Pg
11
Nkuzi
Times: Issue 1 25th July 2004
NKUZI TIMES
IN THIS ISSUE
News
Zim Workers Injured and Assaulted
on SA Farms
Mabasa Case: A widow’s land
rights under attack
Death Threats in Moletele Land
Claim
In
Brief (CLRA signed, New Nkuzi Research staff)
Opinion
Events
WELCOME
Welcome to the first edition of the
Nkuzi Times, a monthly electronic newsletter that aims to share
experiences, news and views from the Nkuzi Development Association.
The stories will focus on the land reform work that Nkuzi is involved
in and opinions from people in the organisation. All staff, Board
Members and others in the sector are welcome to contribute.
We hope that the stories captured
here are of interest to you. Any feedback and comments would be
welcomed.
The Editor
CONTACTS
For
Nkuzi Times comments or contributions: e-mail: marc@nkuzi.org.za
Disclaimer:
The
views contained in this publication do not necessarily reflect the
views of the Nkuzi Development Association, nor is the organisation
responsible for the accuracy of information provided.
NEWS
Zim Workers Injured and Assaulted
on SA Farms
Themba
and Albert Ndlovu are brothers who came to South Africa from Zimbabwe
in 1995. They jumped the border with several other Zimbabweans who
were all looking for jobs. The brothers say that they regarded
themselves lucky when they were employed by Mr Robert Rotcher, a
farmer who ran his business of cutting planks and manufacturing
tomato boxes in the Levubu area of the Soutpansberg District.
The
employer did not bother to ascertain whether they had work permits or
not, although the brothers allege that he knew they had entered the
country illegally. He told them that he preferred Zimbabweans
because they are “hardworking and not like the South Africans
who are always complaining”.
The
Zimbabwean workers settled into the job and things went reasonably
well up to 1999 when they were all earning R30-00 per day. On the
17th of December 1999, while they were all on duty, Themba
sustained a serious injury to his left hand when he was operating a
machine. Themba to this day has lost the use of his hand preventing
him from getting other work. Mr Rotcher transported him to a certain
private doctor at Louis Trichardt for medical attention from where he
was transferred to the Louis Trichardt Hospital and he spent seven
days in the hospital recovering. After the incident he was given a
salary of R200-00 and nothing was said regarding compensation for the
injury.
A
further problem the employees say they faced was working from
December 2002 to May 2003 without a salary as the employer claimed
that he did not have money to pay them. When Nkuzi staff first met
Themba, in February 2004, he had been fired and said he was still
owed R660-00 from the period when they were not paid.
It
is alleged that Albert, the younger brother to Themba, also had two
fingers cut off while operating the same machine. Like Themba, the
employer took him to the special doctor for medical attention, and
gave him no compensation for the injury. The workers further claim
that Michael, another illegal Zimbabwean, got his foot cut off by the
same machine while on duty.
Another
case recently brought to the attention of Nkuzi, involves Peter
Madlhome, of the Mwenezi District in Zimbabwe. He jumped the border
in May 2004 in search of employment in South Africa. When he arrived
at a farm near Doreen Estate, the employer gave him the job of
picking tomatoes together with other workers believed to be illegal
Zimbabweans.
It is alleged that one Monday
morning, the employer was not happy about the manner in which the
workers had performed their duties the previous Saturday. He told
them that he would not reward them their full wages. Peter Madlhome
objected explaining that there were no ripe tomatoes to pick so there
was nothing they could do. The farmer had told them never to pick
the unripe tomatoes.
Peter claims that the employer
responded by assaulting him with fists. During the assault another
employee was instructed to hold Peter’s hands behind his back.
Peter was also thrown to the ground and kicked and jumped on.
Amongst other injuries Peter’s left arm was broken.
Another
farm resident heard of the assault and telephoned for an ambulance
that took Peter to the Mussina Hospital where he stayed and received
treatment for several days. Peter laid criminal charges against the
people who assaulted him after he was encouraged to open a case by
some of the staff at the hospital.
Peter has been to the Mussina
Magistrates Court several times for the case against the farmer, but
the accused has not been present and it appears that the case has
been postponed. It is not clear whether an arrest has been made or
not. After the case was postponed again Peter was advised to contact
Nkuzi for assistance.
Nkuzi is now pursuing these cases
with the Department of Labour and the police. Attempts will be made
to get workmen’s compensation and to initiate civil claims for
damages. However it is hard to pursue such cases. The victims
remain illegal within South Africa or return to Zimbabwe and are
always moving around looking for any work to help them survive. It
is hard to find them and there is no certainty that they would still
be available when needed if a civil claim is lodged on their behalf.
Nkuzi is trying to assist them in getting temporary permits from the
Department of Home Affairs so that the cases can at least be followed
up.
These cases illustrate the
difficulties that some farm workers, especially illegal foreign
workers, face. There is little assistance available to such people;
even the help from Nkuzi is limited due to this not being the main
focus of the organisations work and a shortage of resources to follow
up all such cases.
Shirhami
Shirinda. Nkuzi, Candidate Attorney
A
Widow’s Land Rights Under Attack
Selinah Mabaso lives in the village
of Matangari with her five children. Her husband passed away in 1998
and since then her in laws, led by her mother in law, have been
trying to take over the house and plot where she lived with her
husband.
