Thank you for affording me your time, assure you it wilt not be wasted.

I am Ben Cilliers, part owner of Portion 15 and also chairman of the Sandford landowners and am addressing you on part of both tonight.

My purpose is seeking your assistance solving the problem of finalizing the restitution of Sandford 291KU

sadly the actions or lack thereof on the part of the Regional LCC, particularly the department tasked with Sandford as becomes apparent in the submitted documentation

it has recently come to our attention that the office of the Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Land Affairs has also put a hold on the finalization of Sandford'

the afore mention . being in direct opposition to our President's directive on restitution as well as contravening the restitution law clause 7a of Act 22 of 1999

This explains our frustration. In order to understand the magnitude of the problem, a brief history of the process we have been part to. (Referred to in document as S1-S4)
S5 - Letter to MLCC request for the landowners research information

S6 - Summary of current status of properties Sandford 291KU

This farm serves as an example.

1. \/aluated Sept 2003 - by - Antoinette van der Merwe not accepted

2. Promised second valuation - Nov 2003

3. Valuation done - May 2004

4. Agreement - 6 May 2004 (negotiated agreement on 6 May 2004, not signed by Mr Nyapele and ignored to this present day)

5. Since the gazetting of Sandford it's been 21 months - no progress

6. Economic regression - 1.2 million annually

ATTACHED LETTERS (referred to in documents a L1 L15)

1. To MLCC - Attorney's: permission for development

2. To MLCC - Mass offer to sell

3. To MLCC - Renjoos offer to sell

4. From MLCC - faxed offer to purchase

5. To MLCC - Permission to establish cash crops and sign leases

6. To MLCC - Rejection by Renjoos: MLCC's offer

7. To MLCC - Complaint to Commissioner

8. To MLCC - Return of valuation: Renjoos

9. To MLCC - Plea to CLCC for help

10. To Minister of Agriculture - Plea to Minister for help

11. To Mr Nyapele - E Kretzschhmar Properties

12. Attached summary of Renjoos valuations (state and privet)

13. To CLCC - E Kretzschmar Properties

14. Letter from attorney's of Sandford Community Trust

15. From CLCC - Acknowledgement of receipt ; letters dated 7 June 2004

1. Finchley Farm (Pty) Ltd

2. Jakkalberry Farm and Lodge CC

3. T van der Watl

4. Momemts of Gold Investments CC

5. Dr A Stead

6. MT Hazy Prop Dev (Pty) Ltd

7. Sportprops 44 (Pty) Ltd

8. Hazyview Primary School

9. Bon -Repose (Pty) Ltd

10. Mariti Landgoed (Pty) Ltd

11. DM Pretorius

Mr Chairperson. ladies and gentlemen. The landowners did not ask for the restitution, nor made the laws or instituted it . We are only abiding citizen’s, who adapted our needs to be subjective to that of our government and country.

We have done our utmost in positive supporting this initiative, only to end up victimized by the process and the operatives supposedly promoting it. We have been positively pro-active till now, but we have overstitched our limits of endurance . We make a most urgent appeal to you, the most powerful body governing this process, for a little fairness

THANK-YOU

I. SUMMARY OF SANDFORD LAND CLAIM PROCESS HISTORY

2. RENJOOS BOERDERY SALE SGREEMENT

3. COPIES OF LETTER TO AND FROM THE LAND CLAIMS COMMISSIONER

4. SUMMARY OF LAND OWNER SIATUS

1. During July 2002 we were informed by our local farmer's association that according to Mr Elvis Nyapele from the office of the Commissioner of land Claims, a land claim had been instituted on the farm Sandford 291 Ku and the gazetting there of would take place during the -following three months.

2. The Sandford landowners formed an association which appointed Prof. JB Hartman to investigate the legitimacy of this claim and to advise us of' our position. The investigation was done, at a considerable cost.

3, We initiated a meeting with the Commissioner's project officer for Sandford: Mr Elvis Nyapele during August 2002 at which he stated that:

a. According to his investigation the claim was legitimate

b. The claim would be gazetted.

c. That he would inform us as to when the gazetting would take place

4. We instructed two lawyer firms as well as Prof. Hartman to be on the lookout for this publication in the Government Gazette.

