Land claims dialogue under way, act being processed by Parliament

THE “second round” of the land claims process, halted by the Constitutional Court last year, could reopen as early as June.

The Restitution of Land Rights Amendment Act of 2014, which gave thousands of land claimants who missed the cut off-date of 1998 a chance to launch their claims, but was then suspended, is being processed by Parliament.

The act will go through normal processes, including public consultation. Nomfundo Ntloko-Gobodo, the Chief Land Claims Commissioner, told delegates at a “dialogue of sugar cane, forestry and conservation land claims” in Durban yesterday that the process was under way.

The Mercury has previously reported that the Constitutional Court ruled in a unanimous judgment last year that the Restitution of Land Rights Amendment Act of 2014 was invalid because of the lack of adequate public consultation.

The Concourt case had been brought by the Land Access Movement of South Africa, the KZN-based Association for Rural Advancement and other land rights and communal property associations.

The organisations said that beyond the public consultation problems, other issues with the amendment act included that it had no provision to protect existing claims from being usurped by new claimants, and that the commission lacked the capacity to deal with the volume of claims.

Attempts to speak to land rights organisations yesterday were unsuccessful.

“The act was tabled back in Parliament about two weeks ago, not by the department but by a member (of Parliament, of the agriculture, forestry and fisheries portfolio committee) under the private member’s bill. It should be ready by June next year,” she said.

She told the delegates that more than 163 000 claims had already being lodged when the process was stopped by the courts. Nearly 40 000 were filed in KwaZulu-Natal.

Ntloko-Gobodo said the act was important in addressing the wrongs of the past.

“Restitution is about giving people their dignity back,” she said. She added that the process was still littered with challenges, including the slow pace of land reform.

Another challenge was that many of the beneficiaries had limited or no skills, and that often led to infighting with the most vulnerable of the community members not benefiting.