Ann Eveleth
The Commission on the Restitution of Land Rights is “completely dysfunctional”, under-funded, under-staffed and way behind on delivery, say land rights activists, government officials and commission insiders.
“We are the Cinderella of commissions,” chief land claims commissioner Joe Seremane says. “If the government will deny me the R20-million I need to do my job for the citizens of this country, then they are not taking [land] restitution seriously.”
Seremane was responding to a fresh wave of criticism levelled at the semi-autonomous commission by non-governmental land rights organisations and others who blame it for clogging up land restitution, the process intended to restore land rights or provide compensation to the victims of racist land- grabbing under laws enacted between 1913 and 1994.
But statistics released recently by the Department of Agricultural and Land Affairs indicate that land restitution continues to lag far behind other land reform processes.
More than 22 000 restitution claims have been lodged with the commission since its formation in May 1995. But only four post- 1994 claims have been settled by the Land Claims Court – the final arbiter of land claims investigated and forwarded by the commission.
This slow pace prompted Abie Ditlhake, the land rights manager of the national land committee – a coalition of land rights non- governmental organisations – to call for “drastic” action to short-circuit the commission’s work.
But national chief director of land restitution Jean du Plessis pointed out that these bottom-line figures obscure much of the commission’s recent progress including its rejection of 170 invalid claims; the near settlement of several pre- 1994 claims; a further 14 claims now awaiting action by the Land Claims Court; and 46 other claims which have reached “an advanced stage of negotiation”.
The commission is also poised to settle a large number of claims handled concurrently as part of large urban claims, such as nearly 4 000 awaiting settlement in Cato Manor, while single rural claims settled often reflect multiple claimants filing jointly.
But critics say these figures still reflect an inordinately slow process. In contrast, the Land Redistribution Programme has already transferred more than 175 000ha of land to nearly 17 000 families in 78 projects since 1994. A further 393 projects have been approved or designated.
Ditlhake said the slow pace of restitution was a key issue among national land committee members. “Our affiliates report that some commission offices are piled high with reports, that reports go missing. Others are lying in the provinces waiting for action. Claims are rejected because researchers compile incorrect information and some commission staff are insufficiently trained to pick up on cultural nuances that are important to registering claims.”
Commission insiders – many of whom previously served as non-governmental land activists – admit the problems exist. But while some insiders blame “poor management”, others point to a lack of resources and capacity as the prime stumbling blocks. In KwaZulu-Natal, for example, the commission has 30 staff members – after a recent staffing boost – to run the office and process more than 6 000 land claims
Seremane admits the commission has not kept up with expectations. “My own relatives are demanding to know when their land claims are going to be settled” he said.
Refusing to be held to Reconstruction and Development Programme projections that 30% of agricultural land would be transferred to black hands by 1999, Seremane says it is up to the African National Congress to explain that shortfall. But, he adds, the commission has also been unable to keep up with its own projections.
“In early 1996 I gave my commissioners a ball-park figure of finalising 60 claims by the end of 1996 – but the realities proved me wrong.”
Cumbersome, bureaucratic and legalistic processes dog commission staff at every turn, with historical land valuations, extensive deeds and historical research required for every claim, say commission insiders.
But Sbu Mkhize of the Pietermaritzburg- based Association for Rural Advancement argues that some cases are “simple, straight-forward” claims which should be settled relatively quickly.
Recent legislative amendments have opened a path to “fast-track” similar undisputed claims. But commission staffers fear this may require claimants to do their own research – an option open to few claimants.
Seremane says the commission has applied much of a recent R15-million, three-year trust fund from the Danish government to cover the costs of contract work carried out by outside researchers, including non- governmental organisation field workers. But, he adds, these funds, combined with the commission’s R14-million annual budget, still amount to a significant shortfall.
Du Plessis, however, argues that this shortfall followed the department’s failure to spend its previous budget: “It is very difficult to justify huge increases when you are not spending the money you do have. In the end it is not only about people and resources. It is about the proper management of the people and resources you do have.”
Du Plessis predicted the pace of restitution would pick up in the coming months. “If restitution is Cinderella, Cinderella is coming to the ball and Cinderella will be queen – because it’s non-negotiable,” he said.