5. On the 13th of January 2003 by chance we learnt that the publication took place on the 5th of November 2002 but that only a very limited amount of Cazettes were published as the state press had a problem at the time.

6. We instructed Mr Daan Viljoen of Swanepoel & Associates, now Viljoen & Swanepoel on the 13th January to present the Commissioner of land Claims Mpumalanga with a letter from our association, no reaction or confirmation was received.

7. The Commissioner received a letter from Renjoos Boerdery, asking his permission to continue with developments or instruction to freeze it. No reaction or confirmation was received from the Commissioner.

8. The land owners steering committee initiated several meetings with Mr Nyapele to discuss different issues with him and his supervisor Mr Willy Moeng.

9. Not withstanding Prof. Hartman's report results and being emotionally attached to our properties as well as realizing the substantial financial loss implications, we never the less agreed to participants on a "willing buyer- willing seller" basis, with the Commissioner for the Restitution of Land Rights. Thus contributing our share in assisting our government in their endeavour to creating peace and stability through fair distribution of land amongst our citizens.

1 0.We invited the representatives of the Commissioner to a meeting on the 22nd July 2003, presented a letter to them (copy included) offering farms to be sold. Mr Willy Moeng promised to have all these farms state-valuated by the end of August 2003, differences negotiated and contracts drawn up by the end of September her 2003 and guarantees for payment officiated by at least December 2003.

11. The landowners appointed reputable valuators to determine the fair market value of their properties, to prevent delays in decision making once Government had completed their valuations . The largest property which has considerable developments even had three independent valuations done. This w-as done to expedite the process from our Side.

12. During September 2003 we were contacted by Mrs Antoinette van der Merwe who was to valuate for the state. We took her around to all the properties. She (lid thirteen valuation visits in one and a half days. the largest and most difficult property to value, took her one and a half hours. We were not impressed by the manner in which she conducted her inspection. Two weeks later the Commissioner had the valuations, signed by Mr M Brandon who had not even visited these properties.

13. The landowners were called by Mr Nyapele, to whom he exhibited the bottom line of valuation and asked to sign his offer based on that amount. In most cases the State valuations were not in line with private valuations, in one ease being up to 42% less than that of private valuations.

14. Some of the owners decided to sign the valuation-based state offer: being emotionally and financially over-stressed. Because of the large discrepancies. especially on the larger properties, Mr Nyapele undertook to have these re-valued by a valuator of standard. This undertaking was given to properties us in the second week of November 2003. At that stage in November, three of the properties valuated in September had not yet received an offer from the Commissioner's office and these owners were unable to establish any form of contact with Mr Nyapele. Hence only one of the properties (Portion 15) was re-valued by the state. Portion 54 has since been inspected for a re-valuation.

15. On the 14^th of January 2004, myself and Mr. Grobler had a meeting with the Commissioner to brief him on a proposal of a German Consortium whom we have interested in taking aboard the claimant's as partners, and developing Sandford into an international eco-tourist venue, this consortium contributing all the capital and expertise themselves. This delegation visited us in February 2004. They put their proposals to table but as yet could go no -further as nobody could supply a date for the further finalisation of the restitution process on .Sandford - a great opportunity for the claimants might already be lost.

16. On the 17^th of January 2004 the Commissioner requested a meeting with Sandford landowners which was held at my farm. Commissioner requested the landowners to divulge the contents of tile report done by Prof. Hartman as he was in nee(l of this information. (A copy of self explanatory letter in reply as requested by the Commissioner. Attached.). The owners of the report were promised a ministerial letter within 9 days. Now 6 months without any' reply.

1 7. On the 25^th of March 2004 the status of Sandford properties were as follows:

(as per attached list) out of 30 properties.

11 properties (36%) had been finalized.

8 properties (27%) offers signed not yet submitted to minister.

8 properties (27%) still trying to negotiate with with Mr Nyapele

3 properties (10 %) not interested in settling.

This reflects the commitment by the landowners of the owners have been waiting since early March for their agreements to be submitted to the Minister. These seven agreements have since been

submitted to the office of the Chief land Claims Commissioner in early July only to be side tracked and put on hold for undisclosed reasons.

It has since come to our attention that this "hold" might be a directive from the office of the deputy minister.

