Soweto residents want Roodepoort back

Some 2 500 Soweto residents plan on claiming back a large portion of Roodepoort in terms of the Restitution of Land Rights Amendment Bill of 2013.

Westgate Shopping Centre, Village@Horizon and Life Flora Clinic are among the many properties that these residents allege once belonged to their respective forefathers and families.

These residents may claim their respective portions of land legally once the Restitution of Land Rights Amendment Bill – which is believed to be tabled before Parliament’s portfolio committee on Rural Development and Land Reform before Parliament goes into recess for the year – is passed into law.

When this Bill is passed, claimants have until 31 December 2018 to claim any portion of land they believe once belonged to their families. An affidavit, old town maps and residential records and a research team will be enough to support these claims.

The Record spoke to Motsomi Mokhine from the Greater Dobsonville Heritage Foundation, an organisation that represents a majority of these claimants, to establish just how much of an impact these claims would have on Roodepoort.

While the Bill is yet to be passed into law, residents have been plotting this movement for over a year.

“In February last year, we had a public meeting with Dobsonville residents, some of whom were (forcefully) removed from an area that was called Roodepoort West,” says Mokhine.

“In terms of legislation that was passed in 1995 allowing people to claim land from where they were moved, a number of people who come from those areas submitted claims.”

Mokhine, whose family was removed from the area where Life Flora Clinic is situated today, confirmed that the Greater Dobsonville Heritage Foundation further mobilised residents of Dobsonville and other parts of Soweto to get their claims ready for submission.

It was explained to the Record that the foundation, together with other organisations form part of the National Land Claims Forum.

Mokhine told the Record directly that residents who were moved from portions of land, on which business currently is being conducted, should benefit from such activities. This makes the claims procedure so much more open-ended as in many cases, these portions now house businesses that generate vulnerable profit.

“Our view is that the communities that were moved from that land should benefit from those commercial activities instead of getting a once-off sum as compensation. The relevant communities and the people who operate these businesses should be allowed to negotiate what form of settlement would be appropriate and acceptable.”

When the Record asked Mokhine how this would affect smaller businesses situated on the land in question that already are struggling to survive in the difficult economic climate, he responded that it was a matter of principle.

“Government should allow business owners and claimants to negotiate. So hopefully negotiations go well. ”

Even though Mokhine admits that it would be impractical to reallocate portions of land to its original owners, this decision is not theirs to make.

“The issue for us is that if people were to persist and want to go back to their land, it will create all sorts of difficulties. Most of these claimants are staying in urban areas so the majority of them will be seeking compensation. So I don’t think that it (the reallocation of land) would be that much of a problem.

“My family was moved from the area of Flora Clinic. My family will not be seeking financial compensation in the sense of how the government was calculating it from 95 up to 98. They will be looking at a settlement which is much better.”

With a claim of this magnitude, how likely is it to materialise?

“Well the Bill will be passed by parliament. Obviously there will be objections, but it will be passed and therefore the claims will be lodged legally. And those who own the land currently will have to deal with that reality.”