DALRRD & CRLR on: District Six challenges regarding housing allocation, tenure security & title deeds; Complaint against Cape Town Land Claims Office; with Deputy Minister

Meeting report

The Chairperson welcomed the officials from the Department, as well as the Land Claims Commission and everyone else present.

He expressed satisfaction that there had been progress on the District Six land claims by both the Department and the Land Claims Commission. The Committee had held an engagement with the District Six community, and the Minister had issued a statement that all District Six land claims had been completed. The claimants had been invited to confirm the statement by the Minister. There were 14 complainants in total. The Committee wanted to establish whether there were land claims that were made before 1990 which had not been processed, and those who were identified were given an opportunity to present their case to the Committee so that the land claims could be processed.

The Committee was especially happy about the progress in the District Six and Worcester land claims of the elderly and the needy. District Six was still a wound for many people, because of the traumatic impact of the forced removals that happened and the destruction of the social and spiritual spaces in the area. The report that would be presented would highlight the criteria, rationale and methodology used to develop a solution, but the implementation process always required wisdom.

The Chairperson thanked everyone involved for making progress in the delivery of this area. As long as the hearts of people were opened to those in need, then the right direction was being followed. The Committee would be receiving a presentation tabling the progress of the Worcester land claims and the Rietfontein farm dwellers report, as well as a report from the National Red Meat Development Programme, which would assist the Committee gain a better understanding of the red meat industry. Two sets of minutes would also be adopted by the Committee.

Mr Mcebisi Skwatsha, Deputy Minister of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development (DALRRD), said that the Department appreciated the path travelled in 2021, which was challenging, to provide a better space for South Africa. It would present on the issues that were previously raised by the Committee and complainants. He appreciated the work of the Committee and its collaborative efforts with the Department to sharpen the tools of creating an ideal society in South Africa.

Update on District Six allocation process

Ms Nomfundo Ntloko-Gobodo, Chief Land Claims Commissioner (CLCC), Commission on Restitution of Land Rights (CRLR), introduced the team from the Commission.

Dr Wayne Alexander, Chief Director: Restitution, DALRRD (Western Cape), provided a background on the 108 District Six Phase 3 allocation of dwellings, and the timeline on the developments that had taken place in the District on the special needs applications.

On the allocation process in District Six, he said that the offered dwellings were presented to the successful special needs applicants, and that the claimants were invited to either accept or reject the units that were being offered. 88 claimants had accepted the dwellings. Some of the challenges had to do with the dwellings, especially on the design and typology of the dwellings, as well as delays in the handing over of keys to claimants and the issuing of certificates.

On the issues raised by the Chairperson on the specific claimants, he said that Ms J Mohamed had been referred to as a new audit claim, so the claim was unable to be processed until permission was granted by Parliament. Correspondence had been shared with the claimants on the matter. He said that another category of complaints that had been received referred to repairs and maintenance which were specific to Phase 2, and that there was a condition that if there were defects within a period of time, then the Department and the contractor were supposed to look into solving the problem.

On the enquiry from Ms A Sesane, there had been regular correspondence with the complainant. On the complaints relating to burst water pipes, there had been consultations with the complainant, and the dwelling was accepted and concluded on 12t November. There were complainants who preferred a free standing dwelling instead of one that included stairs, but the issue was resolved. On the G162 complaint, the claim was lodged in 1996 and it had been settled. He provided details of the complaints and the claims that were lodged and how they had been resolved. The Tramway Road claim had been settled in 2001. The Worcester claims were new order claims, because the old order claims had not been processed.

See slides attached for further details

Rietfontein farm dwellers' land claim

Ms Zanele Sihlangu, Chief Director, DALRRD (Mpumalanga), provided a background on a land claim that had been lodged in 2015, and said that there was a need for the land tenure of the Mthombeni family as long-term occupiers and the Mahlangu family to be legally secured through disposal of Portion Six and Portion 13 of the farm Rietfontein  446 JR. on the Rietfontein farm.

See slides attached for further details

National Red Meat Development Programme

Mr Moshe Swartz, Deputy Director-General (DDG): Economic Development, Trade and Marketing, DALRRD, said the presentation was based on a meeting that was held with the Portfolio Committee in May 2021, where issues were raised on the halting of the programme, and the Department had to report back to the Committee on the status of the project. The programme had been re-activated.

