill gets SA in line with UNCTRAL ….. The tabling of the International Arbitration Bill in Parliament will see ‘normalisation’ on a number of issues regarding arbitration between foreign companies […]

  • Parliament rattled by Sizani departure

    Closed ranks on Sizani resignation….. As South Africa struggles with the backlash of having had three finance ministers rotated in four days and news echoes around the parliamentary precinct that […]

  • Protected Disclosures Bill: employer to be involved

    New Protected Disclosures Bill ups protection…. sent to clients 21 January……The Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Affairs will shortly be debating the recently tabled Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill which proposes a duty […]