1. Co operation between the Constantia Land Claimants Beneficiaries Committee and the RLCC-WC.

The Constantia Land Claimants Beneficiaries Committee has been actively supporting the RLCC-WC with its work by, amongst others:

1.1 Calling community meetings to keep the community informed of new developments i.r.o. the land restitution process.

1.2 Appeasing and motivating claimants when promises are made by representatives of the RLCC-WC and not kept.

1.3 Facing the wrath of the claimant community on behalf of the RLCC-WC, Committee members being slandered in community radio programmes, and being labeled as "lackeys" of the RLCC-WC.

1.4 Assisting the RLCC-WC with the collection, completion and submission of claims.

1.5 Assisting the RLCC-WC with tracing claimants who have moved house since the start of the process.

1.6 Offering to assist RLCC-WC in filing and the preparation of claims for research.

1.7 Spending three full days (6 persons) to document the contents of claimant folders and to record which documents were outstanding by individual claimants.

1.8 Doing archival and deeds searches at own expense.

1.9 Acquiring and providing the RLCC-WC with surveyor-General Maps of the greater Constantia area, which are then either misplaced or lost by the RLCC-WC.

2. Relationship between the Constantia Land Claimants Beneficiaries Committee and the RLCC-WC.

2.1 Between its inception in 1995 and today, the composition of the executive committee of the Constantia Land Claimants Beneficiaries Committee has undergone two changes, i.e. a change in its chairmanship and deputy chairmanship in 1999. The committee, therefore, represents a stable and credible instrument of governance within the Constantia claimant community.

2.2 The many promises made, but not kept, by the RLCC-WC has eroded the initial good relationship that existed between the Constantia Land Claimants Beneficiaries Committee and the RLCC-WC.

2.3 The bad faith shown by the RLCC-WC in its interactions with the committee and the Constantia community has undermined the goodwill and trust on which the initial relationship was founded.

2.4 Meetings between the Constantia Land Claimants Beneficiaries Committee and the RLCC-WC degenerate into adversarial encounters since RLCC-WC officials come to meetings unprepared.

2.5 A lack of proper minute keeping and poor meeting procedural protocol give rise to conflictual situations as various RLCC-WC officials will deny that certain decisions had been reached at previous meetings or that documents had been tabled at earlier meetings. They will then deny any ~owledge of a decision or fei~ ignorance. It is precisely such an incident that led to the Constantia Land Claimants Beneficiaries Committee walking out of the most recent meeting it had with the RLCC-WC on 12 October, 2004.

2.6 Receipt of letters addressed to the Commissioner does not get acknowledged. Long explanations of a (non-existent) communication flow within the RLCC-WC are provided as an excuse, and disproved since our experience with other officials present in the meetings reflect this "communication-flow" to be a false representation of what really happens to communication within the RLCC-WC. When this discrepancy is pointed out to the RLCC-WC, it is met with 'shameful" looks between members of the RLCC-WC for having, once more, been caught out.

2.7 Meetings, where the Commissioner's presence is requested and confirmed, are invariably informed at the start of such meeting that the Commissioner will not be attending as she is otherwise engaged.

2.8 The Constantia claimant community is given inadequate, misleading, inaccurate, or contradictory information on which claimants are expected to base their decision for the type of compensation they preferred.

2.9 Unwillingness or inability to properly and timeously project manage the process. No distinction is made between tasks that can be performed in parallel and those tasks that must be performed sequentially, which results in huge delays at one point and a flurry of work at another, with its consequential oversights.

9.10 An absence of time frames, or unwillingness to provide the Constantia Land Claimants Beneficiaries Committee with such time frames.

The RLCC-WC has, in many meetings been confronted with the allegation that it is at best, not talking the process of land restitution seriously, or, at worst, that it has a collective agenda, or that individuals within the RLCC-WC have an ulterior agenda to derail the process.

3. Infrastructural Inefficiencies

3.1 Absence of proper record keeping i.r.o. receipt of claims submitted.

3.2 Incorrect and misleading guidance given to claimants and prospective claimants i.r.o.

3.2.1 Eligibility of claims, i.e..

3.2.1.1 Ownership viz-a-viz tenancy claims

3.2.1.2 Multiple ownership claims

3.2.1.3 Multiple tenancy claims

3.2.1.4 Mixture of ownership and tenancy claims

3.3 A substantial number of submissions were "lost" by the PLCC-WC. In other cases individual documents were misplaced or 'lost" by the RLCC-WC with the result that the validation of such claims were unnecessarily delayed (some have still not been validated) and senior citizens, many at advanced ages, with no access to public transport, etc. had to replace such documents up to two and three times in some instances. Many have also (lied in the interim.

4. Access to Information and unbiased and unprejudiced guidance

4.1 Information is, either knowingly or due to lack of knowledge, denied the Constantia Land Claimants Beneficiaries Committee. Agreements and commitments made to the Constantia Land Claimants Beneficiaries Committee and to the claimant community at large are either denied or changed at subsequent meetings.

5. Claimants encouraged to opt for financial compensation.

The Constantia Land Claimants Beneficiaries Committee has on numerous occasions requested the RLCC-WC to refrain from trying to influence claimants in favour of opting for financial compensation. The RLCC-WC, however, continues to do this, albeit in a subtler manner, i.e. by providing the claimant community with long explanations of the obstacles they face if they should opt for land. This happened again as recently as three months ago. At the end of this meeting claimants were encouraged to collect documents on which they could "exercise" their choice by requesting financial compensation.

This is a snapshot view of the interaction between the Constantia claimant community and the RLCC-WC. From engaging with claimants from other Western Cape communities, it is evident that many have similar experiences. People are, however, reluctant to speak out since they believe that by speaking out they may jeopardize their claims.

Yours sincerely

George van der Ross (Chairperson)

Dear' sir

Please accept the attached submission for the Portfolio Committee on Agriculture and Land Affairs (National Assembly).

Best regards

George van der Ross

Chairperson- Constantia Land Claimants Beneficiaries Committee