We are nine years in democratic order in South Africa. The majority party in parliament said in 1955: "THE PEOPLE SHALL GOVERN". To us this means that people have to participate and involved in decision making process particularly on issues that are affecting them. It is a duty of our democratic government to consult people for the views and inputs in any policy development.

In case of this bill people were not consulted to give their views. Few individuals and institutions were consulted such as traditional leadership, but the majority people in rural in general and those who live on communal land in particular were not consulted.

We are given PTOs/RTOS instead of title deeds. We need title deed so that vie can own the land that we are staying in it or farming in it.

Eviction - Tribal Authorities evict people the way they feel without following proper

Channels e.g. Inkomazi areas, to mention few villages - Buffelspruit, Mangweni and HHoyi. Small Scale Farmer were retrieved their land for farming without any compensation. That land was given to people that paid from the chiefs for sugar cane farming.

Allocation of land - the allocation of land by tribal authorities is unfair. People are forced to pay R250 - R500 for a site. They even allocate one site to two or more people. When there is a conflict the one who paid more money will be given the power to own the site. People have no chance to choose a site of his/her choice. Other people are allocated in waterlogged or flood-risk areas. When there is flood tribal offices does not assist them, they are assisted by the local municipalities. But they paid the chiefs those sites. They (Tribal Authorities) allocate sites where there is no services and infrastructure (no proper planning)

Administration- Tribal offices have a problem, because when people need recommendation letters to get ID or for RDP houses, they are forced to pay levy arrears before they can receive that letter. Those who cannot afford to pay are not helped.

Development-In some areas Tribal authorities are against development e.g. there is Tunure upgrading taking place in KAMAQHEKEZA (NKOMAZI).

The Chief is delaying the process by claiming that the land belongs to Him, the land in question was proclaimed long ago by the then government of KANGWANENE. It was proclaimed under R293 of towns.

We believe that communal land rights bill would address security of tenure in rural areas, especially the former homeland areas. CLRB tries to give people who have been leaving on state land an opportunities to own their land. The allocation of land, the ownership of land and the management therefore would be debating issue that needs to be challenged head on. The process in the drafting of this bill left the community in rural areas in the wilderness about the bill, while their inputs would have been valuable in he final legislation. Although the bill tries to give people right to own land and to access; finances from banks, the administration of this tribal land have not been clearly stipulated. Moreover the tribal authority would like to take advantage of the rural community in terms of the ownership of the rural land and disputes about boundaries of the tribal land would crop out. Below are some of the issues that we feel have to be looked at:

The demarcation of land would create problems in the boundaries of the rural areas. More disputes would develop where tribal authorities and individuals would clash over boundaries in the areas. The powerful individual and the tribal authorities would claim more land and encroached in the other people's land. The tribal authorities would claim land in the name of the community so as to get more land for themselves and this would deprive individual ownership of land. There is a dispute over the boundaries between South Africa and Swaziland. There are some tribal authorities in Mpumalanga want the boundaries to be extended to Swaziland as they believe that part of South Africa belong to Swaziland. Most of the Mpumalanga citizens in the former Kangwane pay tribute to Swaziland government, so the chiefs in South Africa would take the Communal Land Rights Bill as an opportunity to claim more land to be transferred to the Swaziland Government.

Section 1-The definition of community in this act is not clear. We need clarity on this section

Section 19 (1)-This provision is no clear as to who will draft the community rules. We feel that a democratic elected land administration committee must draft the community rules.

Section 21(2)-This section provides that where traditional council currently exist, these must become the land administration committee responsible for representing the community and carrying out ownership and allocation functions in respect of land. Communities are given no choice as to whether they want elected land administration committees to have these far reaching and functions in respect of their land or whether they are happy with traditional leaders playing this role. As long as traditional council exist in the area, it must play the role. We don't support this provision because the council is not democratically constituted.

Section 24 (1)-It gives traditional leaders ownership and administrative powers in communal lands. We don't support this provision because they (the traditional) will abuse this powers e.g. at Lomshiya tribal authority, the former Kangwane government bought land from their private owners (White Farmers) in Louwville, and donated it to the people of Shiyalongubo for farming. The Chief took the land and distributed it to his nine wives for sugar cane farming. The portion of that land was sold to Mpumalanga Parks Board, for ecotourism. The community of Shiyalongubo are now benefiting from the project. He (chief) further sold land that people bought for themselves for farming with the help of the department of land affairs. We feel that their powers be reviewed

The bill is also silence about the access and control of land by women in rural areas.

Debate on the bill should be extended to all rural communities and policy makers to enable the bill to address to the need of the rural communities. Land ownership should be transfered to individuals while administration should be responsibility of municipality of the area. The tribal authority or any other body established should work in the allocation of land and in determine the transferring fees for land to individuals that would be in line with rural standard of the rural areas. It is important for individual land ownership than communal land ownership as this would give the individual responsibility and power over their land enabling them to access grants and loan from financial institutions.

It is our opinion that land should be transfer to individuals for proper management and to give the individuals the right of their land. The individual land ownership would also promote the market value of land in the rural areas while enabling the buying and selling of properties more viable. The only problem is that price of land would be more expensive for people to purchase land and end being destitute so it would be the responsibility of elected statutory body to allocate land and to set out minimal fee for the land transferring to individual. The individual land ownership would also ensure that rural communities receive services such as water and electricity.

We request the portfolio committee to suspend the bill until proper consultation is done. Resources for consultation purposes have to be set aside to enable communities in rural areas to take part in debates.

By Mpumalanga Consultative Group on Land