After several appearances in the
magistrate’s court she was arrested in August 2003 and ordered
to leave the place in two weeks. She has carried on staying in the
house despite this and other harassment as she has nowhere to go and
no money to build a new house. The Commission for Gender Equality
referred the case to Nkuzi Development Association in October 2003
when Mabaso was due to appear in court again. On 27th
November 2003 the matter came before the Thohoyandou Magistrates
Court and Mabaso was represented by an Attorney, Sam Shirinda, from
Nkuzi. The matter was thrown out due to a technicality, however in
January a new application was made by the in-laws and a “protection
order” was issued in terms of the Domestic Violence Act,
ordering Mabaso and her five children out of the house. The Nkuzi
legal team intervened again and applied, on behalf of Mabaso, to set
aside the “protection order” also stopping the eviction
until the application could be heard.
After a postponement the matter was
heard on the 23rd February 2004. Despite arguments from
the Nkuzi attorney the Magistrate again confirmed the eviction, still
using the Domestic Violence Act. It was argued on behalf of Mabaso
that it has not been confirmed through normal estate law proceedings
that the property belongs to the in-laws or that they have any rights
to that land. There would be strong arguments that Mabaso, as the
widow, is the rightful owner of the house and interestingly she is
supported in this claim by the traditional leader in Matangari.
Further she has tenure rights to the land in terms of the Extension
of Security Act (ESTA) and the Interim Protection of Informal Land
Rights Act.
An application has now been filed in
the Land Claims Court for a review of the decision and the eviction
has again been stopped until this application can be heard. A
possible complaint against the Magistrate concerned is also being
investigated. In addition to the alleged poor handling of the case
there are allegations that the Magistrate has a relationship with the
family who are trying to evict Mabaso.
It is sad that an important piece of
legislation like the Domestic Violence Act that is meant to protect
women from abuse is misused in this way to undermine the rights of
women and children. There is no logic to the argument that evicting
Mabaso could provide protection to the in-laws as they do not even
live on that portion of land, they have also not brought any evidence
to show that she was a threat to them. Hopefully this kind of abuse
will not make it harder for people who really need protection to make
use of the Act.
There may be many rural women who
never get assistance and loose land rights in similar ways. Mabaso
is still on the land, but that is only because she was provided with
advice and free legal assistance by Nkuzi. Most rural women cannot
afford the time and costs involved in such a case. The case is not
yet finalised, but attorneys have already been to court four times in
the last six months and have had to make applications not only in the
magistrate’s court, but also in the Land Claims Court that is
situated in Randburg.
The case is interesting in the
context of the President of South Africa having signed the Communal
Land Rights Act (CLRA) into law in July 2004. The case of Selinah
Mabaso highlights the need for stronger and clearer land rights for
women living on communal land. During the parliamentary hearings on
the CLRA a range of different community groups, NGOs, and chapter 9
institutions, like the South African Human Rights Commission and the
Commission for Gender Equality, raised concerns that the Act would
reinforce discrimination against women in rural areas. However
following these submissions, indicating the value of participating in
the parliamentary processes, a number of changes and additions were
made to strengthen the land rights of women. The extent to which the
new law will actually provide protection is still a matter of debate
and will only really be answered when the law is implemented.
However it is clear from the experience of Selinah Mabaso that
whatever the law says the extent to which the poor are organised and
supported in order to assert their rights will determine the impact,
positive or negative, that the law will have.
Marc Wegerif. Nkuzi. Programme
Manager: Research and Policy
Death Threats in Moletele Land
Claim
The Moletele Community have been
trying for more than a decade to get back their land in the
Blydepoort area. They first attempted to make claims under the
Advisory Commission on Land Allocation established in the early 90s.
With the passing of the Restitution of Land Rights Act in 1994 they
were quick to lodge a claim in terms of that Act.
Nkuzi
has worked with the claimants for more than six years assisting the
land claims committee to gather the required information and
supporting them in negotiations with the Commission for the
Restitution of Land Rights and with land owners and other parties
such as the Mpumalanga Parks Board. The Legal Resource Centre (LRC)
has provided legal assistance to the claimants and played a leading
role in negotiating for the settlement of the claim.
The
land claimed includes the 25,000 hectare Blyderivierpoort nature
reserve, an internationally recognised conservation area, and two
Aventura resorts located in the reserve. It was made clear by
government some time ago that the community would not be able to
return to the land within the conservation area. Negotiations
focussed on finding ways for the land to be returned to the community
with the conservation and tourism operations continuing under Parks
Board management in terms of an agreement that would also bring
financial benefits from the land to the community.
An
agreement was reached in 2003 for the return of the land,
compensation to be paid to the community for loss of use of the land,
and an agreement of lease between the community and the Mpumalanga
Parks Board and the resort operators. Despite the agreement having
been reached after extensive negotiations involving all parties the
Minister of Agriculture and Land Affairs did not sign it. After
waiting for a year and no clarity being provided from the Ministry as
to why the agreement was not signed the LRC threatened to initiate
legal action on behalf of the claimants in order to force the
Minister to sign. In response to this the Minster arranged to go and
address the community.
On
the day of the community meeting the Minister arrived more than three
hours late, shortly after the representatives from the Legal
Resources Centre had left. According to reports the Minister picked
selectively from the agreement basically slamming it as selling out
the communities land rights. After this meeting there was confusion
within the community and a new initiative to take control of the
claim by the traditional authority supported by a Member of
Parliament from the area. There have also been attempts to remove
the LRC as legal representatives for the community.
