COMMISSION ON RESTITUTION OF LAND RIGHTS

1. COMMISSION ON RESTITUTION OF LAND RIGHTS UPDATE : PETITION MATTERS to the Portfolio Committee on Rural Development and Land Reform 10th NOVEMBER 2010, CAPE TOWN Under the Rule of Law, The Orderly Way, The Peaceful Way, The Patriotic Way, The Sustainable Way, The South African Way.

2. BACKGROUND A group of members of the public lodged a petition dealing with complains on delays in settlement of claims by the Western Cape Regional Land Claims Commission. The complainants represents bodies such as CONFALSA and IRASA and ordinary citizens from areas such as Constantia, Stellenbosch, Kirstenbosch, Claremont/Newlands, Klawer, Goodwood/Kensington/ Windermere and Hout Bay. After perusing the petition, the Commission found that: No claims were lodged by CONFALSA and IRASA: therefore they are considered as Non-Claimants. 2

3. BACKGROUND (CONT.) Signatories to the petition: only five (5) reference numbers were submitted: therefore only five (5) specific reports can be issued, certain claims were found to be Non-compliant. The D6 Action Committee does not represent any claimants, there is a Task Team of which the Commission forms part of. Raapkraal: this claim was found to be non-compliant, therefore a Non-Compliant claim. The following responses to challenges listed in the petition are: 3

4. CHALLENGES RAISED IN THE PETITION 1. NUMEROUS CLAIMANTS HAVE SINCE PERISHED IN THE HOPE OF BEING RESTORED TO THEIR LAND / NUMEROUS UNRESOLVED CLAIM APPLICATION EXISTS In the White Paper on South African Land Reform it was envisaged that the restitution programme would be finalised within five years of the enactment of the Restitution of Land Rights Act, 1994 (Act No. 22 of 1994) (Restitution Act). The delays in the finalisation process have been caused by numerous factors such as A lack of supporting documentation or information to support land claims Community or family disputes relating to entitlement to restitution or proceeds of restitution Unavailability of land to provide land restoration, especially in the Western Cape; Validity and challenges of land claims by current landowners; insufficient resources (human and financial); etc. A number of claims is still in the process of being resolved/settled. 2. CLAIM APPLICATION FORMS WERE LOST / METHOD TO DEAL WITH CLAIMANTS WHO HAVE NO RECORD OF CLAIM REF NUMBERS AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS Land claims were lodged using a prescribed form, which were handed into any Government institution. The Commission is indeed aware of allegations that claim forms were lost or misplaced. Claimants who provide proof of lodgement of the claims will processed. Where the claimant does not have proof of lodgment of the claim, and the Commission does not have record of receiving the claim by no later than 31 December 1998, the Restitution Act does not allow the Commission to process such “claims”. 4

5. CHALLENGES RAISED IN THE PETITION 3. DEVELOPMENTS HAVE OCCURRED ON RESTITUTION LAND Section 11(7)(aA) of the Restitution Act prohibits the disposal, lease, subdivision, rezoning or development of land under claim. Landowners wishing to develop such land can apply to the Commission to do so- after claim was published in the Government Gazette. The Commission may allow for development, if the land is not required as the settlement option, where claimants opt for financial compensation. The court can be approached by the Commission for an interdict if the Restitution Act is ignored. Should development continue it would amount to a criminal offence. 4. CLAIMANTS HAVE BEEN LIED TO AND THREATENED BY OFFICIALS / INEFFECTIVE AND IRRESPONSIBLE APPROACHES TOWARDS The DRDLR strives to ensure that every employee complies with Batho Pele principles and does not condone the actions of any employee who does not act in accordance therewith. Where such behavior takes place, any member of the civil society, including claimants, are encouraged and requested to report such incidences in order for the Department to conduct and investigation and deal with the matter appropriately depending on the outcome of such investigation. 5

