COMMISSION ON RESTITUTION OF LAND RIGHTS

1
COMMISSION ON RESTITUTION OF LAND RIGHTS

• PRESENTATION
• AT THE BUDGET HEARINGS FOR PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
  ON AGRICULTURE AND LAND AFFAIRS
• 03 JUNE 2004
• Presented by
• Mr T.T. Gwanya
• P.Bag X833
• PRETORIA
• South Africa
• Tel [phone]
• Fax [phone]
• E-mail ttgwanya_at_sghq.pwv.gov.za
• Website www.land.pwv.gov.za/restitution

2
LAND REFORM POLICY

• The injustices of racially based land
  dispossession of the past,
• the need for a more equitable distribution of
  land ownership,
• the need for a land reform to reduce poverty and
  contribute to economic growth,
• security of tenure for all, and
• a system of land management which will support
  sustainable land use patterns and rapid land
  release for development,

3
Elements of Land Reform Progamme

• Redistribution aims to provide the disadvantaged
  and the poor with access to land for residential
  and productive purposes. Its scope includes the
  urban and rural very poor, labour tenants, farm
  workers as well as new entrants to agriculture
  (8713 the White Black land ownership ratio
  debate).
• Land Restitution covers cases of forced removals
  which took place after 1913. They are being dealt
  with by a Land Claims Court and Commission on
  Restitution of Land Rights established under the
  Restitution of Land Rights Act, 22 of 1994
  (redress).
• Land Tenure reform is being addressed through a
  review of present land policy, administration and
  legislation to improve the tenure security of all
  South Africans and to accommodate diverse forms
  of land tenure, including types of communal
  tenure (ownership).

4
Restitution (Commission)

• Constitution Act 108 of 1996 Ch 2 s25 (6-9)
• Restitution Act 22 of 1994 as amended
• Dispossession after 19 June 1913
• Claim lodged by 31 December 1998
• Racially discriminatory laws and practices
• Just and equitable redress
• Urban and rural claimants
• Land owners, tenants, Users, beneficial
  occupations

5
OUTLINE OF THE RESTITUTION CLAIMS PROCESS
6
OUTLINE OF THE RESTITUTION CLAIMS PROCESS (Cont)
7
CLAIMS SETTLED as at 31 March 2004 CUMMULATIVE
up to 31/03/04 By Province
8
Settled Claims (Provincial Stats) Cumulative
1995 to date(Finance)
9
RURAL /URBAN CLAIMS SETTLED
10
RESOURCING OF THE COMMISSION

• EXPENDITURE 2003/2004

11
RESOURCING OF THE COMMISSION

• EXPENDITURE 2003/2004

12
CLAIMS SETTLED TO DATE

13
CLAIMS SETTLED TO DATE

14
EXAMPLES OF RURAL CLAIMS SETTLED

• Guba, near Queenstown, involving 357 households,
  6531 hectares of agricultural land.
• Tshatshu, near Kingwilliamstown involving 213
  hectares and 189 households.
• Thaba Patchoa in the Free State, with 1550
  hectares of agricultural land for 53 households
  as well an additional 650 hectares for the former
  sharecroppers.
• Bucklands in the Northern Cape, involving 21
  farms for 380 claimants households.

15
EXAMPLES OF RURAL CLAIMS SETTLED

• Monamaladi in North West province, involving 60
  hectares as well as an additional 100 hectares
  for the Nkainkela Community of 20 families.
• Tigerkloof Educational Institution in North West
  measuring 1189 hectares.
• KwaBhanye in KwaZulu Natal (KZN) measuring 3000
  hectares involving 855 households.

16
EXAMPLES OF RURAL CLAIMS SETTLED

• Hlaza in the North West of KZN measuring 1020
  hectares for 150 families.
• Nkaseni in Mtshezi Local Municipality measuring
  11457 hectares for 1050 households.
• Rooipan in Limpopo involving 1484 hectares of
  agricultural land for 160 households.
• Marobala O Itsose involving 10 000 hectares
  for 1500 beneficiaries.