In
an attempt to bring unity some members of the old land claims
committee and the new group that has come to prominence have tried to
form a new committee. However there appear to be serious differences
between the different parties and tensions remain high within the
community. It is alleged that a secret meeting, held in May by some
members of the new committee resolved to have four people from the
old land claims committee and Joe Shivhambu of Nkuzi killed.
Messages have been put out in the community to make it clear that if
something of this nature should happen to the people allegedly
targeted it is known who the likely suspects are. Shivhambu and the
others are taking other extra security precautions and thankfully are
still fine.
This
situation highlights the risks when so much is at stake in some of
the land claims. The intervention of the Minister appears to have
been poorly informed and has sparked conflict without offering any
alternative way of dealing with the claim. Nkuzi has asked the
Minister to intervene again as without her it is going to be
difficult to resolve the conflicts. If the drafted agreement is not
good enough the Minister needs to make proposals for a solution, she
cannot turn her back on a potentially life threatening conflict that
she has helped to create.
Marc Wegerif. Nkuzi. Programme
Manager: Research and Policy
In
Brief
CLRA Signed into Law
The
Communal Land Rights Act (Act 11 of 2004) was signed into law on
Wednesday 14th July 2004. In terms of section 47 of the
Act it will take effect “on a date to be determined by the
President by proclamation in the Gazette”. We have no
indication at this point on when such a date could be. Nevertheless
this should be seen as an historic event, for better or worse the
government is proceeding with this piece of legislation that could
have a profound impact on the lives of 15 million people living in
communal areas around the country.
New
Addition to Nkuzi Research Team
Sello
Khoza who has worked with Nkuzi for the last years as a Project
Officer on the Farm Dweller Programme has moved over to the Research
and Policy Programme after being successful in an internal
recruitment process. Khoza will initially work on a research project
that Nkuzi is doing with the Human Sciences Research Council looking
at “HIV/AIDS, Land Reform and Land-based Livelihoods”.
He will also assist in some of the other research projects that Nkuzi
is involved with. This is an important step in strengthening the
capacity of Nkuzi to engage in land reform related research and
policy work.
Doctorate Student Volunteers at
Nkuzi
Alistair
Fraser, a doctorate student from the Ohio State University in the
USA, will be assisting voluntarily at the Nkuzi Dzanani office over
the next six months. He is in the area doing research for his PhD
dissertation that is currently titled 'Geography and the struggle for
land: The politics of territoriality in South Africa's land reform'.
Nkuzi welcome Fraser’s willingness to assist in the
organisation and believe this and his research could be of value to
land reform in the area.
OPINION
The SAHRC Economic and Social
Rights Report on Land
The
poor quality of the 5th Economic and Social Rights Report
on Land, released by the Human Rights Commission on the 21st
June, illustrates the neglect of land reform almost as much as the
Report’s contents. Sadly it is a poorly written report with
numerous errors and too many contradictory and sweeping
unsubstantiated statements. This takes away from the value that it
could have in contributing to debates on land reform in South Africa
and is typical of the low priority given to this essential area of
economic and social transformation by government and much of civil
society.
The
report confirms what all in the land sector and many outside it know
too well: “Generally, land reform in South Africa has remained
slow, and targets have yet to be met” (pg43). While the
simplistic comparison with Zimbabwe in the concluding paragraph is
somewhat galling it is imperative that those in positions of power in
government and business hear the message that more needs to be done
to improve land reform. This is needed not just to “avoid
problems in the future” (pg 44), but to address the desperate
plight of millions of rural South Africans and to create a South
Africa that we can honestly say “belongs to all who live in
it”.
The lack of clear and reliable
information both on land needs and the impact of implementation of
land reform programmes emerges as a major problem area. Such a lack
of information must make effective planning and monitoring almost
impossible. The Report fails to clarify basic questions about how
many land claims have been validated, how many have been settled, how
many are left, and how much land has been transferred through the
Land Redistribution for Agricultural Development Programme (LRAD).
In our experience this confusion emanates from the Department of Land
Affairs (DLA) themselves who have often put out confusing and
contradictory figures. The Report has if anything added to this
confusion.
The Report finds that there is no
information available or monitoring of the number of people evicted
from farms (pg 36). Without this kind of empirical information on
the scale and the nature of evictions the proposed changes to
legislation and the various government and non-government programmes
addressing the problem cannot be expected to appropriately address
the troubling phenomena.
While the numbers are not known
evictions do continue both in contravention of the law and through
legal processes. The assertions that in terms of the Extension of
Security of Tenure Act (ESTA) owners have to find alternative land in
order to evict occupiers (pg 24) and that the government farm dweller
programme provides alternative land for legally evicted farm dwellers
(pg 19) are contradictory and simply not correct. What is correct is
that there is a totally inadequate budget for tenure reform, further
“[t]he fact that tenure reform has a low and declining budget
makes realisation of tenure rights impossible” (pg 29).
The Report repeatedly refers to the
amendments to ESTA and the Land Reform, Labour Tenants, Act (LTA)
that are aimed at strengthening the rights of occupiers. It even
claims that the “Consolidated ESTA/Labour Tenants Bill…was
due to be gazetted by the end of 2003” (pg 24). Rumours of
such amendments have been around for years. It is high time that the
DLA engage in an open discussion with stakeholders, including farm
occupiers and owners, about the type of tenure regime that is
required. If there is any such Bill or drafts they must be released
as soon as possible as a contribution to this much needed debate.
