WC under fire for not supporting law providing women tenure security
THE Western Cape delegation to the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) has come under firem for not backing the amendment to the bill that seeks to provide tenure security to women.
This happened when the NCOP yesterday considered the Upgrading of Land Tenure Rights Amendment (Ultra) Bill and the Correctional Services Amendment Bill.
The Upgrading of Land Tenure Rights Act was found to be unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court because it excluded women from the property system. This was viewed by the court to be gender discrimination and the national legislature was given until May 29 to amend the legislation.
The same act was found not to cover those areas falling under the TBVC states, such as the former Transkei, Venda, Bophuthatswana and Ciskei.
In December 2020, the National Assembly referred the amendment bill to the NCOP and public consultation process ensued.
Tebogo Constance Modise, chairperson of the land reform, environment, mineral resources and energy select committee, said all the the provinces except one had held public hearings.
Modise said the interest groups had described the act of 1991 as an apartheid-era legislation that needed to be amended because it did not regard the views of the black African majority.
She also said when the committee met in April to consider negotiating mandates, seven provinces supported the bill while one did not and the other did not hold public hearings.
Modise said the select committee did not take for granted the importance of land in improving the conditions of women and the role land played in the economy.
“The select committee, having deliberated and considered the Ultra Bill, agreed on it whereas one province did not. “This province opted to remain in Egypt where women were oppressed. The bill was agreed to by the committee,” Modise said.
Western Cape delegate Cathy Labuschagne raised a point of order saying Modise’s utterances on the Western Cape being a place where women were oppressed were not something agreed to by the committee and was her personal opinion.
During the declaration of votes, Labuschagne said they did not support the bill because it could fall short of constitutional requirements due to lack of public consultation, for which it was referred back to Parliament in the first place.
She also said the amendment addressed one section of the act instead of being repealed entirely and a new bill introduced.
“This bill in the current state sustains apartheid legislation and discriminates against South Africans that stay in tribal and communal areas by preventing them from owning property like the rest of South Africa.
“This a disgrace to every province that supported the bill as it stands,” Labuschagne said.
She insisted that the bill did not provide for ordinary South African women to apply in court for appropriate remedy and only a few elite will stand up for themselves.
Mpumalanga delegate Dikeledi Gladys Mahlangu said the department had indicated that it would bring communal land tenure legislation to deal broadly with matters of tenure security.
“We support the proposed amendment that the executive must receive, adjudicate and resolve disputes related to conversion of land rights to full ownership.
“It is important to read Ultra in conjunction with other pieces of legislation.
“It is within their (Western Cape) blue blood to reject transformative legislation that addresses historical injustices,” Mahlangu said.