RESPONSE TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
ON RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND LAND REFORM
1.
2.
BACKGROUND.
1.1
During the Portfolio Committee meetings of the 21 and 28 October
2009, members of the Committee raised a number of questions after
receiving the Annual Reports of the Department of Rural Development
& Land Reform, Ingonyama Trust Board (ITB) and the Commission on
Restitution of Land Rights (CRLR).
1.2
The Chairperson requested that the Department should respond to
these questions in writing.
1.3
The responses provided below relate to Tenure Reform or Land
Administration. They have been listed in accordance with the dates of
the meetings where they arose.
BRIEFING BY THE DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND
LAND REFORM (DRDLR) ON THE DEPARTMENT OF LAND AFFAIRS’
ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2008-2009.
2.1
Preliminary Plan for the Surveying of State Land.
2.1.1 The Department of Rural Development and Land Reform
(DRDLR) is the custodian of the largest property portfolio in
comparison with other government departments in the Republic
of South Africa.
2.1.2 The DRDLR’s property portfolio resulted from the DRDLR
having taken control of land that previously belonged to the
former Self Governing Territories (QwaQwa, Gazankulu,
KaNgwane, Lebowa, KwaNdebele), the Independent Republics
(Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei), land that was
registered in the name of the Minister of Regional and Land
Affairs in the former Republic of South Africa as well as land that
was acquired by the South African Development Trust and
continued to be in the name of that trust upon its dissolution.
2.1.3 It was estimated in 1994 that government (national and
provincial spheres) had about 24 million hectares and 13.5
Page 1 of 4
million of which was under the custody of the then Department
of Land Affairs.
This figure excluded un-surveyed land,
particularly in the former homelands.
2.1.4 Though the surveying of un-surveyed land was considered
critical, particularly in the vesting process, it was only conducted
on a needs basis hence there was never a nationwide project for
the purposes of surveying all un-surveyed land.
2.1.5 In response to the need to complete the vesting of all state land,
the DRDLR has, in conjunction with the National Department of
Public Works and relevant provincial departments, undertaken a
national exercise for the surveying of all un-surveyed state land.
2.1.6 All un-surveyed land in the country has been identified.
2.1.7 Surveying Project Plans are currently being formulated per
province and will be completed in December 2009.
2.1.8 The Project Plans will determine the scale of the surveying
projects in each province by grouping a number of
Administrative Districts or Magisterial Districts together. They
will also make a projection in terms of timeframes and costs.
2.1.9 It should be noted that very little of the Free State, Gauteng and
Western Cape needs to be surveyed.
2.1.10 It should also be noted that about 70% of the former Transkei
has already been surveyed. The remaining Administrative
Districts of Qumbu, KwaBhaca, Cofimvama, Mount Fletcher and
Tsolo are currently being put on tender.
2.1.11 The Quitrent areas (Cala, Cacadu, Tsomo, Umtata, Idutwa,
Nqamakwe, Gcuwa and Engcobo ) are still being researched for
possible framing of diagrams by the Surveyor General in Cape
Town.
2.1.12 The former Ciskei is still to be researched since a greater part of
it had Quitrent areas which will allow possible framing of
diagrams. A complete plan in this regard will be finalised in
December 2009.
2.1.13 The approach to be used in all the surveying projects is that the
surveyors will survey outer boundaries, identify facilities used for
state domestic purposes (State Domestic Facilities) like schools,
clinics, police stations, magistrate courts and so forth and survey
them.
Page 2 of 4
2.2.14 The main districts of Nkomazi and Nsikazi in Mpumalanga are
also in the tender process.
2.1.15 The surveying of State Domestic Facilities within currently
existing surveyed properties is the responsibility of relevant
custodians hence the DRDLR will not undertake such surveying
projects.
3.
BRIEFING BY THE INGONYAMA TRUST BOARD (ITB) ON ITS ANNUAL
REPORT FOR 2008-2009.
3.1
The DRDLR has been asked to explain the reasons for the delay in the
transfer of the 300 properties to the ITB.
3.2
As the DRDLR is uncertain of the identity of the 300 properties the ITB
is referring to, a report on almost everything that has impacted on the
endorsement or transfer of Ingonyama Trust properties is provided.
3.3
The then Department of Regional and Land Affairs had submitted more
than 800 Title deeds to the then KwaZulu Government in 1994. Those
Title Deeds were later handed over to the ITB upon its establishment.
3.4
When the Title Deeds discussed above were endorsed in the name of
the ITB, the Deeds Office erroneously recorded endorsement numbers
in the Deeds Registry System (DRS) as if they were Title deeds
numbers. When the ITB called up reports from the DRS they
erroneously thought that the endorsement numbers are Title Deeds
numbers and started asking for those Title Deeds from the Department
of Land Affairs. In all instances the ITB already had those Title Deeds
in their possession and did not realise because they were looking for
wrong numbers. This was communicated to the ITB and the Deeds
Office for rectification and it is uncertain whether the alleged 300
properties include the properties affected by this error.
3.5
There are also extraordinary delays that have occurred in the Office of
the State Attorney in KwaZulu-Natal since the year 2000. There are
currently 96 properties affected by these delays.
3.6
The delays in the Office of the State Attorney in KwaZulu-Natal were
discussed with the Acting Chief Litigation Officer (Mr. Gawula) on the
12 October 2009 since he manages all State Attorneys in the Republic.
3.7
The intention was to seek an amicable withdrawal of instructions so
that private conveyancers could be instructed to finalise the
outstanding instructions. He however requested to be given an
opportunity to address the matter and see if the endorsements could
not be expedited. A further report back meeting has been scheduled
for the end of November 2009.
Page 3 of 4
4.
3.8
There are endorsements which have been delayed by the fact that the
ITB surveyed and consolidated properties belonging to different
owners, which should not have been done. This includes properties of
private persons, provincial and national government. The ITB has
been requested to cancel these consolidations in those instances
where the DRDLR becomes aware of their existence. The exact
number of these properties is unknown except 15 properties the ITB
has informed the DRDLR about.
3.9
There are 109 properties which are disputed between the ITB and the
DRDLR. In most instances these properties are settled by traditional
communities however they are outside the former territory of KwaZulu.
The ITB wants to make use of proclamations of traditional authorities
despite the fact that they were actually never included in KwaZulu. The
DRDLR has got no intention to transfer these properties to the ITB
hence an engagement process is under way to help reach an
understanding on the basis of available documentary evidence.
3.10
Notwithstanding the issues discussed above, the situation could have
been improved if the DRDLR had someone working on a daily basis on
ITB endorsements. This is being rectified through the appointment of a
land researcher who will focus on both the legitimate ITB properties
and disputed properties in order to help resolve all outstanding matters
before the end of the next financial year.
BRIEFING BY THE COMMISSION ON RESTITUTION OF LAND RIGHTS
(CRLR) ON ITS ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2008-2009.
4.1
The Portfolio Committee had requested details of Communal Property
associations and their functions.
4.2
A register of all registered Communal Property Associations (CPAs) is
attached as Annexure 1 and 2. Annexure 1 is for CPAs registered in
Restitution projects and Annexure 2 is for CPAs registered in other
land reform projects.
4.3
The ordinary functions of a CPA are to hold and administer land. The
holding of land in this case refers to taking registration while
administration refers to the management of various relations between
the members of the CPA and their land, relations amongst themselves
and relations between members or the CPA and other parties.
4.4
The constitutions of CPAs then provide substantive details in terms of
the constitutional structures of a CPA and their respective powers and
functions. These vary from CPA to CPA.
Page 4 of 4