Hanekom
The chief land claims commissioner says he is being made `a sacrificial beast’ as his remarks in Parliament embarrassed his minister, writes Wally Mbhele
Chief land claims commissioner Joe Seremane broke his silence this week over tensions that have gripped the Commission on the Restitution of Land Rights, saying that Minister of Agriculture and Land Affairs Derek Hanekom had “a queer way of settling conflicts”.
The commission is close to collapse after Seremane walked out of an urgently convened meeting last week, in which, he says, commissioners and Hanekom accused him of embarrassing the minister at a joint sitting of the parliamentary portfolio committees on land affairs and agriculture.
Seremane told the Mail & Guardian that he “expects to be made a sacrificial beast. The bearers of bad news are always the ones who have their heads cut off, and this is a feeling I have.”
But Hanekom’s adviser, Alan Roberts, says the intention of the meeting was “not to make a judgment but to conciliate between the commissioners.
“[Hanekom] believed that the meeting, in the spirit of transparency, would provide an opportunity for all parties to put their concerns on the table and resolve the crisis,” he said.
The root of the problem is the slow delivery of land to restitution claimants. Of the 26 000 claims received by the commission, it has managed to deliver only nine.
Seremane’s criticism of the minister and the Department of Land Affairs in Parliament on September 18 angered Hanekom. The minister’s position against Seremane was strengthened when Seremane’s deputy, advocate Wallace Mgoqi, wrote a letter to Hanekom urging him to oust the chief land claims commissioner.
Seremane said this week: “If justice is done, it’s fine, but if there’s any element of injustice, I’m not going to accept it lying down. If you can’t protect other people’s rights and yours too, whose rights are you going to protect?”
Seremane said the restitution process is a national programme and “not a party programme. It does not make sense to make it an electioneering tool. This is a national programme that belongs to all parties.”
He said his falling-out with Hanekom had its roots in his responses to questions from members of the portfolio committees. “I said I rarely see the minister. I am lonely. I said I think he is equally lonely because we rarely meet.
“If we do make an appointment, it’s certainly going to be cancelled. If the other commissioners are honest, they will tell you this. A one-hour meeting is not enough. Even if it happens, it happens after a long time.”
Seremane said he found Hanekom “to be the most lovely guy. What I expressed are mere irritations and I have the right to express myself. How often has the minister been to this office of mine? I’ve never seen him once. I doubt if he knows what this office looks like.”
The situation improved a little this year, Seremane said. “He gave us a set of dates for meetings but 50% of them were not realised. I said there must be frequent and sustainable interaction amongst all.
“It surprises me that my utterances at Parliament have been taken like I said them in a foreign country. I was saying that to a partner in a spirit of transparency.
“I did not have to embellish it or window dress it. I am now being taken to task for having not rehearsed my presentation. Yes. It is true I’m going through a phase where the daggers are out against me.”
Seremane said he complained about the lengthy procedure that needs to be followed when the commission requests resources from the Department of Land Affairs.
“It’s rather rigid and complicated. It’s almost like the commission is an appendage of the department. This results in some awkward and negative ramifications. That has caused a strained relationship between us to the extent that there’s friction between the two institutions.”
Seremane found the most frustrating and embarrassing issue to be his budget. He likened the commission to Cinderella. “It goes cap in hand to ask for resources it can use. It’s totally dependent on the mercy or veto powers of the department.
“I’ve told commissioners to be very careful when dealing with the department because they’re dealing with people who are projecting either favouritism or racial bias. I’ve said none of my black commissioners get assistance as fast as my white commissioners.
“For that I’m called a racist. I’m not the creator of South Africa. We have this racial background and it’s still there. That’s why we still have transformation forums. What are we transforming, after all? A racist kind of mentality exists in this country where people continue to find it difficult to carry directives from a black person.”
Seremane says Hanekom told him at a commissioners’ meeting last week that he did not see the two of them working together again.
He said he found it strange that Hanekom hoped to resolve the conflict by taking sides. “He should have called me first and made me account for my utterances. I took strong exception to the process that removes my right to being heard, that prejudices me even before we’ve started.”
He said he hoped an inquiry into his report to Parliament would be instituted to settle the matter. “In the meantime, I’ll continue doing my work until told to stop.”
Seremane accused Mgoqi of “an obsession for power. I don’t know who sent that letter [Mgoqi’s] to me. I immediately phoned my deputy who is requesting my dismissal. I used the phrase that `there’s no honour amongst thieves’. This is tantamount to treachery.
“I told him he lacks a backbone, he should have confronted me. `What went wrong with your thinking?’ I said. He just kept quiet.”
Seremane said his confrontation with Mgoqi happened before Hanekom convened the meeting of commissioners.
“Without listening to my side of the story, he [Hanekom] agreed with everything my deputy said about me. To him, my side of the story were press cuttings that he’d collected about my address to the parliamentary joint committees.”
Seremane launched a stinging attack on the other commissioners and accused them of lying. “The problem with some of them is that they have no backbone. In the corridors, they express those same views, they support them. But they are used to operating like a mob.
“It is surprising they didn’t come to me to express reservations about my address to the committees. My deputy was sitting right next to me. He was the next to speak after me. We went out and nobody said anything.”
Roberts said the minister called a meeting of the commissioners in good faith after receiving a letter from Seremane’s deputy representing all the regional commissioners, “which clearly reflected a serious crisis of leadership within the commission.
“He did cancel a meeting with Seremane in view of this letter because by then a meeting had already been set up and he chose not to meet with either of the commissioners alone.”
A response from Hanekom to last week’s M&G story on the issue said: “Tensions in the commission came to a head recently with Seremane’s remarks before the parliamentary portfolio committee, from which commissioners distanced themselves.”
Hanekom said: “It is my responsibility as minister to ensure that it is resolved and we are trying to find a way of doing this amicably.”