The poor conditions and the abuse of
rights experienced by farm dwellers are further highlighted by other
Economic and Social Rights reports such as the ones on education,
housing, and the right to water. Despite the vulnerability of farm
dwellers the DLA has continued to combine the budget for
redistribution and tenure reform with the result that LRAD has
consumed the whole budget leaving only crumbs to deal with enforcing
the rights of occupiers and the settlement of the thousands of Labour
Tenant claims. It is time for an urgent intervention to ensure that
millions of farm dwellers start to enjoy the basic economic and
social rights promised in the Constitution. The least DLA can do is
to have a specific budget allocation for the implementation of tenure
reforms that give farm dwellers their own land where they can have
secure homes and opportunities for their own production.
The improvements achieved in the
settlement of land claims are correctly acknowledged as well as the
major challenges that lie ahead. The most pressing issue is the
target set by the President for the settlement of all land claims by
the end of 2005. A target that at current rates of delivery and with
current budgets is totally unrealistic. The success over the last
years in settling mostly urban claims with cash compensation should
not fool anyone into thinking that thousands of complicated rural
claims involving large tracts of land can be resolved in the next
eighteen months. If the target stands the government must show they
are serious with a budget allocation of at least R10 billion for this
year and the rapid expropriation of farms that some owners are not
willing to sell at reasonable prices. We would suggest an urgent
review of the target and the setting of a more realistic time frame.
The target must aim to resolve all outstanding claims as quickly as
possible without pushing people to taking cash or compromising the
development potential of land returned.
While still struggling to resolve
land claims the DLA is now faced with the enormity of implementing
the Communal Land Rights Act (CLRA). At stake is the tenure security
of 15 million people. Amongst other things the task will involve
surveying and titling land for over 2,000 communities and more than 2
million households, assuming that all conflicts over boundaries can
be resolved. We wait with interest to see if Cabinet is going to
back this process with the billions of Rands it will need.
The Report praises LRAD for beating
its target for the hectares to be redistributed in the year under
review. However there is no indication of where this alleged target
of 81 555 hectares (pg 4) comes from. It is also not mentioned that
both that target and the hectares redistributed through LRAD in the
year under review are less than 1% of the land that LRAD policy
documents promise will be redistributed in 15 years. There is also
no indication of the quality of the projects being created through
LRAD or probing into who is really benefiting. The report does point
out that despite the full expenditure – in some provinces over
expenditure – of the budget and the small amount of land
redistributed the budget for land redistribution is not only
inadequate, but being further reduced (pg 26).
The need for effective post
settlement support and the inadequacy of current measures is
identified. This applies across all the land reform programmes and
will also apply to the CLRA implementation. Thankfully some steps
are being taken to address this through the establishment of
post-settlement support units in the Commission for the Restitution
of Land Rights and the Comprehensive Farmer Support Programme in the
Department of Agriculture. However these are new and relatively
small initiatives, far more is still needed to ensure that the
development potential of land reform is realised.
Despite its weaknesses the Economic
and Social Rights Report on Land clearly highlights many of the
challenges and shortcomings of the current land reform programme. A
concerted effort is needed from government, civil society, and
business to ensure that land reform and the required complimentary
support measures are implemented to the extent and high standards
required. We hope that next year’s Report will in quality and
content reflect such a renewed commitment to the fulfilment of this
most important area of economic and social rights.
Marc Wegerif. Nkuzi. Programme
Manager: Research and Policy
Response to Farmers Weekly Leader
on Expropriation
It
is disappointing that the Editor of the Farmers Weekly appears, from
the leader piece – “SURELY, WHAT'S GOOD FOR THE GOOSE, IS
GOOD FOR THE GANDER?” - in the 25th June issue, to
be poorly informed, not least about the South African Constitution.
The Constitution treats the Goose and the Gander exactly the same.
They both enjoy the same rights and in turn need to accept the
implications of the Constitution that they don’t like.
It should be no surprise and is
certainly not “outrageous” that the Chief Land Claims
Commissioner is going to consider previous subsidies when
establishing compensation to be paid to land owners who are
expropriated. This is required by section 25(3) of the Constitution
that says the amount of compensation to be paid should be decided
“having regard to all relevant circumstances, including…the
extent of direct state investment and subsidy in the acquisition and
beneficial capital improvement of the property”. This applies
whether the land owner being expropriated is black or white. This is
not penalising the owners or trying to do land restitution “on
the cheap”. It is complying with the Constitution and being
prudent with tax payers’ money. Why should the state pay a
land owner for an asset that was paid for by the state in the first
place?
The
Supreme Court of Appeal did not rule that the government “should
either buy the ground from Duvenhage, or find alternative
accommodation”. It found that the property rights of the owner
and the right to housing of the occupiers had been violated, see
case: SCA 187/03. It therefore ordered the state to pay
constitutional damages to the owner for the past and continued loss
of use of the land. The Court further ordered that the residents can
stay on the land until alternative accommodation is made available by
the state.