17
EXAMPLES OF RURAL CLAIMS SETTLED

• Baphalane Ba Mantserre in Limpopo involving
  1884,3704 hectares for 500 households.
• Bjatladi (Zebediela) in Limpopo involving 5973
  hectares for 250 households.
• Mdluli claim in Mpumalanga involving 6046.322
  hectares and 500 (850 current occupiers)
  households.
• Giba in Hazyview, involving 1942 hectares and 500
  households.

18
EXAMPLES OF LAND CLAIMS SETTLED THROUGH LAND
CLAIMS COURT

• Land Claims Court Cases Restitution of Land
  Rights Act, No 22 of 1994
• 2003
• (Cases Settled by the Land Claims Court as well
  as Supreme Court of Appeal
• Richtersveld Community and others v Alexkor and
  another.
• Restitution of Land Rights Act No 22 of 1994.
  Richtersveld Community entitled to restitution of
  customary law interest in land.
• The claimants have lost their right in land and
  mineral rights and therefore took the matter to
  Court by way of direct access procedure as
  prescribed in the Restitution of Land Rights Act
  22 of 1994.

19
EXAMPLES OF LAND CLAIMS SETTLED THROUGH LAND
CLAIMS COURT(Continues)

• Richtersveld Community and others v Alexkor and
  another.
• The Constitutional Court confirmed the Supreme
  Court of appeal finding, in ruling that the
  communitys rights survived annexation by the
  British Crown in 1847, that the community had a
  right in land at 1913, and further that the
  community was dispossessed of the land through
  rationally discriminatory laws or practices.

20
EXAMPLES OF LAND CLAIMS SETTLED THROUGH LAND
CLAIMS COURT(Continues)

• Keppler and others v the Department of Land
  Affairs
• The Court ordered that compensation of R43 300-00
  be awarded to Nora Keppler in respect of the
  dispossession of Lot 87, The Highlands. This
  claim forms part of the larger Highlands Claim.

21
EXAMPLES OF LAND CLAIMS SETTLED THROUGH LAND
CLAIMS COURT(Continues)

• Baphiring Community v Uys and others
• A group of some 383 persons who describe
  themselves as the Baphiring Community brought a
  restitution claim directly to the Land Claims
  Court under Chapter III A of the Restitution of
  Land Rights Act.

22
EXAMPLES OF LAND CLAIMS SETTLED THROUGH LAND
CLAIMS COURT(Continues)

• Baphiring Community v Uys and others(continues)
• The group claimed and order restoring the common
  law title of certain land commonly known as the
  old Mabaalstad, to a communal property
  association. There were 22 defendants in this
  case, mostly the present owners of the land
  claimed, who resisted the claim.

23
EXAMPLES OF LAND CLAIMS SETTLED THROUGH LAND
CLAIMS COURT(Continues)

• Baphiring Community v Uys and others(continues)
• In January 2002 the Land Claims Court ruled that
  the Baphiring Community had the necessary locus
  standi to bring this claim, and that their claim
  met the requirements of Section 2 of the
  Restitution Land Rights Act. By agreement
  between the parties the Court now had to consider
  the issue of just and equitable compensation.
  The Court held that the compensatory land and the
  cash payment the Community received at time of
  dispossession, fell far short of being just and
  equitable, and as a result the Community did not
  receive just and equitable compensation within
  the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Restitution of
  Land Rights Act 22 of 1994.
• The feasibility of the restoration of land is
  still ongoing in the Land Claims Court

24
EXAMPLES OF LAND CLAIMS SETTLED THROUGH LAND
CLAIMS COURT(Continues)

• The Khosis Community at Lohatla, The Gatlhose
  Community, The Maremane Community vs. The
  Minister of Defence and others
• The matter was taken to the Land Claims Court to
  request that the subject land be restored. The
  subject land is situated on a battlefield and
  claimants would be endangered in the subject land
  were restored to them. The Court found that it
  is in public interest that the land on which the
  Battle School is situated is not restored to any
  claimants.

