KGALAGADI COMMUNITY CONSULTATION
SUBMISSION ON THE COMMUNAL LAND RIGHTS BILL TO THE PORTFOLIO
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND LAND AFFAIRS
10 NOVEMBER 2003
1 WHO ARE WE?
We represent 15 communities in communal areas of the Northern Cape and North West who came together on the 18 March 2003 at Batiharos to discuss the Communal Land Rights Bill.
The 15 communities are:
- Manyeding
- Seoding
- Batlharos
- Dikgweng
- Keimoes
- Cwaing
- Deerward
- Majeng
- Volgeistruispan
- Gakgatlhanesdrift
- Bendell
- Kono
- Gatihose
- Maremane
- Smouswane
- On 31 May 2003 we represented these communities in Johannesburg to work on the submission to the DLA.
- Too July 2003 we gathered again to make our second submission to the Deputy Minister in Pretoria.
- Our interest in this Bill arose from the fact that it will have a direct impact on the lives of the people who live in the areas mentioned above.
2. PROCESS OF THE BILL
- Too little time was given for community consultations.
Numerous changes were made to the Bill that we the community were not aware of and none of those changes were communicated to us by the DLA.
- The information dissemination process was not rural areas friendly since there are little if no access to the internet or televisions and this also relates to the question of languages.
- Today we are here through short notice and we only had time for preparations on this presentation over the weekend.
3. FOCUS
We would like to comment on the following points:
- Development mandate of local government versus the control of chiefs (traditional authorities)
- Conflicts
- Comparable Redress
- Issues relating to women.
4. DEVELOPMENTS MANDATE OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT VERSUS T[1[ LAND CONTROL BY ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO TRADITIONAL AUTHORITIES (COUNCIL)
The implication of the definition of land administration committee in Section 1 and 21(1) states that traditional councils "In respect of an area where such a council has been established and recognized" will be the admin structure.
Section 24(1) further gives the admin structure ownership and administrative powers.
These provisions will deepen existing problems, e.g. dispute between Baga Jantjie vs Seoding people and Kgalagadi district municipality. Money has been allocated for a housing project in Seoding. The Chief is required to sign a document which will effect the project and he refuses to do so. If the project does not get started before the current financial year comes to an end it will be returned to the treasury. Despite Section 37 the Bill does not deal with how it will address such problems.
COMPARABLE REDRESS
- The Bill does not address the question of the shortage of land (redistribution) it seems only to want to transfer land within existing boundaries.
- Furthermore the reference to comparable redress as per Sections 12 and 13 does not attempt to answer the need for redistribution of land. It rather makes a vague reference to those who have insecure tenure right without qualifying:
- Who is eligible
- The process which will guide the Minister.
e.g. The Bill does not say how it will handle the friction between historical inhabitant with those who were dumped by the forced removal laws of the previous regime, e.g. the people of Thamoenche dumped on the land of the Seoding people.
- Problems/conflicts regarding boundaries already exist and the fact that the Minister is going to determine this (Section 1 8 (2)) based on the Land Enquirer's Report, without it being rectified by communities, will spark even greater conflicts between communities. Such as Seven Miles, Seoding and municipality in the Kuruman Area.
- The Bill in terms of its definitions of land committee as shown above will also create problems of traditional councils claiming jurisdiction over communities who historically owned the land and those who bought it for themselves and Section 39 will further strengthen these claims e.g. the community of Cwaing was recently restituted. For now the democratically elected CPA committee have duties to administer the communities affairs. The Chief is totally against the existence of the CPA and wants full control. Section 39 of this Bill will made this possible. This will go against the wishes of the community who favours the CPA to have control. I just want to read correspondence between the CPA and the Chief of Boo Thaganyane. A second example relates to the Batlharo people in Seoding who have been forced to become subjects of the Batlhaping ba ga Jantjie by the Bop Government, the people want return to Bagamotlharo. The Bill will perpetuate existing problems.
6. ISSUES RELATING TO WOMEN
Section l 8(4 6) - This issue of equal access of land to women is left to the discretion of the Minister. The Bill does not make any reference to:
- equal allocation of land
- upgrading of rights joint ownership.
The Bill does not give guarantees to women's access to land.
7. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BILL
In Eksteenkuil in Keimoes a rights enquiry was commissioned more than two years ago by the DLA and nothing has come from this while the community faces eviction threats on a daily basis. The DLA faces various problems that hampers this process such as politics, records and contradictory claims. Right enquiries can never be expected to be straight forward and easy to complete. DLA has further shown failure to implement restitution and redistribution on a pace that satisfies its own mandate.
8. CONCLUSION
In the light of the above we believe that the Bill should be redrafted with proper community consultations.