The
Minister of Agriculture and Land Affairs is not “contemplating”
going to the Constitutional Court, an application for leave to appeal
has already been lodged on 18th June. The President of
the Republic of South Africa is the first applicant and the Minister
of Agriculture and Land Affairs is the second applicant. I find this
unfortunate as I believe the Supreme Court made an enlightened order
that balanced and confirmed the rights of the land owner and the
residents and clarified the obligation of the state to protect such
rights. However I do not begrudge the President or the Minister the
right to make such an appeal. They have a right to do so just as the
land owners who are being expropriated have a right to go to the
Constitutional Court if they think their constitutional rights are
being violated.
Rather than using energy on court
cases I would prefer to see the Department of Land Affairs accepting
their responsibilities and making land reform work and land owners
making land available and assisting land reform beneficiaries. But
in South Africa the Geese, the Ganders, and the rest of us are lucky
to have a constitution that gives us all rights.
Marc Wegerif. Nkuzi. Programme
Manager: Research and Policy
EVENTS
Event:
Makhado Land Reform Conference
Date:
26-27 August (to be confirmed).
Venue:
In Makhado
Details:
Nkuzi is convening this conference of all stakeholders in Makhado
to discuss land reform in the area and in particular the integrated
plan for land reform that Nkuzi has drawn up. The Minister for
Agriculture and Land Affairs is scheduled to address the conference
along with other local and national speakers.
For
more information contact: Tshililo Manenzhe. E-mail:
tshililo@nkuzi.org.za
Tel: 0159-704 121.
News, Views and Events
from the Nkuzi Development Association
A
land reform support organisation
NKUZI TIMES
Pg
8
Nkuzi
Times: Issue 2 25th August 2004
NKUZI TIMES
IN THIS ISSUE
News
Water
At Last for Pensioners
Survival of the Fittest on Farms
Magoebaskloof:
Farm Occupiers Under a Cloud
In Brief
Madimbo Land Claims Settled
Municipality Donates Bakkie to
Nkuzi
Land Claimants Visit Zebediela
Estate
Makhado Land Conference
Manavhela in Business
Opinion
Obituary
APOLOGIES
We apologise for the late
distribution of this second issue of the Nkuzi Times. The delay was
due to the passing away and funeral of the father of our Editor
THANKS
A big thank you to all who sent
positive responses to receiving and reading the first edition of
Nkuzi Times, this has encouraged us to continue writing and sharing
CONTACTS
For
Nkuzi Times comments or contributions: e-mail: marc@nkuzi.org.za
Disclaimer:
The
views contained in this publication do not necessarily reflect the
views of the Nkuzi Development Association, nor is the organisation
responsible for the accuracy of information provided.
NEWS
Water At Last for
Pensioners
It has been a 3-year battle to
restore the water supply to the Mabhena family in Witfontein,
Gauteng. Maria Mabhena (now 85 years old) and her daughter Emily
(61) have lived on the farm for more than 45 years and are therefore
recognized as legitimate occupiers with certain rights in terms of
the Extension of Security of Tenure Act.
The problem started in January 2001
when Mr. Swanepoel who had recently bought the farm implemented
changes, which impacted negatively on the lives of the Mabhena’s.
The new owner had a fence with no gate put up around the Mabhena’s
yard and house and cut all the water pipes. He then started to throw
away their possessions in what he called a “cleaning campaign”.
The two women fought back by
barricading the road with old trees and tying red cloth around the
yard to depict danger, all in an effort to stop the farmer entering
their yard. The owner alleged that they were throwing stones at him
and he called the police, of which the women denied the allegations.
They threatened to kill the owner with muti if he came to their yard
and said he has done enough by cutting the water pipes. They told
him that he can’t throw away their belongings, which they’ve
collected and treasured for all their lifetime.
Kungwini
Local Municipality represented by the ward councillor, Mr. Richard
Sibanyoni, referred the case to Nkuzi. On intervening I took a
statement from the occupiers, which was a bit difficult as they had a
lot of unhappiness about the issues; they were often shouting and
became emotional as they related the various incidents. I held
several meetings with the owner to mediate on the issue of water
provision and the general harassment of the occupiers. The owner did
put a gate in the fence to enable the Mabhena’s to come and go
without having to climb a fence, but he did not restore the water
despite agreeing to in the meetings. The matter was referred to the
Nkuzi Legal Team in Polokwane, who then handed it to the Legal
Resources Centre (LRC) in Pretoria to pursue the matter as they were
much nearer.
Unfortunately the file was handled
by different candidate attorneys in the LRC office and there was
little progress. After I made numerous follow ups and wrote to
enquire about progress on the case a summons was eventually served,
but the owner did not respond. When Mr. Mashimbye, an Attorney who
had been at Nkuzi, joined the Legal Resources Centre I pursued him to
work on the file. As the owner had not entered any notice of
appearance to defend the matter Mr. Mashimbye made a request for a
default judgment against the farm owner. The application was
dismissed as the Magistrate said it did not have a clear breakdown of
costs.
I
met again with Mr. Mashimbye to discuss a way forward on the matter
and a new application for the restoration of rights was drafted and
served. This time the order was granted in the Mabhena’s
favour. Mr. Swanepoel was ordered to reinstall the pipes for the
water supply. However Mr. Swanepoel said that he did not have the
manpower for digging trenches and asked for assistance. A meeting
was organized between the owner, Nkuzi and the LRC to try and resolve
the issue. A letter was written to the Municipality to ask for their
assistance with a grader to dig trenches as the ground is very hard.
