Council tries to sell restitution land to Distell
● Prime land in the Cape winelands which was earmarked for the landless poor is being sold to global beverage giant Distell despite a Land Claims Commission objection.
The DA-controlled Drakenstein municipality, which runs Paarl and Wellington, this week confirmed the proposed sale of 192ha flanking the N1 in Klapmuts, outside Cape Town. It had previously resolved to use the land to assist victims of apartheid forced removals from Sakkieskamp, near Wellington.
Most surviving claimants live in poverty and some have died since the claim was lodged 22 years ago. The municipality stands to receive R9.2-million from the land sale.
Distell, part-owned by billionaire Johann Rupert’s Remgro Group, has conducted an environmental impact assessment for a production, bottling and warehousing facility, as well as a mixed-used and commercial development precinct.
Jeremy Rose, Distell’s environmental consultant, this week confirmed the assessment was due to be submitted to the Western Cape department of environmental affairs and development planning this week.
Pastor Patrick Kohli, chairman of the claimant community, said the proposed sale was a betrayal.
“We are not interested in land deals — that is our land,” he told the Sunday Times. “It is restitution land for the community.”
Documents seen by the Sunday Times suggest the land has in effect been usurped by the municipality, despite commitments to make it available to the community. The council formally rescinded all such pledges last year, claiming the land was too valuable.
Minutes of a mayoral committee meeting in April last year record a recommendation to classify the Klapmuts site as “a high integrated development plan priority with regards to economic development and the provision of bulk infrastructure”.
It also recommended that “all previous council decisions regarding the availability of farm 736 Klapmuts for land claims purposes be rescinded”. The recommendations were approved.
However, in November the regional Land Claims Commission objected to the sale and questioned the council’s actions.
“It should be noted that the commission is strongly objecting to the sale,” said acting chief director Rikus Janse van Rensburg in a letter to the council. “The municipality does have an obligation to provide alternative land to the claimants as the expectation was created from 2003 that farm 736 Klapmuts will be released for the settlement of the Sakkieskamp claim.”
Seraj Johaar, executive director of corporate services at Drakenstein, said: “The municipality engaged with the commission over a period of time to inform them about the future of erf 736 in view of recent land studies. The municipality duly responded to the letter referred to and informed the commission of the reasons why the land has been sold.”
Other documents detail lengthy negotiations between claimants and the council to find alternative land. The municipality claims the original Sakkieskamp site is too close to a rubbish dump and industrial units.
Johaar said that although it was not the municipality’s role to provide land for restitution, “where we can assist, we will”.
He added: “The municipality identified alternative land that already belongs to the state situated in the Simondium area. We suggested that the commission investigate the procurement of one of these portions as alternative land for the claimants since this land is far better located than any other possible alternative municipal land.”
The matter is further complicated by cash payments made to most claimants in lieu of land restitution. Kohli said many felt they had no choice but to accept around R25 000, fearing the claim would never be realised.
Keith Roman, spokesman for the Sakkieskamp claimants, said it seemed that the commission was encouraging cash payments to avoid transferring land. “They should be called the Cash Payout Commission, not the Land Claims Commission,” he said. “The question is whether these claims are being intentionally undermined.”
Distell spokesman Dennis Matsane said the company was unaware of the land claim. “Throughout our engagements with the Drakenstein municipality, we were not aware of any claim pending on Erf 736. It was on this premise that Distell proceeded with the transaction,” he said.
“Any decision that Distell takes on the way forward will be informed by the outcome of engagements between the involved parties. We are optimistic that there will be an amicable resolution to this issue.”
The Land Claims Commission did not respond to Sunday Times queries this week.