On the delays in the signing of the service level agreement, he said that the new service level agreement was signed on 10 November, which included project governance and reporting on managing the project.

See slides attached for further details

Discussion

District Six issues

Ms M Tlhape (ANC) welcomed the progress report , and appreciated the efforts that had been made to address the District Six challenges. It was unfortunate that the laws and regulations of the country were a long process, especially when historical issues had to be redressed. She noted that 88 claimants had accepted the dwellings but only 20 keys had been given out, and asked where the other keys were. On the issue of processes, she highlighted that the global settlement agreement between the City of Cape Town and the Department was signed only in October 2021, but the progress reports gave an illusion that progress had been achieved a long time ago, whilst it was achieved only recently. She asked why the agreement was signed only last month, because the matter had been raised a long time ago by the Committee.

On the new order claims, the Committee would have to assist in addressing the issue with the Department so that the restrictions on the claims could be lifted by the Constitutional Court. She said that the CLCC should have a dedicated team that dealt specifically with District Six issues so that the Committee receives communication quarterly on District Six.

The Chairperson said the District Six complainants were welcome to write their questions in the chat-box so that the Committee could pose the questions on their behalf.

Ms A Steyn (DA) requested that the plan that was supposed to be developed between the Minister and the claimants, as ordered by the court, was forwarded to the Committee, because the plan had apparently been developed, and the quarterly reports should also be forwarded so that progress could be monitored. She asked who the land, where the District Six claimants were placed, belonged to, because the details that were provided were insufficient. Was any land transferred to the claimants, or would the housing developments be the only things transferred to them? The last part of the presentation had highlighted that no compensation was paid to any of the claimants, and she asked for clarity on the matter. The progress reports and plans should be submitted before the Committee met with the claimants.

Mr S Matiase (EFF) said that the District Six land claims were an important historical matter because of their location, and the nature of the land debates to give land back to the people. It was a legacy matter of the new democratic government, so it should not have taken 27 years to resolve the situation. The complaints that had been presented to the Committee showed how quickly the issues should have been resolved, and he supported the suggestion that quarterly reports should be received from the Department. In the beginning of the process to address the matters, there was an agreement with the City of Cape Town, the Committee, the District Six beneficiaries and the Development Trust as well as the Department, which said that a tripartite must be formed to figure out what the issues were so that they were addressed.

Ms N Mahlo (ANC) supported the suggestion that the Committee meet with the complainants, and that reports were received by the Committee on a quarterly basis so that it could monitor the progress.

Ms T Mbabama (DA) said that the issues that had been raised were clear, and asked about the status of the process of obtaining title deeds, because the report stated that the conveyancer was still busy with the work. She also asked when the title deeds registration documents were submitted to the Deeds office.

Mr M Montwedi (EFF) asked the Department how many claims had been settled, especially those in District Six, and asked for the timelines in finalising the outstanding claims. He also asked about the role of the Commission in selling land to the developers, because it was concerning.

Ms B Tshwete (ANC) asked about the processes and the number of claims that still needed to be finalised. Some of the claims went as far back as 1996, so there needed to be communication to the claimants on the reasons for the delays. She asked what these possible delays could be, and why title deeds were not being handed over to the claimants. The Committee needed to meet with the District Six community as soon as possible and conduct a follow-up on the challenges in the Western Cape relating to land claims.

Ms T Breedt (FF+) raised concerns on the lack of information relating to the title deeds and keys. On the land ownership issue, she asked if there would be a transfer to the claimants by the Department. The issues showed the importance of private land ownership within South Africa, where people wanted to have something to call their own. There needed to be clear processes and timelines on the finalisation of claims and other major problems that had been raised by the claimants. The Committee needed to conduct proper oversight on the matters, not just to meet with the District Six community.

Inkosi R Cebekhulu (IFP) commented that the presentation had mentioned a complaint by an elderly lady about the dilapidated structure of pipes which had affected her health, and asked who was responsible for building the structures and the steps that had been taken to ensure that the structures were suitable for residential dwelling. He asked what the difference was between a finalised claim and a settled claim.

