Ingonyama Trustgebied (en andere)

*

Voor die 1994 verkiesing plaasgevind het was daar heelwat gevegte tussen die politieke groepe, veral in Natal.   Tydens die Kodesa onderhandelings is ooreenkomste aangegaan met verskeie tradisionele leiers.   Myns insiens geldige en wettige ooreenkomste. Beide die Zoeloe koning, Zwelithini en sy prins Buthelezi was hier teenwoordig met ondertekening.  Ooreenkomste was aangegaan voor hulle tot die 1994 verkiesing toegetree het.  Daar was ook in dieselfde tydperk ooreenkomste bereik met die Afrikaner en Boere wat aangegaan is, soos met die ondertekening van die Akkoord deur oud Generaal Constand Viljoen vir die ondersoek vir Selfbeskikking en ook ‘n Volkstaat – beide word in die Akkoord wat onderteken is, vermeld.

Tuislande bestaan steeds in aparte gebiede en word net anders genoem na 1994.  FW de Klerk het die wetgewing voor 1994 onderteken.   Dus, is hierdie wetgewing reeds lank voor die 1994 verkiesing voorberei sonder publieke insette.

Ingonyama Trust bestaan uit 9 verskillende gebiede (vir stamhoofde / kapteins).  Intussen het die Khoisan ook 6 Trustgebiede ontvang meestal in Noordkaap en ander provinsies.

Dalk lees mens dit verkeerd, maar daar is ‘n verskil hoe die Zoeloe leier en volk die ooreenkomste interpreteer  en wat op die tafel was in 1994 as voorwaardes vir deelname.   Volgens wat verstaan word, was die bedoeling nie dat die Tuislande oorgedra sal word aan die ANC nie, maar dat dit behou moet bly soos wat dit was.  Dit is die Zoeloe (en ander volke) se eiendom.

Daar is ook ‘n verskil ten opsigte wat die ou Tuislande se doelwit was – om volle onafhanklikheid te erken aan al die 10 of meer volke.  Daar sou beslis meer volke bygevoeg gewees het as Verwoerd nie vermoor is nie.

Vandag sou hierdie volke almal onafhanklikheid geniet het soos wat Botswana het.  Hulle sou nes met Tuislande hul eie leiers kon kies, daar was verkiesings en ook besluit het hoe hul hul grondgebiede wou bestuur, met eie skole, taal en kultuurontwikkelings.

Vandag word dit deur wetgewing van die ANC afgedwing en dis by De Klerk begin voor 1994 en tydens Kodesa se skrywers van hierdie verskillende stelle wetgewings.

Toevallig is ons blanke volke uit hierdie “nuutgeskryfde) Trustgebiede se wetgewings weggelaat en met reg.    Ironies wou die volke wegdoen met aparte gebiede en een land vorm, maar nie met hierdie ooreenkomste en oordrag van Tuislande na Trustgebiede, maar aan die ANC, nie aan die volke wat daar woon nie.  Dis baie fyn en strategies gedoen (myns insiens, niks anders dan moedswillige konflik en saakbeskadigings, menseregteskendings wat totaal en al plaasvind).

*

Ingonyama Trust is only for the Zulu people.  There are 9 different tribal land areas in the Kwazulu-Natal area and it is only for Zulu people.  Legislation of the Trustland was created before the 1994 elections and implemented thereafter.  Agreements were negotiated during the Codesa meetings.

OLD map before 1961
((Ou kaart voor 1961 van aparte reservate, wat Tuislande geword het) en na 1994 word bykans almal Trust of KEV (CPA) gebiede genoem onder grondeise.))
Trustgebiede>Tuislande>Reservate

.

Op die stadium sal slegs die Ingonyama Trust uiteengesit word en waar nodig sal ander Trustgebiede / kommunale gebiede in aparte dokumente bespreek word en of later bygevoeg word.

Daar word ook verwys na die ou aparte Tuislande (1961-1994) wat op pad was om almal (10) onafhanklikheid te verkry, dus sou hul soos Botswana totale onafhanklikheid geniet het met hul eie regerings.

Die ou Tuislande was voor 1961 bekend as Reservate (min of meer dieselfde gebiede) vanaf 1854, wat ook bereik was tussen Shaka en Lord Shepstone van die Britse koloniale heersers wat destyds die onderskeie lande kom annekseer het.  Hierdie reservate of lokasies soos dit soms genoem is, word in die Unie dokumentasie omskryf.

Blankes (Afrikaners en Boere) kon nog nooit werklik op hierdie reservaat gebiede bedryf nie en die Trustwette vandag is en word ook so omskryf dat dit slegs daardie volke is wat daar mag bly en voordeel trek uit besighede, minerale of toerismebedryf.

Sekere gebiede wat geidentifiseer is as grondeise, is kommunale gebiede en word onder  CPA wetgewing hanteer, en ontvang slegs sekere bevolkings groepe fondse uit die Toerisme bedryf (Sanpark beheerde gebiede wat aan die regering behoort).

Niemand het ‘n probleem daarmee nie, maar so iets was nooit voor 1994 eers aan enige blanke bevolkingsgroep toegewys of “geskenk” nie.

Na die twee onafhanklike Boere republieke en Zoeloegebied voor 1900,  deur Brittanje geannekseer is , was ons burgers ook gedwing onder ‘n Unie regering deur middel van die twee Anglo Boere oorloë en vele lewensverliese en eiendomme wat tot op die grond afgebrand is en alle oeste vernietig is.