25
FUNDING OF COMMISSION
26
CHALLLENGES FOR COMMISSION

• Whilst we have increased the number of claims
  settled the processing of rural claims remains
  the highest challenge. It takes approximately
  two years to finalise a typical rural claim.
  Challenges encountered in processing rural claims
  include the following-
• Most of the land in homeland areas is
  unregistered and unsurveyed, which makes deeds
  and archival research even more difficult.

27
CHALLLENGES FOR COMMISSION

• Time delays in producing identity documents,
  birth/death certificates, marriage certificates,
  and affidavits, documenting oral evidence and
  construction of family trees.
• Family and Community (e.g. boundary) disputes
  take longer to resolve. It often takes time to
  reach an agreement on the manner in which the
  claim is to be settled.

28
CHALLLENGES FOR COMMISSION

• Claimants are dispersed far and wide, following
  the forced removals, it takes an effort and
  number of meetings to get claimants together for
  community resolutions. We have a number of cases
  where those absent reject the decisions made
  during their absence.
• The exorbitant land prices, particularly of
  commercial agricultural farms, game farms, golf
  estates and forestry land. The purchase of land
  by foreigners has also contributed to increased
  land price, thus serious distortion of our land
  market

29
CHALLLENGES FOR COMMISSION

• Claimants do not want any other land but the
  specific land from which they were removed, on
  which lies the bones of our forefathers.
• Some current landowners are opposed to
  restitution and consequently they drag the
  process to protracted negotiations.

30
CHALLLENGES FOR COMMISSION

• The integrated development approach to
  restitution requires a further injection of
  capital to ensure sustainable settlement. The
  restitution budget for 2004/ 5 has been increased
  to R939 million. We however need not less than
  R200 million for 2004/5 to enable restitution
  beneficiaries to make optimal use of the restored
  land, which is in line with the provision of
  section 42C of the Restitution Act.

31
CHALLLENGES FOR COMMISSION

• The Commission has a staff compliment of 390 out
  of 511 funded post. We have witnessed a high
  staff turnover recently and this is linked to the
  fact that our staff have five year contracts
  ending December 2005. We need a staff complement
  of 724 to be able to meet the Presidential
  directive of 2005.

32
FINANCIAL COMPENSATION CHALLLENGES

• There are however a number of challenges related
  to financial compensation and these include the
  following-
• Non disclosure by claimants which may lead to the
  exclusion of the rightful descendants and which
  in turn leads to family disputes.
• Inadequate/conflicting claimants personal
  details, which delays payment.

33
FINANCIAL COMPENSATION CHALLLENGES

• The value of money depreciates whilst the value
  of land appreciates.
• Some of the claimants are using the money in
  non-value adding activities, which does very
  little.
  
  

34
CONCLUSION

• Indeed the tide has turned, giving land back to
  the people.
• Our land reform programme is guided by the rule
  of law.The steps followed in the restitution
  process are necessary to ensure equity, fairness,
  justice,restoration of dignity, reconciliation as
  well as economic growth and development.

35
CONCLUSION

• In this process we have learned a number of
  lessons including-
• Land restoration is the best option as it
  addressed the skewed land ownership.
• Financial compensation is a response to poverty
  but it has many related problems and thus should
  be discouraged.

36
CONCLUSION

• People opting for land restoration should be
  given support (development planning and
  facilitation).
• Agricultural land demands dedicated technical
  support including skills development, funding and
  management.

37
CONCLUSION

• Integrated development approach to land reform is
  critical, commitment from Provincial Governments
  and Municipalities is a must.
• We have challenges which are surmountable if
  co-operative governance is observed by all.
  Rural claims are proving to be quite difficult
  and time consuming to process.

38
CONCLUSION

• The Private Sector, especially commercial farmers
  have a critical role to play in supporting our
  land reform programme.
• We need both financial and human resources to
  speed up the processing of the remaining claims.
  Our current budget is R1.2 billion a year to
  settle prioritized claims.

39
CONCLUSION

• We need a further R200million for development
  planning and facilitation.
• Generally our performance in restitution has a
  faster pace compared to other countries such as
  Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Germany
• I thank you