A process of consultation in relation to the Bill was only partially undertaken with the first version (the August version) of the Bill made available for public comment. In our area there was some consultation on this August version, although this consultation was inadequate in that most people in the area still do not know about the Bill. There was no consultation or communication at all in relation to the latest version of the Bill (the October 2003 version).

· rural people are still threatened with evictions by traditional chiefs; and

In relation to the points listed above, we would like to make the following comments:

3.1. Securing Land Rights for the rural Poor

The Bill provides for a land allocating authority without clear or proper content being defined for new order rights, or clarity on who will administer those rights. These new order rights being provided for in this Bill are however not equivalent to ownership. The Bill also provides for application by holders of new order rights to Land Administration Committees or recognised Traditional Councils Section 3(2) of the Traditional Leadership Governance Framework Bill (TLGFB) stipulates that 40 per cent of members must be elected and 60 per cent come from traditional authorities.

While historically chiefs have not been fair and accountable to communities, it is our concern that communities cannot rely on chiefs to deliver land rights to the rural poor. We are particularly concerned that there is no provision for monitoring compliance on the part of Tribal Authorities.

3.2. Women's Land Rights

As noted above, women - and in particular unmarried women - have no rights to land. Residential and/or ploughing land is only allocated to women over the age of 40 years, and who have children.

3.3. Traditional Authorities versus Local Government

Conflicts between traditional leaders and municipalities are rife as a result of the lack of integration between these two institutions of power. For example, how does the Community General Plan and Community Rules (as required in section 6(b)(i) in ibis Bill) relate to the Integrated Development Plans (JDPs) established under the Municipal Systems Act of 2000. The Bill is silent on how these two institutions are To relate to each other.

Power struggles between chiefs and local government has resulted in the delay of development projects (for example, the Matseding housing project). Chiefs also refuse to participate in the activities of local government (as provided for in the Municipal Structures Act of 1998) Insecure rights in land has also led to investors not investing in projects in communal areas (for example the Flag Boshielo Eco-Tourism Project in Greater Marble Hall.

3.4. Land Allocations and Levies on Land

Rural people still 'buy' land for R500 to R1 500 from chiefs in the area. In return people receive receipts, but these receipts are not recognised as guarantee of ownership. There is confusion as to whether these payments are payments for sites or levies. There is also allocation of land to outsiders by the chief without consulting the community - for example, Chief Sekhukhuni III handed over land to a person of Indian origin without consulting the affected community. Our main concern is that with the Bill giving chiefs absolute legal power to allocate land and to collect levies the current situation will become worse.

3.5. Threats of Evictions by Chiefs

The definition of 'community' provided for in the Bill divides members of the community who do not have the same rights to land as the rest of the community. Tribes treat these non-members as outcasts. 'Buffer' tribes are also still threatened with eviction (for example, Mmotwaneng and Magaga Matala villages).

3.6. Overlapping Processes

With unresolved restitution claims and other land reform processes in the area, there is a danger that in rushing this Bill through, the issue will become even more complicated.

In relation to implementation of this Bill, we would like to make the following comments:

In closing we want to make the following recommendations:

5.1. that title deeds be transferred to individuals for residential sites;

5.2. that land for grazing and development purposes be dealt with through the process of the Bill;

5.3. in the case of privately owned farms, communities be given both residential, arid productive land rights;

5.4. that women, and in particular unmarried women, be given land rights in accordance with the Constitution;

5.5. that the content of the Community General Plan be clearly defined in relation to the areas Integrated Development Plan (IDP);

5.6. that land transfers made in 1993 between the Lebowa government and the National Party be nullified;

5.7. Since chiefs and Induna's are already being paid, tribal levies for land allocations and natural resource use be cancelled;

5.8. that the process of direct transfer of titles to individuals be speeded up to avoid eviction threats by chiefs