Mr N Masipa (DA) agreed that a tripartite agreement must be formed on the matters raised. He asked the Commission how the current land tenants and land owners were being treated and the type of settlement option that would be entered into when land was being claimed. He also requested that timelines were received by the Committee on the expected time for the issues to be resolved. He noted that communication and transparency was a big issue in terms of the submissions from the land claimants, and supported the suggestion that the Commission presents its strategy to address the land claimants’ issues in District Six to the Committee There were also allegations that properties were sold, and he asked if there were any investigations into the matter.

The Chairperson read out the questions that had been posed in the meeting chat-box:

1. From Jeff Alexander: His mother was suffering from depression because she fears that she would die without ever receiving her keys. He asked why the process was taking so long and how long occupancy certificates take to be completed. Timelines were required.
2. From Assa Sallie: She asked whether Act 22 was not a guide to how allocations must be made. She said that what was presented in the report was questionable, especially regarding the latent defects, because they were brought forward by the Commissioner’s office but were ignored and handed over to the District Six Trust and the Western Cape Land Office. The compensation to claimants of Phase 1 and 2 was still outstanding. She also asked why politicians must speak on behalf of the District Six community, instead of allowing the community to speak for itself. She asked who decides how allocations happen.
3. From A Clarke: A claim (D162) was made on 10 September 1996, and there had still been no communication on the claim.

The Chairperson asked for clarity on whether the claimants, who had submitted claims in 1996 that were settled in 2000, were awaiting allocation. If not finalised, the Chairperson asked what the delays were on settling the claims that were made in 1996, when the claims would be finalised, and how the information would be communicated to the claimants, because if claimants were approaching Parliament then there were communication problems.

1. From Latif Cader: A court order on a dispute between siblings was issued in 2020 in his favour, and he asked about the status of his claim. He also asked why claimants were being forced into agreements with the Commission.
2. F. Truder asked when the next phase would begin, and if the building contractor was a reputable company with qualified artisans.
3. Timelines were required for the entire District Six area because the commission had failed land reform beneficiaries.
4. Jeff Alexander said that phone calls to the Commission were not answered, so it was a waste of time trying to call.
5. Warder Wilson said that his parents had applied in 1996 and had had to reapply because of the stamp date. The Commission and the Department had provided no assistance on the matter.
6. The issue of owners versus tenants needed to be clarified, because priority was supposed to be given to the elderly and the needy.

Rietfontein farm dwellers & National Red Meat Development Programme

Ms Tlhape said that communication seemed to be a challenge, and the DALRRD must ensure that the people that were affected by the programmes were educated on them, especially on the issue of the new orders. On the custom feedlots programme, she commended the progress that had been made on the programme, and requested that reports be submitted quarterly to the Committee.

Ms Steyn supported the suggestion that quarterly reports be submitted to the Committee, as well as the business plans on what should happen at the feedlots, as this would help the Committee’s oversight. On the Rietfontein presentation, she also agreed that communication seemed to be a problem, especially on the progress of land claims. A land claims database must be made available at a national level so that the processes could be monitored.

Mr Montwedi said no work was being done at some of the feedlots. He asked about the activities that took place at the feedlots, because local farmers should be able to support the custom feedlot by taking their cows to the feedlots for no more than 120 days. He asked if the Department buys the cows from the farmers and sells them directly to the market, because some farmers paid R800 for their cows to be kept at the feedlots. Farmers were complaining that there was no value for money, because the cows come back skinnier. He asked how these feedlots positively impacted farmers.

Ms Mahlo said that it was important to have timelines when implementing projects, and to follow the right procedures. Fear could not be brought to the Committee when presentations were made. She emphasised the need for communities to be educated on the matters being raised. On the feedlots, she said that in KwaZulu-Natal there was a feedlot which was not operational, and a lot of money was spent on it. The feedlots could ensure that the economy was positively impacted through the auctions where cattle were sold by the farmers who use the feedlots.

Ms Mbabama said that the Committee needed to be engaged with the processes on the ground, especially with the complexities that had been highlighted in the Rietfontein farm dwellers' project. She told the NRMDP that the Committee would be vigorous when conducting oversight on the feedlots.

