THE Portfolio Committee on Land Reform and Rural Development recently faced mounting frustrations over the slow progress in implementing crucial reforms aimed at addressing historical land injustices in South Africa.
A meeting in late March focused on two primary issues: the readiness to implement the Communal Property Associations (CPA) Amendment Act and an update on the recommendations stemming from their oversight visit to Mpumalanga Province.
Bonginkosi Zulu, chief director of the Department of Land Reform and Rural Development (DLRRD), presented a briefing on the state of readiness for implementing the CPA Amendment Act.
Despite being passed in 2018 and assented to by the President on 30 September 2024, significant challenges remain. “The process of recruiting the permanent CPA Registrar and Deputy Registrars would be aligned with public service regulations,” Zulu said. However, financial constraints have necessitated interim measures, including the designation of acting officials and seconded personnel to facilitate a smooth transition.
Committee members expressed divergent views on the impact of the Amendment Act. The DA’s Bonginkosi Madikizela voiced strong objections, stating: "I still had several concerns regarding its implications… this Amendment Act appeared to introduce an additional bureaucratic layer that would ultimately allow the Department to dictate how landowners should manage their land.”
He criticised the government for increasing bureaucratic structures while facing budget cuts and financial pressures, questioning whether a cost analysis had been conducted.
The MK Party’s Zwelakhe Mthethwa highlighted jurisdictional overlaps between CPAs, traditional leadership, and municipalities, arguing: “An ongoing debate within the Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (CoGTA) was focused on restoring the jurisdictional rights of traditional leaders.” He suggested a joint sitting with CoGTA to thoroughly examine these overlaps.
The ANC’s Nanda Ndalane sought clarity on the distinction between the CPA Office and the Communal Property Institutions Directorate, questioning the delay in establishing the CPA Office structure since the Amendment Act’s passage in 2018. She said: “A clear response on these issues would provide much-needed clarity on the matter.”
The second part of the meeting reviewed the oversight report on Mpumalanga. Chief director of Provincial Shared Services Centre (PSSC), Zanele Sihlangu, provided updates but faced sharp criticism from committee members.
Madikizela expressed dissatisfaction, stating: “The report was lacking in detail and did not sufficiently address the critical issues at hand.” He highlighted significant influence exerted by a traditional leader in Mawewe, resulting in many people being denied what was rightfully theirs. “Such actions could not be justified and needed to be condemned.”
The MK Party’s Khayelihle Madlala expressed deep concern over the growing debt burden on communities, particularly in the Matsamo and Mawewe CPAs. “Every year, the communities found themselves burdened with increasing financial obligations,” he said. “Once the accumulated debt reached an amount equal to the value of the land originally purchased by the Department for these communities, the white farmers involved in the joint ventures would likely reclaim the farms, effectively reversing the land redistribution efforts.”
The meeting concluded with robust calls for accountability and immediate action. The EFF’s Sam Matiase strongly criticised the amendment process, dismissing it as “a waste of time”. He argued: “The intervention was not welcome but rather another example of what I termed ‘javelin-throwing exercises’ by the ruling elite.”
The MK Party’s Andile Mngxitama supported the amendment, hoping it would bring stability and improved functionality to CPAs. However, he questioned the timeline for establishing the CPA Office, saying: “The projected three-year period for setting up the office suggested a lack of urgency in addressing the pressing issues affecting CPAs.”
The DA’s Mlindi Nhanha proposed rejecting the Mpumalanga report outright, emphasising the need for an in-depth investigation into the region’s issues. “Despite clear expectations, the officials had failed to provide a comprehensive account of the situation,” he said.
Acknowledging the members’ frustrations, the chairperson reiterated the urgency of addressing land reform challenges. “The committee expected a comprehensive and complete report within the next 14 days,” he said. “We do not want a report just for the sake of having one. Instead, we want a substantive report that would address and meet all the expectations we had for such a document.”
Deputy Minister Stanley Mathabatha insisted that CPAs should not have political rights or functions, saying: “They are merely legal entities like any other.” He encouraged clarity to avoid misunderstandings, suggesting that the registrar should take an active role in resolving conflicts.
As the meeting adjourned, it was clear that South Africa’s land reform agenda remains fraught with bureaucratic hurdles, financial constraints, and governance failures. The Portfolio Committee’s demand for accountability and comprehensive reporting underscores the urgent need for coordinated efforts to restore justice and equity in land distribution.
During the discussions, specific financial and administrative concerns were raised. Madikizela queried the cost implications of the Amendment Act, noting the contradiction of expanding bureaucratic structures amidst budget cuts. He questioned whether the department had performed a cost analysis, highlighting the necessity for transparency in financial planning.
Additionally, Nhanha raised concerns about the budget allocation for the CPA Office, seeking confirmation on whether sufficient funds had been allocated. He pointed out that without adequate financial support, merely establishing offices would be unproductive. The Department assured the Committee that transitional measures were in place and reallocation of funds would ensure the office functioned effectively.
The complexities surrounding legal and jurisdictional issues were also prominent. Mthethwa highlighted the rapid increase in CPAs, which he believed outpaced efforts to restore land to traditional leaders. He questioned the necessity of introducing CPAs in territories already governed by traditional authorities, arguing that this created overlapping and conflicting jurisdictions.
Moreover, Mthethwa dismissed drawing lessons from European land management models, criticising them as irrelevant to African contexts. He called for a return to indigenous governance systems, expressing frustration with current policies that aligned with colonial legal frameworks.
The meeting underscored the dire need for urgency and accountability in South Africa’s land reform efforts. With mounting community debt, governance failures, and bureaucratic inefficiencies, the call for a comprehensive and transparent approach is more pressing than ever. As stakeholders continue to deliberate, the hope remains that meaningful progress will emerge, ensuring equitable land distribution and sustainable development for all South Africans.