media releases
m 21 July 2000
Statement in response to an approach by Mr Colin Mitchell, representing Drum magazine, on unauthorised settlement on agricultural land in the Mangete block
I AM reluctant to comment directly on the issues in the Mangete Block because they are the subject of a restitution claim and therefore, to my mind, subjudice. I know the restitution hearing has been postponed but I it would still be improper for me to comment on the merits of a matter that will eventually come before a Land Claims Court.
However, I believe I can speak in broad terms about the question of unauthorised encroachment on agricultural land, which is by no means confined to Mangete, though the issues in different cases are never precisely the same. I would like to make the following points:
- In such cases of disputed right to settlement on land, the paradox is that both sides often have a reasonably good moral argument, whatever the technicalities of the law might be. They have to be very sensitively handled.
- The cut-off date for land restitution claims, as decided at the constitutional negotiations at Kempton Park and subsequently taken into the new constitution adopted, was 1913. Many current disputes involve land settlement events that predate that cut-off and therefore would not be within the jurisdiction of Land Claims Courts. That means resolution of the disputes is not provided for in the constitution.
- At the end of the day, the law and the constitution, as interpreted by the Land Claims and other courts, have to be upheld. Land-owners whose title is upheld by the courts need to take the legal steps to evict trespassers.
- This does not, however, mean that creative measures should not be adopted to meet the needs of the unauthorised settlers. At Nonoti for instance (not far south of Mangete) the Department of Land Affairs has purchased land for the relocation of 100 of 261 families who have settled on privately-owned land without authority. It intends to take the scheme into a second phase, which should considerably reduce the problem.
- Personal on the spot inspections tell me these population encroachments in KwaZulu-Natal cannot be compared with the land invasions in Zimbabwe. They are not orchestrated, they have no political objective and they have taken place gradually over many years.
- Every case is different and highly complex. There are instances where communities with permission to be on the land have been augmented by unauthonised arrivals. (I emphasise that I am talking generally, not about Mangete specifically). Every case needs individual analysis.
- The same inspections tell me few, if any, of the unauthorised settlers are engaged in agriculture. Their need appears to be cheap habitation. Although the emotional pull of ancestral land and family graves is not to be underestimated, it does seem possible that in certain cases solutions such as in (4) can be negotiated.
The unauthorised settlers are most of them living in crowded, unacceptable slum conditions, with no municipal services whatever. This alone makes desirable the solution outlined in (4),
- It is highly undesirable that prime agricultural land should be used for housing. That would destroy its productive potential forever and would be a terrible waste of our precious and finite resources.
- My Department, and the Department of Land Affairs (national) are preparing a report on the problem at Nonoti, to go to my Cabinet and the national Minister concerned.
- My Department and the Department of Land Affairs are exploring the practicalities of conducting a thorough audit across the province, possibly in conjunction with the KwaZulu-Natal Agricultural Union, to identify hot-spots of unauthorised settlement and disputed land, so that the communities and the legal land-owners involved can be engaged, and just solutions sought, before the disputes escalate.
- My Department is about to embark on a programme of settlement of new farmers on agricultural state land in KwaZulu-Natal. If it should turn out that current unauthorised settlers on privately-owned land do wish to farm, it might be possible to place some of them on the state land. However, I emphasise that they would need to meet the criteria for selection, which would include ability and a commitment to productive commercial fanning. The state land simply may not be used for housing or for subsistence farming.
[ CONTENTS ]