1 8. On the 3^rd of June 2004 1 paid a visit to the office of the Chief Land Claims Commissioner in Pretoria for a appointment with Ms Roesch. The problem of Sandford as a whole and issues of Portion 15 in particular was discussed in detail, copies of all relevant documents and 3 valuations plus one of the original sale agreements for Portion 1 5 given to us by Mr Nyapele was handed to Ms Roesch. We were given the assurance that the matter will receive urgent attention from her office as well as that of the Commissioner. Two visits, numerous phone calls and two months later we are still waiting anxiously for reaction from the CLCC. We have now, on the 4^th of August received acknowledgement of receipt of documents.

1 9. We have also sent copies of all relevant letters and documents to:

i. The Minister of Agriculture and Land Affairs - acknowledgement received.

ii Mr NH Masithele: Portfolio Committee on Land Affairs, Parliament. This office being very helpful and co-operative through Ms Norma Mafani, thank –you this is the most positive and sincere help we have received throughout our entire ordeal since November 2002.

iii The Land Claims Commissioner of Mpumalanga- No reaction.

iv Agri South Africa- Mr L

20. At present being the beginning of August 2004, landowners and claimants have given up all hope of the officials from the Commission, provincial as well as national committing to finalize the Sandford issue.

Claimants: The claimants are well organised, have excellent leadership, determined to make an example of Sandford in managing it to be self- sustainable also having interesting long-term vision. They are forming strategic partnerships with some of the previous owners who are also co-operating well with the Sandford community Trust.

Other land owners: Landowners throughout Mpumalanga and the Limpopo Provinces are enquiring on a weekly basis as to Sandford’s restitution progress, the lack thereof changing attitudes towards the negative.

Financial losses: According to the restitution law after gazetting-,no development or capital improvements may be made nor leases entered into without the permission of the Commission, this has not been given resulting in all the properties stagnating causing financial regression on the part of the owners as well as a loss of revenue for the country.

Approximate value of stalled restitutions 40 million.

Financial regression @ I 0% per annum 4 000 000

Interest loss on capital otherwise invested '@ 9% 3600 000

Property values increasing while valuations on properties stagnant 1yr old @12% 4800 000

Loss of owners - Annual Daily 11 800 000

Monthly 960 000

Daily 31 000

8% on approximate value 3 200 000

Inland revenue +/-12% 4 800 000

Growth rate +/-3% 1 200 000

Other sectors combined +/-5% 2 000 000

The above seems to indicate the financial implications caused by the stalling, also it’s effect on the tax paying public.

SANDFORD LANDOWNERS' ASSOCIATION

Mr Nyano

We would like to convey our appreciation of your meeting with us on 17 January 2004 at Hazyview, your frankness and information was well received -

Regarding your request for the information from the research we had done on the Sandford issue as well as our consent to allow our chief researcher to divulge the research information to your researcher and consent for our researcher to henceforth work with yours in appropriating the correct information regarding the authenticity of different claimants in the issue, we would like to respond as follows

1 - As you are well aware we have been co--operative and helpful in all matters right from the start even before being gazetted the 15^th November 2002. We also took a lot of the initiatives in promoting and resolving of the issue. We therefore are also willing to assist you toe information and requests you put forward as we also want it resolved expediently. Therefore you are welcome to our full co-operation. As explained and discussed at the meeting on the 17^th January. We however have a request to lodge with you, the compliance of which will give our group a unanimous vote to comply with our requests

We as a group have a serious concern with a possibility of properties within the greater Sandford being fragmented" or "pocketized". As explained at the meeting this entails.. the concept of acquiring properties all around certain properties leaving an island which later becomes worthless or unmanageable because of pressures surrounding the property, thus discouraging a future potential buyer.

We are requesting a ministerial letter to each and every one of the property owners who have already consented to a willing buyer -willing seller, (at ACCEPTABLE MARKET VALUE). buy-out as stated in our letter of 22 July 2003, which also states which properties were signatory to the offer.. This letter should clearly state that ALL he properties which has been presented to you shall be bought out accordingly.. and guarantees to be affected within six months after date of compliance with your request.

Referring to our letter of 22 July 2003 (copy included) landowners who signed list "'B" now wants to be added to list "A" are Portions 14, 18 and 33

Thanking you in anticipation for your co-operation iii this in this matter and again assuring you of ours

Yours sincerely