6. CHALLENGES RAISED IN THE PETITION ALLEGED CORRUPTION BETWEEN OFFICIALS AND DEVELOPERS The DRDLR has a zero tolerance for corruption.   Incidents of corruption and/or other illegal activities can be reported to the anti-corruption hotline at 0800 701 701, alternatively to the South African Police Service or other relevant authorities. 6. DELIBERATE SETTLEMENT DELAYS The Restitution Act stipulates the process that must be followed in the settlement of land claims.   There are, however, challenges that hamper the speedy processing of claims. Strategies to settle the outstanding land claims are being reviewed. OFFICIALS HAVE ABUSED THEIR ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITY / DELIBERATE MISINFORMATION TO CONFUSE AND FRUSTRATE CLAIMANTS Where officials have abused their responsibilities or powers, those aware of such abuse are encouraged to inform Senior Management or the Ministry, alternatively approach the offices of the Public Protector. Decisions or action by functionaries of the Restitution Act constitute administrative action and therefore can, in terms of section 36 of the Restitution Act and the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, be reviewed by the Land Claims Court should any party be aggrieved by them. 6

7. SELECTIVE AND SUBJECTIVE ADMINSITRATIVE APPLICATIONS Specific details are required to investigate this allegation. However, the office has systems, policies and procedures to adhere to. The Restitution Act, which is followed by the office, also has Rules regarding procedure of the Commission (GN no R1961 of 29 November 1996 and GN no R706 of 03 August 2001.) NUMEROUS CLAIMANTS HAVE EXHAUSTED THE OVERBEARING BUREACRATIC PROCESS Specific details are required to investigate this allegation. CLAIMANTS HAVE BEEN FORCED TO UTILIZE LEGAL REPRESENTATION AND IN SO DOING EXHAUST THEIR FINANCIAL RESOURCES The Commission assist claimants with legal advice, as the office has a legal unit with experienced and qualified legal officers. Section 29.4. of the Restitution Act allows the Commission to pay for legal costs incurred by valid claimants. However, claimants have the right to consult legal experts on their own account. The office has never forced any claimant to do so. 7 CHALLENGES RAISED IN THE PETITION

8. CHALLENGES RAISED IN THE PETITION FEEDBACK ON THE SETTLEMENT OPTIONS OF THE LAMBERTS BAY COMMUNITY CLAIM LAMBERTS BAY This claim is settled. 2,4 hectares land was granted by the Municipality. The claimants are currently in a process of requesting a change in their option to financial compensation. SARON MISSION STATION Mr Frans approached the court without claimants support. The claim is not valid. Mr Frans to provide further evidence to validate the claim. POLICY FRAMEWORK ON RESTITUTION MODELS A Standard Settlement Offer policy wad developed to determine settlement amounts to claimant opting for financial compensation. This policy is reviewed annually to be in-line with the relevant housing subsidy and CPI. 8

9. DETAILS OF WHEN, WHO AND HOW THE CLAIMS OF THE PETITION WILL BE SETTLED Ms Ester Sozawe – S1846: Settlement in March 2011 – Financial compensation Ms Ally and Buffkins – A124 & A822; Hout Bay - Settlement pending release of land – Development/Land Ms Annie Schoeman – M1100: Lamberts Bay Community Claim: Settled – Development, pending claimant option change Ms Veronica Nxukuma and Ms Hazel Koaho- N31- Settled – Development, implementation pending finalisation of Business Plan. NON COMPLIANT CLAIMS/ REJECTED CLAIMS: Mr Nigel Daniels - J707 – Claim rejected. Mr Nigel Daniels – J767: Claim rejected. Mr Peter Jafta - J775: Claim rejected. 9 CHALLENGES RAISED IN THE PETITION

10. WAY FORWARD The Commission will follow-up on all claims outstanding contained in petition. Claims lodged and found to be valid will be processed accordingly. The Commission will request those people who allege that they lodged claims to come forward in order to submit proof of lodgment. On all the allegations relating to misconduct or unprofessional behavior by officials, we request detail information to take the necessary discipline actions and investigate 10

11. 11