A few white farmers in North West province want a big chunk of the land compensation budget — for farms which were dirt-cheap in the first place, reports Hazel Friedman
FIFTEEN white farmers in North West province are threatening to hijack the government’s land reform programme unless they are awarded millions of rands in compensation for their farms.
And the Batloung people — rightful owners of the land who were forcefully removed in 1977 — have threatened to invade the land in protest against the government’s “bureaucratic delays”.
At the core of the conflict — a test case for the future of the government’s land policy — is a controversial section in the Department of Land Affairs’ Green Paper on land reform. It concerns the calculation of “just and equitable” compensation for land restored to its rightful owners, and a clause in the Restitution of Land Rights Act of 1994.
The 15 farmers, who bought the land in 1981 at well below market-related prices, have refused to move unless they are compensated at market value, estimated at R22-million — a substantial portion of the restitution budget for the entire country, which presently stands at R89-million.
The farmers are demanding between R700 and R1000 per hectare for their farms, even though they paid less than R250 per hectare when they purchased the land in 1981. The Green Paper has proposed that compensation should be below market value for land acquired cheaply under apartheid.
The Batloung — deprived of their ancestral land for 19 years — simply want to go home. The ongoing delay has increased their distrust of the Land Claims Commission (established by the Department of Land Affairs to investigate and process land claims).
Says Peter Ntshoe, chairman of of the Transvaal Land Restoration Committee, and a member of the dispossessed community: “The commission is widely perceived as part of the Department of Land Affairs, which, as the Department of Native Affairs during apartheid, was responsible for robbing blacks of their land.”
He adds: “The Batloung are a farming community. We made a good living off the land, yet we were deprived of our livelihood and ditched into a place without schools, shops or even arable land. Now, we are prepared to take whatever action is necessary to reclaim our land.”
In 1992, the 1000-strong community lodged a restitution claim with the former Commission on Land Allocation. Yet the council could not deal with the claim as it was only concerned with state land claims and the Batloung claim was referred to the former Department of Regional Land Affairs.
In April 1994 the previous government agreed to return the land to the Batloung. In July 1995, the farmers claim, Land Affairs Minister Derek Hanekom undertook to buy their land — – but in November of that year they were told this would not happen.
In December 1995 the Batloung claim was passed onto the Land Claims Commission to re- investigate the claim and make recommendations to the Land Claims Court, which is due to start operating in April this year.
In the same month, the farmers sought an urgent interdict against Hanekom, Public Works Minister Jeff Radebe and the Land Board chairman, claiming they had employed “delaying tactics” in buying the farms. Although the Pretoria Supreme Court dismissed the application with costs, the farmers have refused to move until they are given what they describe as a “fair deal”.
Hannes de Villiers, spokesman for the 15 farmers said: “We did not kick the Batloung off their land. We bought the farms when there was nothing but veld and poor soil. We have worked to make the land productive and deserve to get out as much as we put into it.”
Yet when the farmers bought the land in 1981, they paid a maximum of R220 per hectare for dry land and R84 per hectare for grazing areas. According to court papers in this case, the market price at the time for dry land was R700 per hectare and R200 per hectare for grazing. In addition, farmers received substantial government loans and subsidies over 20 years, with interest at a mere 5%, compared to the then interest rate of 10, 5%.
Despite the generous aid, however, many of the farms remain heavily in debt and operate at a loss. Durkje Gilfillan, a lawyer at the Legal Resources Centre who is representing the Batloung, says: “The farmers had a chance to make a go of their farms, but many failed, more as a result of bad management than drought, and they should not deprive the owners of their rights. If they receive the market price for the farms they will benefit twice from the previous government’s policies of forced removals.”
The Department of Land Affairs’s Glen Thomas says: “There is no doubt the Batloung must be returned to their land, but the Land Claims Commission still needs time to complete its investigations and recommendatons before the matter can be taken to the Land Claims Court.”
Run by a small staff of five on a tiny budget, the Land Claims Commission is only able to process about one claim per week.
“Yet already the number of land claims being lodged with the commission is in excess of 3 000. Obviously this calls their future efficacy into question,” says Norman Abrahams, a lawyer with the Legal Resources Centre in Johannesburg.
And there might be more at stake in the Putfontein conflict than community rights and equitable compensation. The Putfontein area is rich in minerals, particularly diamonds.
When both the Batloung and the farmers bought their land, mineral rights were excluded from most of the deeds of sale. Now, the question is: once the land is returned to the Batloung, who will own the mineral rights to Putfontein?