Ms Breedt agreed that a national land claims database was required, because there was a proven need to track claims. She expressed concern that the feedlots have no impact, and asked how the Department monitored feedlots to ensure that what was being reported by the Department was a true reflection of what was happening on the ground. She asked how the seven months' transitional period to the National Agricultural Marketing Council (NAMC) would work, and the role of the NAMC with the Department to ensure that services were delivered on the ground.

Inkosi Cebekhulu said that the issue of the feedlots was concerning, because the Department had a dream of assisting communal livestock owners in dealing with the issue of starving cattle in rural areas, but there had been no impact.

Mr Masipa said that he was a supporter of feedlots, but the presentation revealed that cattle were dying and people were losing their jobs. Responses on how many cattle died from the feedlots and how many people had lost their jobs, had not been received. He raised concerns on the programme. The NAMC had been found to have irregular expenditure, and he asked whether the NAMC had the capacity to ensure that there was no irregular expenditure in future, that processes were up to standard and that the supply chain was secured so that there was compliance with the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA). On the challenges of the custom feedlot programme, he asked about the progress made since the feedlot custom was presented to the Committee, because it was not clear what was happening on the ground. He agreed that the feedlot programme was not what had been expected by the Committee, and the feedback was not positive.

The Chairperson said that the relevant information that had been expected by the Committee was not included on the Rietfontein matter, and the commitments made by Ms Sihlangu for an action process had to be implemented, because it was unacceptable for an official of the Department to refuse to try and meet deadlines to assist complainants.

He asked about the number of feedlots that were currently in place to date, and the support provided by the Department, because there was not much activity happening at the feedlots. There was a need for financial assistance to the feedlots programme, and a budget of R306 million had been established for it. He asked where the funds would be used -- either on existing feedlots or at new feedlots to be established -- and wanted to know the number of existing feedlots in place and those that would be supported. The number of feedlots in a province was requested, and the number of cattle that could be fed by a feedlot.

On the 120 days for cattle to be bred, he said that in the past the Department had made a presentation on a 60-90 day programme, and asked whether the target was being met. The issue of cattle leaving the feedlots skinnier than when they arrived had to be addressed, and a turn-around strategy was needed.   

Responses

Commission on Restitution of Land Rights

Ms Ntloko-Gobodo said that the presentation had focused on Phase 3 of the District Six development, which did not include most of the issues that had been raised by the Members. She agreed that a regular update to the Committee would assist all the stakeholders, as well as dedicated time for the District Six issues.

She explained that the difference between a settled and a finalised claim was that a settled claim meant that the claim had been approved by the Land Claims Court as valid, and a finalised claim meant that any compensation or transfers that needed to be done had been done. Various claims were settled but not finalised in 2002. A number of claimants had requested financial compensation, and they had been compensated. The claims that were still ongoing were those of claimants who opted for land restoration.

She said that when the claims were settled in 2002, the District Six beneficiaries had decided to develop District Six as a community, which had resulted in the District Six Trust being used. The Trust was meant to develop the land collectively and not individually. After Phase 1 and 2 of District Six was developed in 2012, the Department decided to assist in its redevelopment, so instead of using external developers, the Department had taken over the initiative itself. She said that extensive consultations were held with the communities for two years on the development plans, and the typology of the residential dwellings were agreed on to include stairs. Regular meetings were held at the town hall to discuss arising matters with the District Six community, so there were active communication channels, although some of the communication may not have directly reached the community.

She emphasised that the Commission wants to see the matter of District Six resolved. Plans had been submitted to the courts on a quarterly basis, and the courts were monitoring the development. On the development of Phase 3, she highlighted that the commission was ready to start with Phase 4, which would have more than 400 units. She said that it was important for the role of the Commission and the Department to be separate, because the role of the Commission was to settle the claims and ensure that dwellings were allocated when they became available, not to build dwellings or even issue certificates. The Commission was therefore unable to hand over any keys, because it would be illegal without certificates and the outstanding issues not being resolved.

She said there was no land sold in District Six, but it was a reference to the land issue in the Tramway area, where the land that was transferred to beneficiaries had later been sold.

