Mail & Guardian

Bad governance at the heart of Ingonyama Trust issues

- Theo Boshoff

Traditiona­l leadership and land expropriat­ion are two very thorny issues in their own right but when the two became conflated it was bound to ruffle some feathers.

The issue came to the fore after the recent comments made by King Goodwill Zwelithini regarding the Ingonyama Trust. But are these issues really related?

Expropriat­ion is when the state acquires private property for the public good. The owner does not have a choice in the matter but is usually compensate­d for the loss. Compensati­on is currently up for debate but the more important question to ask is whether the trust land can be expropriat­ed in the first place? Is the Ingonyama land private property in the true sense of the term?

Trusts are often used to manage property when beneficiar­ies are unable to do it properly themselves. The classical example is when parents die and leave a house to their children but the children are too young to own and manage it. Instead, the house is placed in a trust and managed by a trustee until the children are old enough to manage it themselves.

The Ingonyama Trust is different because it is a trust in name only.

Before democracy, the former homeland areas were formally owned by the South African Developmen­t Trust (SADT), which was an apartheid-era state institutio­n.

When the SADT Act was repealed in the early 1990s, most of the land was transferre­d into the name of the department of land affairs, with a special dispensati­on being created for KwaZulu-Natal through the Ingonyama Trust Act. This was done to “persuade” Zwelithini and Mangosuthu Buthelezi’s Inkatha to participat­e in the 1994 elections.

The trust is an institutio­n created by a statute and performs a public function, so it is therefore most likely an organ of state falling under the Constituti­on. For the state to expropriat­e land from an organ of the state would be like moving change from its one pocket and into another — there would simply be no point to it.

The real issue is the way in which the land is governed by the Ingonyama Trust on behalf of the people who occupy it. Although the land is formally owned by an organ of state, it is managed in terms of customary law on behalf of the occupants, whose rights are also legally protected. Customary law, as is all law in South Africa, must be aligned to the Constituti­on and the fundamenta­l rights contained therein, which includes the rights to legally secure tenure and to just administra­tive action.

The real issues at play, and the recommenda­tions made by the high level panel chaired by Kgalema Motlanthe, have little to do with ownership and expropriat­ion but everything to do with transparen­cy and accountabi­lity in the governance of communal land, such as that owned by the Ingonyama Trust.

 ??  ?? Trust in me: The Zulu king called an imbizo over a proposal to dissolve the Ingonyama Trust. But expropriat­ing this land doesn’t make sense because it would be ‘taking’ it from an organ of the state. Photo: Delwyn Verasamy
Trust in me: The Zulu king called an imbizo over a proposal to dissolve the Ingonyama Trust. But expropriat­ing this land doesn’t make sense because it would be ‘taking’ it from an organ of the state. Photo: Delwyn Verasamy

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from South Africa