Picture: iStock
The overwhelming majority of those who won land claims chose money over a title deed.
The Ministry of Land Reform and Rural Development shed light on the number of land claims processed since 1998 and touched on the challenges facing the adjudication process.
An organisation who has tracked the land debate from the onset also shared their insights into why a cash payout has become preferable to nurturing the soil.
Claims listed by the ministry were submitted under the Restitution of Land Rights Act 22 of 1994.
As per their written response to a parliamentary question released on 28 November, it stated that 79 696 land claims were lodged by the 1998 deadline.
A total of 64 354 of the claims were finalised in favour of the complainants, with 5 755 not ending in settlement for the claimant. The remainder are yet to be finalised.
Just 8 314 — 11.8% — of the successful claimants took possession of the land they sought, while 56 040 chose to accept financial compensation instead.
Provincially, the Western Cape, KwaZulu-Natal, Eastern Cape and Gauteng received the most claims, recording just more than 16 000 each, while Gauteng registered 13 000 land claims.
The delays in finalising the remaining 9 000 claims stem from either conflict among joint-claimants, land invasions or landowners challenging the validity of the claims.
ALSO READ: Manyeleti land restored to community after successful claim
Additionally, the Commission on Restitution of Land Rights has a declining budget, even reducing its own targets as the value of settling claims financially increases.
“There is a need for increased budget and human resources capacity in order for the commission to accelerate the fast-tracking of land claims,” the ministry stated.
“Due to the mentioned reasons, no specific time frame [for finalising land claims] can be indicated as each claim has different challenges,” the ministry concluded.
The question of land has divided the nation, with the need to address historical dispossessions colliding with the property rights on which current economic factors hinge.
The Institute of Race Relations’ (IRR) Projects and Publications manager Terence Corrigan has been following the land issue since before the inception of the Expropriation Bill.
ALSO READ: Land claimant fights for justice with dignity and determination
Elaborating on why financial compensation has been a more popular option, Corrigan said the reason lay in the nation’s rapid urbanisation and urban lifestyles being relatively more comfortable.
“A given piece of property seized decades ago may now extend onto multiple properties. In these cases, financial compensation is about the only feasible option,” Corrigan told The Citizen.
“The aspiration of most South Africans is invariably to hold a job that pays a regular wage or salary and provide for a middle-class lifestyle.
“Sadly, a consequence of past dispossession is that the agrarian skills have been lost,” he said, explaining that farming and rural lifestyles were not seen as a pathway to affluence.
The Expropriation Bill is still on President Cyril Ramaphosa’s desk awaiting his official signature.
The IRR have fought against the Bill, believing it “places enormous powers in the hands of a state that has shown itself ill-adept at using them prudently”.
ALSO READ: NCOP backs Expropriation Bill despite constitutional concerns
Corrigan told The Citizen that the Bill could be used to pressure property holders to relinquish their assets at well below market value, while opening the door for mass confiscations of land.
“It also sets up a regime in which the government would be able to confiscate classes of property in such a way that they do not fall under the definition of expropriation,” he said.
Corrigan said the president should refuse to the sign the Bill and push for a new version to be drafted to protect property owners.
Asked if Ramaphosa could perform a Bela Bill-style backtrack by suspending or delaying the implementation of certain clauses within the Expropriation Bill, IRR’s executive director of legal Gabriel Crouse went a step further.
“IRR Legal has written to the Presidency urging that the Expropriation Bill be sent back to Parliament to delete those parts which would violate the Bill of Rights,” said Crouse.
“The president does not have the authority to change the Bill himself, but he is dutybound to refuse to sign it and send it back to Parliament if he has ‘reservations about the constitutionality of the Bill’, as per Section 79(1) of the constitution,” he explained.
NOW READ: Farmers warn Land Expropriation Bill will lead to agricultural crisis
Download our app and read this and other great stories on the move. Available for Android and iOS.