When the trenches were dug the Owner installed the pipes at his cost.
Eventually on the 17th August 2004 the Mabhena’s
had running water again.
VIVA Nkuzi Project Officers!!!
Ntokozo Nzimande. Nkuzi. Project
Officer: Farm Dweller Programme
Survival
of the Fittest on Farms
Ndundu Sithole was referred to Nkuzi
by the Vanderbiljpark Parliamentary Constituency Office. Ndundu and
his family have lived on the farm Enselspoort for more than twenty
years. The farm is situated about 50 kms west of Vanderbiljpark,
close to the border between the Gauteng and Northwest Provinces.
The previous owner, who has now
passed on, allowed the occupiers to keep and graze their livestock on
the farm. The other occupiers have since left the farm to seek new
job opportunities as operations came to a standstill following the
death of the owner. Ndundu, his wife and their three children
insisted on staying and are the only people left living on the farm.
The family have 16 cattle, 3 sheep, 1 donkey and 1 horse on the farm.
When
the new owner, who also owns land adjacent to the farm, took over he
reduced the piece of land that Ndundu could use to about 6 hectares
and fenced it so that their cattle do not mix. It is alleged that
Ndundu took some pliers to cut the fence so that his livestock could
access the land as they used to. When the new owner’s cattle
mixed with his he chased them with his dogs back to the landowner’s
other piece of land.
In
February 2004 the landowner started threatening the family
with eviction. Local police, whom Ndundu alleges are friends of the
landowner’s son, have also visited him late at night telling
him that he should vacate the farm. The landowner claims that he has
had enough of Ndundu’s aggression. Ndundu’s brother also
attested that Ndundu gets even more aggressive when he is drunk.
There have been nasty confrontations with the landowner’s son
and Ndundu challenging each other to fight. A number of criminal
cases were opened against Ndundu by the landowner, but these have
been dropped since Nkuzi intervened. Despite the difficulties Ndundu
and his family remain on the farm and their livestock access enough
grazing and are healthy.
In another case about a kilometre
from Ndundu’s farm, Jacob Bofelo has also been denied access to
the grazing that he used to enjoy in the past. Jacob worked on the
farm for 25 years until he was fired for refusing to sell all of his
livestock. When Jacob was told to remove his livestock, including 13
cattle, he thought he had no choice and approached another farmer
with the intention of buying fodder to feed his cattle.
Unfortunately the farmer refused saying that Jacob was causing his
former employee trouble. Jacob then resorted to grazing his cattle
on the road side, but his former employer arranged for a grader to
remove the grass on the road side.
This matter has now been referred to
the Wits Law Clinic so that an urgent application can be made for the
restoration of Jacob’s grazing rights. In the meantime two of
his cattle have already died and the others are hungry; trying to eek
out a precarious existence on the side of a busy road.
These two cases project a dichotomy:
Ndundu’s arrogance has helped him to defend his rights and his
cattle are healthy, whereas Jacob who did not want to argue is
watching his cattle starve.
Kgalema
wa ga Kalauba. Nkuzi. Project Officer: Farm Dweller Programme
Magoebaskloof
Farm Occupiers Under a Cloud
The
dispossession of rights to land that happened during the apartheid
era still happens today ten years into democracy. The most
vulnerable and affected are farm workers and occupiers on privately
owned farms. Many of these evictions do not conform with the
procedures required by law. The victims have little if no
information about legislation protecting their tenure rights and as
such they are displaced without recourse to justice.
The
vulnerability of farm occupiers particularly in the Limpopo Province
is said by some victims to have been exacerbated by land claims
lodged on farms. Mr Ratladi, Ms Mokhomola and Mr Mojelele, all of
whom have been evicted during the last months from farms in the
Magoebaskloof area, under the Greater Tzaneen Municipality, believe
they were evicted as a result of a land claim lodged on 124 farms by
the Makgoba tribe.
The
Makgoba claim is on land that contributes massively to the
agricultural economy of the Province with major operations being
forestry, tea and tropical fruits. The area is also an important
tourist destination and has been targeted by the provincial
government for further tourism investments. The claim was met with
mixed feelings from the owners many of whom have questioned the
validity of the claim and criticised the Commission for the
Restitution of Land Rights for excluding them during the
investigations on the validity of the claim. Economists have raised
concerns about the future contribution of the land to the economy of
the Province and the employment of an estimated 3,000 farm workers in
the area. The claimants on the other hand are eager to have
ownership of the land returned to them and will do anything in their
power to ensure the realisation of that dream. This situation puts
the Commission under immense pressure to ensure that there is no
disruption to the process.
While
the debate about the claim is heating up the future for farm workers
and occupiers, particularly those who are not part of the Makgoba
tribe, remains uncertain. They live with a continuous fear of being
evicted by the present owners, who are frustrated by the land claim,
and could face a similar situation under the Makgobas’, who may
not want outsiders on their land once the claim is settled.
Sello
Khoza. Nkuzi. Researcher
IN BRIEF
Madimbo Land Claims Settled
A
group of community claims on the Madimbo Corridor were settled on the
14th August 2004. Amongst others the Minster for
Agriculture and Land Affairs, the Deputy Minster of Defence and the
Nkuzi Director addressed thousands of community members who attended
the ceremony to mark the return of 27,000 hectares of land along the
Limpopo River to communities who had been removed. Nkuzi has
assisted the communities on this land claim for six years.
