Farmland ‘deals’ cause ire
Some villagers living in the Kwelerha area feel SA’s land redistribution process is being betrayed by “elements” within villages seeking to purchase land from commercial farmers.
Earlier in February, the Daily Dispatch reported that some residents of Tuba village had approached landowners to purchase 30m x 30m plots of land for R6,000.
According to villagers and farmers in the negotiations, if successful, the transaction could create a template for an amicable resolution to the land question.
Tuba village is one of four Kwelerha villages on Farm 265.
The other three villages are Gwaba/Mtyana, Jongilanga/Nokhala and Zozo.
Farmer Kevin Knock has been in discussions with individuals from Tuba village who approached him about the offer to purchase plots.
However, Sipho Katana, a community member, is opposed to the move, saying he is also a landowner and land beneficiary in Jongilanga village.
Katana has urged these communities and ward councillor Thobile Mtya to understand that they have the right to ancestral land, and need not embark on processes to buy land from Knock.
“Negotiations, even if successful, could not create a template and an amicable resolution to the land question in the country,” he said.
He claimed some community leaders, particularly traditional some Joe Mati ANC branch members, as well as Knock and others, were sending “mixed messages” to communities.
He said the department of rural development and land reform had consistently implored land beneficiaries to form a national land NGO forum, communal property associations and trusts to engage with government on land redistribution.
“By now, each village is supposed to have a committee constituted with a bank account.
“The affairs need to be overseen by a traditional leader, a communal property association or trust, and the ward councillor, who must all work together in that community,” Katana said.
“But [ward concillor] Thobile Mtya is the only legitimate person there. The other two [committee and CPA] have not happened.”
Katana said at a meeting of the Jongilanga village committee in 2018, he had raised the issue of establishing a communal property association for the villages, with the Sanco Jongilanga village committee assuring him a “general meeting” would be held to discuss the proposal.
This was in the presence of the councillor’s “right-hand man”, he said. However, this meeting never materialised. He said paid-for transactions between villagers and farmers was not the right model.
“The department of rural development and ward land reform, the department of rural development and agrarian reform, Cogta and the department of agriculture, forestry and fisheries including relevant stakeholders concerned with restitution to the dispossessed masses of our country, equitable land reform and land redistribution in South Africa, are busy with the amendment of Section 25 of the constitution, that is, expropriation of land with and without compensation,” he said.
Supporting the transaction with farmers is Nobesutu Pontshi, who previously identified herself as the secretary of Tuba village.
However, Tuba village chairperson Bulelani Mgayi said Pontshi had been recalled as secretary. He claimed she was now working with the ward councillor to set up new housing opportunities without a mandate.
Mgayi also accused Mtya of not engaging with villagers, and only came when he was sent by the ANC during land protests.
Pontsi insisted she was the secretary of the Empolweni section of “Tuba location”. She said she did not want to “talk about Bulelani”, and only wanted to deal with Knock.
Knock said villagers had approached him to buy land precisely because they were frustrated with the land reform process not being rolled out.
“There is an underlying need of the community to build houses on this land, that’s why they have been approaching farmers.
“But you can’t just cut plots on agricultural land. It has to be rezoned, so land affairs should be finding solutions,” Knock said.
Rural development spokesperson Phuti Mabelebele acknowledged receipt of the Dispatch’s queries which were “being processed for a response” by the department, he said.