Submitted by representatives of Utha, Dixie, Gottenburg C and Serville B - villages within Greater Manyeleti area, Bushbuckridge, Limpopo Province.

We are here, as members of Community Development Forums in Utha, Dixie, Serville B, Thorndale and Gottenburg C villages. We came together under the banner of Greater Manyeleti Land Rights Group. These villages are on the outskirts of Manyeleti Game Reserve and Sabie Sands Game Reserve, which share boundaries with the famous Kruger National Park. These villages are in Bushbuckridge, Limpopo Province. When we heard about this Bill we soon got together as responsible citizens of this beautiful country, to read and discuss the Bill amongst ourselves to find out what the Bill holds for us an how it will impact on our lives as people living in poor rural, marginalized and underdeveloped areas.

We are not against introductions or development of legislation by our government, but we feel that we were left out as far as this Bill is concerned. While we acknowledge that other people have had an opportunity to interact with the Bill for quite some time now -we feel that we also have a democratic and constitutional right to be consulted on very important matters as these. Our feeling is that enough has not been done to inform the many people out there about this Bill - whereas it is easy for those who live in developed areas or peri-urban areas to access information, the same cannot be said about us down in this rural area, especially in Bushbuckridge where one has to travel 30 - 40kin to buy a newspaper.

It is not surprising that we heard about this Bill on the 22 October 2003 through a good Samaritan who brought a newspaper. It is quite ironic though, that in our group we have members of the ruling party, but like many others we only heard about the Bill now. Like all-important stakeholders we expect to be properly consulted on this Bill, to be given time to make our inputs as well. We feel that the Bill is being rushed to Parliament and this rush means that important details are often overlooked with unintended consequences. Many provisions on the Bill are so wide opened that it leaves too much to be desired. The Bill does not for example clearly define a "community." Such vagueness on the part of the Bill can only be overcome by giving enough time for consultations and debate.

However, we do not want to sound as being people who are anti-government, so we would like that the following matters be considered carefully if this Bill has to go to Parliament for consideration.

The Bill must give people a choice to determine what institutions will administer their land.

The Bill should make provision for people to decide what should happen on their land, where and how this should proceed.

The Bill must not give discretionary powers to a single individual regardless of social standing.

There are many reasons why we say these things above.

First, Section 14(1) dealing with the conduct of the land rights enquiry, Section 16 (Notice of Land Enquiry) and Section 18 (Determination by the Minister) gives the Minister extra-ordinary powers and unlimited discretion in relation to the Constitutional Rights to Tenure of Security. Whereas the procedures to be followed when conducting a Land Right Enquiry have been listed the silence of the Bill regarding consultation of the residents of a particular area when the final report is prepared is deafening. The land enquirer does not have to publish his/her report so that people can make comments, object or make recommendations on the report. In this regard, what happens with land is solely guided by what the Enquirer would have put in his report. In making his/her determination the Minister is also informed only by the Land Rights Enquirer's report. This process thus lends itself open to abuse and corruption. Whether the report would be objective or not is anyone's guess.

The Bill must give people choice on issues regarding the broad administration of land our experiences show that if power is concentrated on the Chief and his council, we will

have considerable problems. In Dixie and Gottenburg C for example, the Chief and his council imposed private investors on the people. The Dixie community had to resort to the courts for redress. Hereby, we refer this house to Case No.33067/2002, High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division. In that case the defendants were the Chief Curota Investments and Land Affairs. Dixie Community won the case. The Chief and his council did these things because they felt they had control of the land. In Gottenburg, an investor

Mr Christo du Plessis also obtained land from the Chief. This man is giving the people some difficult times. If the people were involved, Mr du Plessis would know how to behave in the conduct of business in the area. The only people he listens to is the Chief and his council. Mbaula and Phalawubeni communities also find themselves in the same difficult situation. This Bill will serve only to entrench the powers of these traditional councils. Section 21(2) says that "If a community! has a recognized traditional council, the powers and duties of the Land Administration Committee of such a community may be exercised and performed by such a Council." Section 25(3) of the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Bill says that 'Any authority immediately before the commencement of this is Act had been established and was still recognized as such, is deemed to be a Traditional Council contemplated in Section 3 and must perform the functions referred to in Section 4 provided that such a tribal authority must comply with Section 3(2) within one year of the commencement of this is Act."

So the Bill gives un-elected tribal authorities effective control over communal land, leaving the villagers at large to the mercy of their Chief and one can scarcely imagine what would happen if this Bill were to go through parliament There are people out there who will not hesitate to trample on people as the Dixie and Gottenburg communities experience illustrates.

What we want is that villages should decide who should administer their land and they must be involved in the on-going management of their land. Any major decision that needs to be taken regarding the land should be the concern of everyone in the area being targeted. Before any development can occur in the area everyone must not only be informed but must be involved in the decision making process.

Further, the Bill does not give a clear definition of a community. So we feel that instead of trying to define a generic term like "community" land ownership or if rights are to be conferred on any individual or a group of people, it must be done on the basis of residence.

We also believe that implementing the Bill would be an extremely difficult job/task. It may as well be that this Bill may exist only in paper - with no one really taking responsibility of implementing it.

We therefore recommend that at best the Bill should be scrapped and be thrown into the dustbin of forgotten history. Other people have expressed opinions on the Bill, which point towards the unconstitutionality of the Bill. The Bill fails to uphold constitutional rights conferred on the citizens of this country. How ironic though, that our Constitution which has been described as the best in the world is now being contravened. The very people who drew up the Constitution now want to introduce a Bill that is not in line with the Constitution.