For
a number of years the military, who controlled the land, opposed the
restoration of the land to the community. In the year 2000 hundreds
of community members attempted to march onto the land in protest at
the slow pace of resolving their claim. Some who were arrested at
the protest are still due to appear in court on the 13th
September. In 2002 a letter writing campaign was launched by FIAN
(Foodfirst Information & Action Network) International asking
members and supporter to write to the President of South Africa and
the Minister of Defence demanding the return of the land to the
impoverished rural communities who had been removed.
Municipality Donates Bakkie to
Nkuzi
The
Waterberg District Municipality donated a bakkie (1 ton pickup truck)
to the Nkuzi office in Modimolle. The bakkie was handed over by the
Executive Mayor on the 10th August. The bakkie is being
used to assist farm dwellers in the District. It was donated to
Nkuzi in recognition and support of the services rendered to the
community by Nkuzi. Nkuzi is grateful that the Municipality was able
to turn good co-operation and moral support into practical support in
the form of transport that is always needed for getting to the farms.
Land Claimants Visit Zebediela
Estate
Twenty
four members of land claimant groups around Makhado, some of whom
have received land already and some who are still waiting, visited
the Zebediela Estate on the 23rd August. Zebediela, the
largest citrus estate in South Africa, was returned to land claimants
in 2003. It is now managed by a joint venture company that leases
the land from the claimants. The company is controlled by an
investor who brings capital and expertise, while the claimants and
workers are also shareholders. The visitors toured the estate and
met members of the management, workers and claimants. Nkuzi
organised the trip for the claimants from Makhado to learn from a
settled claim that is working.
Makhado Land Conference
The
Makhado Land Conference happened from the 25th and 26th
August at the Mountain View Hotel. The conference was attended by
around 100 local delegates and national and international speakers,
including the Minister for Agriculture and Land Affairs. The
conference gave a strong endorsement of the integrated approach and
plans for land reform in the area that Nkuzi has been developing with
the Makhado Municipality.
Manavhela in Business
Before
the talking started at the Land Conference the Minister, Thoko
Didiza, took time to visit the Manavhela community who received land
through the settlement of their land claim in 2002. The chicken
houses on the Poultry farm were full of chickens and the group are
finishing the construction of a new irrigation system for further
production. The Ben Lavin Manavhela Nature Reserve and the
lodges in the reserve continue under the management of community
members. While there is room for improvement the Manavhela claimants
are in business and prove that the current crop of land reform
disaster stories are not the whole picture.
OPINION
Strengthen the Rights of Farm
Dwellers
Any
move by government to strengthen the land rights of black farm
dwellers needs to be supported. The article “Report recommends
‘widescale land seizure’”, written by Hofstätter
in ThisDay 30th July 2004, reveals that Department of Land
Affairs officials have proposed a range of measures to improve the
situation of farm dwellers. The proposals, made at least two years
ago, include the critical step of “creating a class of
non-evictable occupiers”. Farm dwellers young and old continue
to be victims of attacks on their rights, including evictions
(examples of such cases are shared in other stories in this issue
of Nkuzi Times). It is a sad history that has put black farm
dwellers into this situation and ten years of half hearted reforms
have brought little change; there needs to be decisive action.
Sadly
Hofstätter did not give much information on the DLA proposals or
reasons for them, rather choosing to dramatise them as a
recommendation for “widescale land seizure” and ending
the article with yet another ill informed reference to Zimbabwe.
Just as concerning was the fact that Hofstätter only got comment
from farmers unions. There are other views and a very important
debate, on the transformation of farm tenure arrangements, that needs
to be taken up.
According
to the Statistics South Africa Census 2001 there were 2,897,383 black
people living on farms and smallholdings in 2001. Some people have
claimed that the true figure is much higher. One thing is certain
there are millions of black people living on predominantly white
owned farms and most of them do not have secure tenure. This
phenomenon is not an accident of history, it is a result of apartheid
policies that deliberately stripped black people of the land they
owned and occupied and continued to make it illegal for them to own
land anywhere in the country. Black people in rural areas were
forced to live in an overcrowded Bantustan, with the permission of a
chief, or live on a farm with the permission of a white land owner.
For millions farms became and remained their homes.
Until
farm dwellers get secure homes of their own and opportunities for
their own production they will remain dependent and vulnerable and
the power relations in rural areas will not change. Creating a class
of non-evictable occupiers is a step in the right direction. I am
not sure how the DLA propose defining non-evictable occupiers; they
have still not released the proposals for public discussion. However
I am sure the proposal is not to make every farm occupier and worker
non-evictable. The Extension of Security of Tenure Act currently
defines a class of “long term occupiers” who are afforded
additional rights. These “long term occupiers” are those
who have been on the farm for ten years or more and are over sixty or
disabled. To expropriate all land occupied and used by such
occupiers would not involve an enormous amount of land and by
definition it would not affect land used by current farm owners.
Securing
existing access to land is a critical first step, but the intention
should not be to continue the poverty trap many farm dwellers and
workers are in. There needs to be a proactive programme to provide
land for farm dwellers within commercial farming areas and additional
support to enable them to succeed on that land. Just as the latest
housing programme has begun to define what “sustainable human
settlements” could look like in urban settings so the
Department of Land Affairs needs to start defining what “sustainable
human settlements” could look like in rural farming areas.
