Hi Jerry Bolitna,
An internet search through www.google.com on the topic ‘land reform’
linked me to an article in www.africa.com
regarding a bulletin entitled ‘Committee to Hear Public Submissions On Land Reform’. The bulletin invites submissions and
discloses that there will be hearings regarding the Land Reform process in
South Africa at the National Assembly in Cape Town starting on the 13th
of this month. During a subsequent conversation with Elton Greeve at your
offices in the Houses of Parliament I was referred to you. Mr. Greeve also
provided me with your e-mail address, hence this communication.
As a Strategic Planner and
Australian Certified Investment Planner registered on the Sydney Stock Exchange
I hold several mandates for the deployment of agriculture / land reform related
projects, as such, from various significant groups of previously disadvantaged
individuals (PDI’s) with long records of occupation on very large areas of
state owned land. The mandates
cover extensive areas of land and a significant grouping of people at
Goodhouse, Rust de Winter, Giyani and various other areas of lesser importance.
One of the projects (the one at Goodhouse) is detailed under my web page www.izak.co.za under the tab marked GROUP
ONE. However, the financing of this project has been hampered by state due to
its inability or unwillingness to transfer the land to the PDI’s in terms of
existing statutes giving them that right dating back to 1987!
The government have
unfortunately embarked on a policy of stonewalling with regards to the
Goodhouse debacle, as a result of which we are now in the process of finalizing
papers for an application to the High Court at Kimberly, seeking an order in
the context mandamus (forcing her
to carry out the law) as well as an declarative accompanied by suitable
interdicts against the Minister of Land Affairs and it’s agents.
The situation at Goodhouse has
become a humanitarian crisis since the PDI’s concerned there are beginning to
show serious signs of malnutrition. This situation has already attracted the
attention of the overseas community. Moreover Investment risk triggers (IRT)
have also ensued. See the tab marked LAND REFORM under www.izak.co.za. The detail in that link
clearly illustrates how the government of South Africa deliberately de-rail
projects in the land reform program so that they can delay transferring the
land to PDI’s. This of course allows the government to protract its political
control over the PDI’s and gives them another opportunity to share in public
funding to cover project set-up and running costs etc.
A full disclosure of the
situation will also ensue on the 21st at a prominent African
Development Conference at Sandton in Johannesburg. The disclosure will focus on
the fact that the government has refused to deal with the situation knowing
full well that a humanitarian crisis was developing. A previous disclosure made
at another conference last month has resulted in a decision to form a
delegation that will make disclosure of these issues to NEPAD.
The Mandates from these
various grouping of PDI’s arise out of similar situations to that at Goodhouse.
As a result the common and indeed the main criteria of each mandate is that a
project be deployed without any government involvement whatsoever as the
government have totally destroyed their bona
fides regarding the state’s land reform policy with the mandatees. It
must be noted that these mandates were all spontaneous and unsolicited and
arrived at my office due to the fact that it became known that I had identified
evidence of the government’s male fide modus
operandi in the Goodhouse and other several other projects. Various
other prominent individuals in the agricultural sector have also identified
these problems, many having written papers, articles and books on the issue.
The government’s response has been aimed at labeling this type of exposure as
being far-right propaganda by the previously advantaged white farming
community. etc. Now we have a situation where the no-white PDI’s are
re-enforcing these findings by the mandates now in the picture.
Various aid agencies, agri
related service providers, financiers and insurers have noted the risks
embodied in this situation and have voiced their support for further disclosure
to NEPAD and the UN.
Following invitation from
various private sector forums, conferences and seminars in the agricultural sector,
the subsequent submission of the writer at these forums is earmarked by the
presentation of some rather serious questions in land reform programs, not only
in South Africa but also in the rest of the third world. Problems such as the
issue of land collateral and foreclosure on traditional tribal lands and other
underdeveloped agricultural communities are focused on. Several proposed
solutions to replace land collateral as security in the financing of
agricultural projects with other commercial instruments and tools are
presented. The development of a standard of workable demographics that will ensure sustainability and
produce better bankable documents for projects is also presented. Various other
factors such as the NEPAD policy of cross-sector collaboration that is being
hampered by the lack of credible operators due to corrupt practices in both the
private but mainly the public sector is also under discussion.