The issue of latent defects that had been identified should not be a problem, because the Commission and the developers could resolve the issues, but the maintenance of the dwelling was the responsibility of the owner. It would be beneficial for the Commission to be part of the Committee’s meetings with the claimants so that there was alignment in addressing the issues. She explained that the new order claims could not be accessed because of the Land Access Movement of South Africa (LAMOSA) interdict, and all the claims had different rights between the owner and the tenant. The information on the outstanding claims would be provided in writing, and on the old order claims in District Six.

The Chairperson said that the Minister had made an announcement that all the District Six land claims that were made before 1998 had been settled. The Committee had undertaken the task to verify this information to ensure that no claimants had been excluded, so there was comfort in knowing that the Commission and the Department would forward information on the pre-1998 claims that still needed to be processed. The issue of the units needed to be addressed by both the Commission and the Department. The responsibility of the Committee was to ensure that all pre-1998 claims had been settled. He asked the District Six claimants and interested parties to be patient with the Committee during this process, and said the Committee would try to channel the issues to their respective offices.   

Dr Alexander said that the issues that had been raised had been noted, and a report would be forwarded to the Committee. On the issue of settled and finalised claims in the Western Cape, he said that there were 377 outstanding claims which were not District Six claims. 2 760 old order claims had been received before 1998, and 110 were non-compliant with the mandatory processes. Regarding financial compensation, 1 449 claimants had requested financial compensation, while 1 202 had requested to be on the redevelopment list, which related to the dwellings. 247 dwellings had been completed and 957 claimants were still awaiting dwellings. The keys that were received were the ones that could be used for shell houses, and only 20 had been received. The communication strategy would be looked into. The comments and concerns of the claimants were appreciated and would be looked into. The reports would be tabled to ensure that the matters were monitored. He said that specific issues raised by the Committee would be responded to in writing and submitted to the Committee.

Mr Benjamin Mars, Chief Restitution Advisor, Land Claims Commission (Western Cape), referred to the global settlement agreement, and said that the agreement was required by the Chief Registrar of Deeds, and a forwarded communication circular stated that the Commission could not transfer from the holding entity to the claimants. He explained that the City of Cape Town was the land owner in District Six, so a transfer could not be recorded as going from the City to the claimants, but as restitution, so the first transfer goes from the City to the Department as a donor entity, and then to the claimant. Another global settlement agreement would be needed for Phase 3, and was already being drafted.

On the quarterly reports, he said that the CLCC was already reporting to the Land Claims Commission under a judicial overview, and 952 houses still had to be constructed. On the latent defects, he said that there was a five-year builder’s liability cover that took effect after the completion of a project ,so if there was no action taken during the five years, then the builder could not be approached. For Phases 1 and 2, claimants were represented by the District Six Redevelopment Trust, so challenges were directed to the Trust and the builder at the time.

He proposed that the legislation include that if a dwelling was allocated and was subject to a Sectional Titles Scheme, then the claimant must register a body corporate so that there was representation to oversee any challenges. The proposal was also presented to the claimants in Phase 1 and 2, who were complaining about common areas not being maintained. He said that a Home Owners Association, which was voluntary, was another entity that could be considered, and the Commission was willing to assist on the matter.

The Chairperson asked the Commission and the Department to note the questions that had been asked, and to respond to them in writing. The responses should be submitted no later than 10 December, so that the complainants were adequately responded to, especially the 14 complainants who had approached the Committee directly. The Chairperson assured the District Six community that the Committee would engage with the community on the matters, and that they would be included in the Committee’s first term programme for 2022.

Ms Steyn said that it was important for the issue of land ownership to be understood -- who the land belonged to, as well as how transfers would take place. The responses on the land issues and processes had been disappointing.

The Chairperson clarified that the land belonged to the people of District Six, and that the Committee had the responsibility to ensure that the land was returned to its rightful owners. The Committee would leave no stone unturned so those full rights to the land were given back to the people of District Six. 