The Freedom Charter set as one of its
bold aims that “[t]he land shall be shared among those who work
it! Restrictions on land ownership on a racial basis shall be ended,
and all the land re-divided amongst those who work it to banish
famine and hunger.” It is time that steps are taken to make
this declaration a reality. This
may sound idealistic, but so did the demand that “[e]very man
and woman shall have the right to vote”. The current situation
of farm dwellers is an unacceptable apartheid legacy that has to be
addressed and soon.
Marc Wegerif. Nkuzi. Programme
Manager: Research and Policy
OBITUARY
Farewell
to an Activist for ”love’s Revolution”
Boudewijn
Wegerif passed away on the 21st August 2004 at the age of
68. Boudewijn died of cancer after spending his last weeks in a
hospital in Sweden in the company of family and friends. He remained
an activist to the end campaigning, largely through his web site
(www.whatmatters.nu)
and e-letters, for a world free from the shackles of the current
money system. He is remembered by many as the man who walked from
the north of Sweden to Cape Town. He described the three year
journey as “a walking prayer for the earth”. This was
only one of many journeys he took in his eventful life that amongst
other things saw him exiled from South Africa in the early 1970s.
Boudewijn leaves behind three
daughters and four sons including Marc Wegerif, the Nkuzi Research
and Policy Programme Manager.
Rest in peace Boudewijn - may we all
be inspired by your commitment to seek a better and more loving
world.
“What
Matters to Me is Love's Revolution. I want to see an end to all
forms of usury - all systems, banks, factories and farms that exist
primarily for money-measured gain. I want to see an army of economic
liberation take shape, of disarmed lovers of life who are ready to be
persecuted, lose their right to bank accounts and mortgages, go to
prison, be killed even as they destructure the world and restructure
it into an interlocking, global hive of small-scale economies of
love.” Boudewijn Wegerif
News, Views and Events
from the Nkuzi Development Association
A
land reform support organisation
NKUZI TIMES
Pg
8
Nkuzi
Times: Issue 3 8th November 2004
NKUZI TIMES
IN THIS ISSUE
News
Safety and Security Pay for
Wrongful Arrest of Nkuzi Staff
Four Land Claims Settled in
Waterberg
Farmers
Block Land Claims; The President Needs To Help
In Brief
Opinion
CONTACTS
For Nkuzi Times comments or
contributions: e-mail: marc@nkuzi.org.za
Disclaimer:
The views contained in
this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the Nkuzi
Development Association, nor is the organisation responsible for the
accuracy of information provided.
NEWS
Safety and Security Pay for
Wrongful Arrest of Nkuzi Staff
In October 1999 Shirhami Shirinda of
Nkuzi was arrested while trying to attend a meeting with farm owners
and farm workers at Tshipise Aventura. He was assaulted and dragged
to the police vans although the officers had no warrant for his
arrest, no docket showing what he was charged with, and could not
explain why he was being arrested. Interestingly the police who were
from Masisi were operating outside their area of jurisdiction. Nkuzi
always maintained that the arrest was illegal and a deliberate
attempt to disrupt Shirhami’s work with farm dwellers in the
area.
After spending a night in the cells
Shirhami appeared in court where he was charged and bail was set.
The bail was paid immediately, but the same police still took him
back to the police cells at Masisi and refused to release him. The
following day they took him to Musina where they opened new charges.
The Musina magistrate released Shirhami on a free bail.
Eventually all charges against
Shirhami were dismissed. In the meantime Nkuzi initiated a civil
claim for damages against the Minister for Safety and Security for
wrongful arrest, wrongful detention and assault. Finally five years
after the incident the Department of Safety and Security have
admitted they were wrong and paid R48,000 in compensation. The
amount may not be enormous, but for Shirhami and Nkuzi it is
confirmation that the arrest was wrong and some justice has been done
after a long fight. The whole case is also a clear illustration of
the extent to which police abuse their powers and how difficult,
impossible without substantial support, it is for an ordinary person
to get any justice.
Marc Wegerif. Nkuzi. Programme
Manager: Research and Policy.
Four Land Claims Settled in
Waterberg
On
the 9th of October 2004 a group of four communities
celebrated the return of their land. The celebration was held at
Mogalakwena Municipality in the Waterberg District of Limpopo
Province and was attended by the Minister for Agriculture and Land
Affairs, the Chief Land Claims Commissioner and of course the
claimants themselves. In her speech Minister Didiza encouraged
community members to seize the opportunity that the return of their
land offers and invest in the future productivity of their farms in
order to alleviate poverty and unemployment. She also encouraged
children to study agriculture after matric and offered government
assistance with such studies.
The Lebelo community, comprising 479
households, received 3,600 hectares of land on the farm Blinkwater.
The Legata community lost their land on the farm Lusthoff and St.
Georges in Mogalakwena district, now the 45 families will benefit
from the restoration of 1,671 hectares of land. Koka Matlou
community, which is made up of 250 households, has received 2,955
hectares of land. Lastly the Mabjaneng community, made up of 401
households, shall benefit from 2,084 hectares of land.
All these communities were removed
from their land under similar circumstances involving white people
arriving on the communities land and trying to turn them into labour
tenants. The resi
Reformation
in SA