The minister and those of her
subordinates in Kimberly have been repeatedly made fully aware of the problems
for well over 18 months, and therefore I will not at this stage encumber your
hearings with what is a rather substantial volume of evidence. The first
applications to court will in any event be made public early next week.
The aim of the application is
to force the government to keep to their promise of transferring land to the
PDI’s at Goodhouse instead of to another government organ of state.
Accordingly, please forgive the rather cynical nature of
this presentation, but I am sure you will understand that it is justified in
the light of the fact that the government has thus far refused to so much as
communicate with regards to these issues, in the case of Goodhouse for well
over 18 months now. As a result it has inevitably created the overwhelming
impression that the government clearly does not have the courage to openly face
their electorate on these issues. It gives impetus to some rather well
substantiated allegations that the government has a lot to hide. Stonewalling
causes frustration and mistrust. When it results in suffering it creates
resentment and anger. When these sentiments start to emerging amongst large
portions of the populous, especially those that have relied on proper Land
Reform the government’s by now well known stonewalling tactics are conducted at
it’s own peril.
One thing is absolutely clear.
Unless the government comes out of the woodwork and faces these issues and
engages in intelligent communication regarding possible solutions, they can
only give further to prove allegations that it is primarily engaged in what
appears to be the very obvious (draconian) Machiavellian strategy of creating
crises with which to justify expropriation under the Act of parliament already
in place to those ends. This perception is now not only already firmly
established with a growing mass of PDI’s as the current status quo but is growing at an alarming
rate, not only with the occupants of government owned land, but also with the
local and international players in the agricultural sector that attend both the
private and public sector conferences on the issue.
At this late stage however, I
cannot perceive how the government will suddenly change from it’s stonewalling
on the issues, as the disclosure exposes some underlying strategies that the
government would rather keep hidden from public view for as long as possible.
In our view that alone is the primary reason a proper inquiry through the independent
organ of the judiciary (and under the appropriate protection of the judiciary) is
now completely unavoidable.
Should, your committee
however, be able to ensure some meaningful
reaction (devoid of the usual one-sided political rhetoric) from the
Minister responsible for Land Reform, then there might well be
some merit in making a presentation to your committee. It must however be
stressed that these issues have been left unattended by the minister for so
long that there is now a situation giving rise to urgent litigation. In short
the opportunity for lengthy negotiations has been lost. I say this because
people are literally starving now. Should dialogue begin only now the
government will need to provide substantial funding to deal with the ongoing
suffering it has caused. Assets like farm implements and irrigation
infrastructure collected over years of hard work has been sold. Creditors have
foreclosed due to no income whatsoever. Children have had to leave school.
People have become malnourished. People have foregone medical treatment and
have died. These are just some of the problems caused by the costly exercise of
government interference followed by a stonewalling of the problems it has
The response or not to this e-mail will no doubt speak
volumes not only to the many PDI’s that have entrusted me with their mandates,
to the delegates that will be addressed at the various conferences etc. but
also in the impending litigation at Kimberley.
(ACIP) (IAFP) Dealers Rep. No S.I.25015 Dr. Eccl. Law
CEO SADC DFT, CIO Sect. 38 Commission of Inquiry
P O Box 412, Mtunzini, 3867 KZN, South Africa
Cell (073) 1 5678 25
Tel +27 (0)35 340 1127
Fax +27 (0) 83 647 2185
will note that this e-mail has been copied to various other interested parties
in the land reform process for no other reason than to ensure the safety of the
writer, who has, suffered threats and attacks (some under investigation by
various national and international law enforcement agencies) due to the
disclosures made in the national, public and judicial interest by the writer.
Please note that the writer accordingly found it necessary that the vast volume
of persons copied were copied BCC (and will remain undisclosed) in order to
protect them from potential harassment.