Rietfontein Farm Dwellers and National Red Meat Development Programme

Ms Sihlangu said that the Department was in contact with the complainants of the Rietfontein farm dwelling, and this contact would be maintained, as well as with other complainants, despite the capacity challenges in the district. On the action plans, she agreed that not much information that was expected by the Committee had been given, because there was no action, and the Department would work on a clear action plan. It would be beneficial if the Committee conducted oversight in the Rietfontein area so that the matters came directly from the complainants. There were complexities regarding land rights on the properties. She said that there were no clear timelines from the Commission on when the claims would be resolved and the settlement offers that would be given to the claimants. A R1 lease would be signed with the complainants for the portions of land that they occupy, and there would be efforts to issue title deeds to the occupied land. She committed that realistic action plans would be presented to the Committee in due time.

Mr Swartz said that the responses on the issues raised by the Committee were focused on the functionality and the current state of feedlots. He confirmed that in the last year, there had been no activity at the feedlots because all of the 222 workers that were employed had been laid off because the programme had been halted. From 1 December there would be work done and the programme would be resumed, including 191 workers who would be redeployed to the feedlots.

He said that in some provinces, farmers would take the initiative to purchase their own cattle feed, and the Department had been ensuring that there was governance at every feedlot.

He gave the number of feedlots per province: Eastern Cape (18), KwaZulu-Natal (21), North West (4) and Northern Cape (2).

On the funding allocation, he said that a bigger chain of organisations, not just the NAMC, would be involved, such as the Agricultural Research Council (ARC) and Onderstepoort Biological Products (OBP), so that the programme could be expanded beyond the Eastern Cape, KwaZulu-Natal, North West and the Northern Cape, to other provinces. He said that during the few years that the programme was halted, no less than R48 million had been raised to sell the cattle after 90-120 days because of the weight differences of the cattle. Feeding would take up to six months, because feeding capacity differed from one cow to another. He said that there would be a national rollout of the programme, because it spoke to the assets that were provided by the heavens to rural communities, which was why farmers had contested the halting of the programme. A master plan had already been developed, and it would be shared with the Committee to solidify the work of the Department on the programme.

Dr Simphiwe Ngqangweni, CEO: NAMC, said the details on the seven-month transition period had been included in a comprehensive business plan that was shared with the Committee, but it could be resent.

On how impact was measured, he said that some of the impacts within the programme had been affected by the halting of the programme, but quarterly reports were produced and shared with the Department. The ARC would also be expected to produce regular reports for submission to the Department. Previous reports could be shared with the Committee on the visible impact that had been made on the livelihoods of communal farmers.

Details of the capacity of the NAMC, given the irregular expenditure and supply chain processes, had been included in the annual report that was presented to the Committee, where there was mention of an audit finding matrix that was used to track progress and to ensure that there were no repeat findings in terms of the supply chain. A separate report was also presented on the findings and action plans relating to the NRMDP.

Ms Khumbuzile Mosoma, Senior Manager: Agribusiness Development, NAMC, said what would be implemented during the seven-months transition period would be the recruitment of the NRMDP personnel, who would start working on 1 December, and the conducting of an onsite assessment throughout the three provinces to take stock of what was on the ground so that activities could be developed to revive the programme. The assessments would be conducted by the NAMC, the ARC and the DALRRD to ensure collaboration in finalising the business plan that would be implemented.

A stakeholder engagement would be held to engage with the farmers, the farmers' associations and the local programme stakeholders on the issues of resuming the NRMDP, and to reassure farmers of the impact of the programme. The NAMC also wanted to finalise the construction of the custom feeding lots programme through the supply chain processes, and align them with the relevant legislation, where informal and formal market access would be facilitated and where feed and veterinary remedies were procured to ensure that the cattle were fed and kept healthy during the seven months.

The Chairperson thanked the Department representatives for the responses, and requested that the minutes of the Committee be adopted. The Chairperson noted the submissions made in the chat-box, and said that the Committee’s last meeting would be on 7 December.

The Department officials, CLCC representatives and various land claims office officials were thanked for their attendance, as well as the claimants who were part of the meeting. The Chairperson said he appreciated the R308 million funding for the revival of the NRMDP to assist rural communities.  

Committee minutes

The minutes of the Committee's meetings on 16 and 23 November 2021 were adopted.

The meeting was adjourned.