BAREND UYS: Deeds speak louder than words — ANC wants the state, not you, to own land

President Cyril Ramaphosa recently signed the Expropriation Act into law. His party, the ANC, which until less than a year ago enjoyed de facto one-party rule in SA for 30 years, responded with a media statement: “This is a direct response to the needs of millions of South Africans who have been excluded from land ownership and access to natural resources for far too long.” 

Yet when considering the actions taken by the ANC over the past three decades it becomes abundantly clear that it does not want citizens or communities to own land. It wants the state to own the land. ANC leaders deny this verbally, but deeds — and the outcomes therefrom — speak louder than words. 

The land of the former homelands (about 17-million hectares) was not transferred to the cultural communities whose property it was at the time of the regime change in 1994. This land was transferred to the state. This same land is now held in so-called custodianship by the state on behalf of the cultural communities to whom it actually belongs.

Is it just for traditional communities and their traditional leaders not to own their rightful land and for the state to be the title-holder as custodian? How is the ANC then different from previous regimes that also did not “trust” traditional communities and their leaders with the title deeds to their land, and acted as “custodian” in a similar manner?

Though a legal mechanism has existed all along for the ANC to transfer the land of cultural communities to them in title, the government it has controlled for all these years has failed to do so. About 16-million people who reside permanently in these areas would benefit from the transfer of such land from the state to the communities. 

The Upgrading of Land Tenure Rights Act of 1991 has been and still is available to transfer the land of cultural (traditional) communities from the state to the communities in title. Section 20 of the said act reads (my emphasis): 

“A tribe may request the minister to transfer tribal land the control of which vests in the tribe to the tribe in ownership. If the land has been surveyed the minister may take steps to transfer the land concerned to the tribe in question. 

“If the land has not been surveyed the minister may designate any person to investigate the feasibility of the request and to submit a report and recommendation to him or her in regard thereto.”

Why has the ANC not used this act to transfer the land to the traditional communities if it really wants to do something about “South Africans who have been excluded from land ownership”?

In 1996 the ANC government in fact weakened this act (which predates 1994). The original wording of subsection (2) of section 20 read (my own emphasis):

“If the land has been surveyed and the minister is of the opinion that the request is feasible, he shall forthwith take steps to transfer the land concerned to the tribe in question.” 

Why change “shall forthwith take steps” to “may take steps” if you are serious about the transfer of land in ownership? Similar changes were made to other sections in 1996 during the ANC’s first tenure as governing party. 

There was an attempt to repeal section 20 in its entirety, through the Communal Land Rights Act 11 of 2004. However, the Constitutional Court found the act to be invalid in its entirety in 2010. 

Several serious questions arise when examining the government’s approach to land reform. Why are all farms that are acquired by the state as part of the restitution and redistribution process not transferred to beneficiaries in title? Why is this the case when it is well known that it is almost impossible to obtain financing required for commercial agriculture without a title deed?

Why are some demonstrably successful beneficiaries of the restitution and redistribution process only provided with lease agreements, and why are the lease agreements of these successful farmers not renewed without a fight?

The complete lack of proper financial and technical support for beneficiaries of the restitution and redistribution process, as well as farmers in rural communal areas, specifically related to agricultural land and farming, is clear evidence of the true intentions of the ANC. 

Development in rural communal areas that are led by traditional leaders is severely hampered by state ownership. A potential investor cannot simply approach the traditional leadership, because the government and its bureaucracy, political interests and, in many cases, blatant corruption are a reality. Investors simply take their money elsewhere. 

In the event of illegal land invasions and occupations, the traditional leadership is dependent on government officials (because the state is the title deed holder) to take action to protect their ancestral land. In many cases the inefficiency, incompetence and corruption of officials (the responsible persons of the “custodian”) lead to bad outcomes for the traditional community involved. 

Why do traditional communities face challenges from private mining companies operating on their land while their pleas for assistance and fair compensation towards government officials fall on deaf ears? Why is the ANC not assisting all communities whose land rights were recognised in terms of the Interim Protection of Informal Land Rights Act of 1996 to convert these informal rights to formal rights, specifically through the granting of title deeds? 

It is time to judge the ANC by its actions and the outcomes that it has achieved over the past 30 years. The party’s focus is clearly not the wellbeing of the citizens and cultural communities of the country. Its focus is on a long-held destructive ideology, no matter the outcomes. To the ANC it is all about centralised control and not about the prosperity of communities. 

All the freedom-loving communities and leaders who want to see a prosperous future for their children and the preservation of their cultural identity and heritage on the southern tip of Africa will be best served by acknowledging this reality and acting accordingly.

• Uys is head of intercultural relations & co-operation at AfriForum.