Asvoegelkrans, which is known as GaPhiri village, is a bought farm. It was bought by individuals from Gamaja, Ga-Molepo and Ga Chuene. Asvoegelkrans (Gaphiri) is situated in the Ga-Maja Tribal Authority. At the time of purchase it was agreed that the title deed to the land was to be held on behalf of the owners by the chieftainess (Kgosigadi) Chuene. This agreement was under the authority of the respective chiefs of the owners.

Thirty-seven of the co-owning households are currently facing the threat of eviction by chieflainess (Kgosigadi) Chuene. This threat of eviction stems from these descendents of the original buyers refusing to fall under the authority of Chuene. They want to remain under the agreement as signed by their grandparents. The court hearing in relation to this eviction will take place on 24 February 2004, with the community opposing the eviction.

These descendents of the original buyers are now denied access to schools and other developments initiated by Chuene on their land. Moreover, if these descendents initiate developments that will be used by all community members, the Kgosigadi orders that these developments be destroyed. This has taken place on more than one occasion. The only projects still running are the electricity, transport and water projects. These projects are for all of the community, including members who fall under Chuene. When the descendents do lodge complaints with the police, the magistrate always rules in favour of the Kgosigadi. This is because the title deed for the land is in her name.

Mashamba and Bungeni villages are situated in the Makhado Municipal area. Both Mashamba and Bungeni villages have made application for the restitution of their land rights. They have had no response from the Commission on their claims. As with Ga-Phiri there are also problems in relation to chiefs. Traditional leaders do not have a good working relationship with members of their communities, with the structure traditional leadership being divorced from the community. There is a lack of service delivery and numerous cases of corruption (e.g. People contributed per household to build a post office in the locality, but the chief took money and built a six bed-roomed house for himself instead). No records are kept of monies or levies received - there is no accountability in relation to what happens to monies collected from the community.

Dissemination of information on this Bill leaves much to be desired. The overwhelming majority of residents in the three villages are not aware that a Bill that will drastically affect their lives is in the process of being passed into law. As a result, people have not been able to make any input to the Bill. We feel that at this late stage of the drafting process, it is too late for people to make a meaningful contribution. In addition, if the Bill is going to be passed before the elections, it is too late for Parliament to make any meaningful changes to the Bill.

Our submission will address the following points among others:

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

3.1. Definition of community

The definition in the Bill gives a new meaning to what is already in existence at Ga-Phiri for example. In terms of the definition of 'community' in the Bill, when read together with the definition of 'land administration committee', small communities located within larger tribal authorities are deprived of the right to qualify as communities. The Ga-Phiri community, which has lived together for the past 100 years and sees itself as a community, would not qualify as such, since their community boundary would not be recognised against the boundary of the tribal authority. We thus strongly advise that the definition of community in the Bill be revised.

3.2. Land Rights Enquiries and Land Rights Boards

In terms of section 18(1) of the Bill people cannot object to the report compiled by the

Lands Rights Enquirer since they will not have access to the report upon which the

Minister bases his/her determination. This serves to effectively disempower the very

people the Bill purports to empower.

It is not clear in the Bill what the purpose of the Land Rights Boards is, Although these Boards are to advise the Minister, the link between these Boards and the Land Rights Enquiry and land rights enquirers is unclear.

In addition, although these Boards are to advise the community, it is not clear as to how the Boards will do this, and more importantly, it is not clear how communities can appeal to the Board or the procedure to get assistance.

3.3. Land Administration Committees and Tribal Authorities

In terms of section 21(2) the traditional councils will assume the role of land administration committees. We believe that the composition of these traditional councils is undemocratic since 60 per cent of members will be hand-picked by the chief. We are therefore opposed to these councils taking over the role of Land Administration Committees. In addition, we believe that that with the release of the Ralushai Commission some traditional leaders might not be legitimate.

Most traditional leaders in Limpopo do not have the required competency to implement so complex a Bill. Moreover, we believe that most traditional leaders want to retain the status quo in relation to communal land, and have no incentive to become partners in development.

3.4. Outstanding Restitution Claims

We further note that there are a large number of outstanding restitution claims in

Limpopo Province. We fear that the implementation of the Bill might interfere with

progress in these outstanding claims due to among other things, capacity of the Land

Affairs Ministry.

3.5. Ingonyama Trust Land

It is unacceptable to handle the Ingonyama Trust Land differently from other lands in other provinces. It is discriminating and potentially unconstitutional.

The heading of the Ingonyama Land Rights Board in perpetuity by a certain Ingonyama is apparently in contradiction with section 33(1) and section 23.

3.6. Disposal of Land

While it is welcome that the Land Administration Committee cannot dispose of land without ratification by the Land Rights Board, we are concerned that there is no requirement for the Board to consult with the affected community.

3.7. CPAs

Section 5(2)(a) combined with section 5(2)(b) does away with CPAs. This undermines that the rights of those who received land through other land reform programmes. There is a genuine fear that chiefs might try to gain control of land granted to these groups. While we acknowledge that CPAs have their own problems, replacing them without investigating what went wrong with them, and what would be a good replacement is problematic.

3.8. Implementation of the Bill

The bill will further serve to slow down the already slow progress of land rights restitution. If the Department of land affairs cannot implement restitution process within the time frames set by the department, how can we hope for speedy implementation now that there will be an additional workload that needs even more resources.

Finally, traditional leaders may not have the necessary knowledge and skills and resources to make implementation of the Bill a success.

The Bill says nothing about land redistribution, and as a consequence implementation of this BiH may serve to consolidate the unequal patterns of land ownership that we have inherited. Unless this Bill can provide comparable redress in land, unequal patterns in land ownership will not change. The Bill says almost nothing about comparable redress (although previous drafts of the Bill did address this issue in some detail). In this draft of the Bill these provisions have been reduced to two lines.

The findings of the Ralushai Commission, once released, will have drastic effect on the structure of traditional leadership and some traditional leaders might have to make way for the rightful claimants to the throne. This development will have negative effects on the implementation of this Bill.

4.1. We strongly urge the government to withdraw this Bill, and to allow for more time for consultation with communities that will be directly affected.

4.2. The government should initiate a new process of community consultation to build consensus around a revised Bill and to introduce new legislation early in the life of the next Parliament.

4.3. The Bill is misconceived and will be impossible to implement at scale.

4.4. Land rights legislation must provide blanket protection for existing individual and group rights on communal land that can be protected by law. The rights of women need to be specifically addressed within this, to secure women's rights to land that have not been recognised in the past due to the gender bias in customary systems of land allocation.