Deputy Speaker, the watershed Natives Land Act was promulgated on 19 June 1913 and, on its centenary, the IFP goes down memory lane to take stock of its devastating effects in an effort to map out the way forward.
While we acknowledge the unspeakable effects of this Act on our sisters and brothers who lost all private title to their landownership in the urban and peri-urban areas, in this presentation the IFP would like to focus on communal land that was wrested from our traditional leaders, particularly African kings and amakhosi, who held these lands in trust for their clans. This countrywide dispossession happened long before 1913 and continued thereafter. It must also be put on record that the pre-1913 land dispossession was characterised by a lot of stress, violence and bloodletting. It is for this reason that the IFP fully welcomes pronouncements by the government that in the second window of opportunity that is about to open, pre-1913 claims of land restitution will also be considered. Indeed, it was the claims of communal land that received less consideration in the first period, which ended on 31 December 1998.
Whilst the IFP is appreciative of the second opportunity to claim restitution of the land of our forefathers, it hopes that this process will not be marred by frustration and procrastination that characterised the previous process. The manner in which government officials in the land claims office handled many applications left a lot to be desired. To avoid the challenges that we had before, the IFP, whilst appreciative of the opportunity, would like to point out that when appointing the officials in the Land Claims Office, there was simply no consideration of permanency or continuity. In many instances, when claimants visited the offices to do follow-ups on their claims, they met with new faces, which required them to repeat their stories since the new incumbents knew very little or nothing about what happened before he or she assumed office. Very often the files could not be traced, and this led to very slow progress, with the result that even today some of the applications lodged before 1998 have not been finalised. This literally killed enthusiasm in the process.
Related to this statement is the government procedure which dictates that when the land that was claimed by people under amakhosi is restored, the communities to whom it is restored to are required to form communal land associations or trusts to administer such land. The IFP views this in a very serious light, since it can lead to endless conflicts. This simply means that an administrative structure is imposed on a traditional authority to undermine such traditional authority.
In KwaZulu-Natal, for instance, the IFP proposed that such land should be restored to the Ingonyama Trust, which holds all amakhosi land in trust for communal communities. This is a kind of divide and rule policy which should never be allowed in the new South Africa if the government is serious about upholding the institution of traditional law and administration which is entrenched in our Constitution. Thank you. [Time expired.]