Weinig of min van ons voorgeslagte wou onder die Britse heerskappy wees nie, en vandag word ons vals beskuldig dat ons hierdie beleid op swartes afgedwing het.  Shepstone was nie ‘n Boer of Afrikaner nie.  Shepstone, wat die beleid saam Shaka en ander swart leiers saamgestel het, is ‘n Britse lord.

Lord Shepstone was direk gemoeid met anneksasie van al hierdie onafhanklike gebiede en grond wat nie aan hulle behoort het nie.  Daar was ander Lords wat saam hom betrokke was met die anneksasies van ons lewens.  Lord Kitchener was in beheer en oor die 500000 Britse en selfs ander kolonies het die Britte kom bystaan.

Dit was nie net op die Afrika kontinent waar grondgebiede deur die Britte geannekseer het nie.  Oral waar die Britte geannekseer het, was daar rewolusie, pyn en lyding en volkere is letterlik uitgewis.   Onder mekaar was daar ook gevegte aan die gaan, wat aangemoedig is deur die “rewolusie”.  VANDAG is dit nie anders hier aan die Suidpunt van Afrika nie.

Tydens die konsentrasiekampe was ons voorouers letterlik vermoor sonder mediese sorg en beperkte voedsel innames.  Dit was Britse helkampe.

Swartes wat teen die Britte geveg het en saam Boere, was ook in hul eie aparte helkampe geplaas wat volgens berigte netso erg of selfs erger was.  Daar is letterlik duisende van elke volk in suider-Afrika uitgewis voor 1900 weens rewolusies.  En na 1902 het daardie rewolusies voortgeduur.

Vandag word die Britte hoegenaamd nie genoem vir hul barbaarse optrede teenoor die burgers (swart, wit en gekleurd) van hierdie land nie of selfs die voedsel wat hulle skaars 100 jaar gelede tot as verbrand het nie.   Daar was Britte wat die monopolie met voedsel behad en beheer het, nes met minerale regte.

Ons voorouers is aangejaag soos diere of op oop goedere treine in massas vervoer.   Suiker was ‘n luukse en medikasie was nog minder beskikbaar.  Soms lees mens verhale dat daar tot fyngemaalde glas in voedsel geplaas is.  Lees hoe rebelle behandel is as hulle dit durf waag het om BOERE in die Anglo Boere oorlog by te staan.

Daar is geen manier dat die Unie van Suid-Afrika 100% gesteun was deur die burgers van die twee onafhanklike gebiede (ZAR en Vrystaat) nie.   Inteendeel tot die Rebelle wat die Boere gehelp het, is dan ter dood veroordeel en hoeveel het blanke leiers of lords gelig vir menslikheid in die veroordeeldes of konsentrasiekampe?

Inteendeel het swart volke dit ook nie gesteun nie.  Daar is baie helkampe ook vir die swartes geskep – meestal apart van die blanke vroue en kinders of ou mense.

Daar is reeds destyds, voor Uniewording, vir swart etniese volke voorsiening gemaak – hoekom nie ook vir ons as volk nie.  Dit het niks met apartheid te doen nie.  Swart volke het ook verkies om apart te wees.  Die Shepstone beleid was aparte swart en selfs khoisan volke wat apart wou voortbestaan.

HERSTEL VAN BOERE REPUBLIEKE

Elke volk het ‘n internasionale reg om oor hulself te regeer in gebiede wat hulle sin is. Britte het hier kom moeilikheid maak om minerale te verkry en die gevegte vandag gaan grotendeels oor die minerale van grond en plase.

Die regering saam hul liberale en kommunistiese kaders, kan stry soos hul wil, maar om te nasionaliseer beteken hul kry alle mag en regte oor mense wat Bolsjevisme is.  Nes blankes van hul grond afgegooi word met hofsake, word selfs swart volke in die ou Reservate / Tuislande of Trustgebiede ook afgegooi as daar gemyn word.  Die regering gebruik duur regsbank, hul stel hul eie regters aan om hulself te bevoordeel.

Die twee onafhanklike Boere republieke wou ook nie deel wees van ‘n groter land, wat later Unie van Suid-Afrika geword het nie.

*
*
*

BESETTE GEBIEDE VOOR 1900

Die hele suidelike Afrika was nooit beset deur enige van die 15 plus ander volke nie.  Daar is groot gebiede wat niemandsland was.

Na die 6 Mfecane oorloë was Shaka hierby betrokke om aparte reservate te bekom (1848 ongeveer).  Dis hoe aparte gebiede begin is.     Dat hul eie gekose leiers hulself kan regeer.  Dis in lyn met die res van Afrika gewees  – en dit was destyds al Tuislande genoem, Verwoerd was nie verkeerd daaroor nie.

Britse kolonies in Kanada, Australië en Afrika is ook vol van Trustgebiede / Kroongebiede (of tuislande)

Lees die geskiedenis en leer jou volksgeskiedenis wat is en was, en wat weer sal wees.  Destyds is mense vergiftig, dit word vandag steeds gedoen. Daar word steeds rewolusie in Suid-Afrika uitgevoer – voor en na 1994.   Daar word al vir etlike jare teen ons as Afrikaners en Boere (blankes) gediskrimineer – hou op wegkyk en fokus op Hansards en wat presies aangaan.

Gideon Scheepers

~

Daar is heelwat konsentrasiekampe regdeur Suid-Afrika en baie graffies is nooit gevind nie.   Ons voorgeslagte het van honger en geen water omgekom.

Johannesburg konsentrasiekamp:

Indien dit nie vir ‘n Engelse dame, Emily Hobhouse was en haar pogings om ons te help nie, was die lewensverliese baie groter en erger.

Hierdie onderwerp sal in ander artikels in meer detail bespreek word.

.

ALLE Tuislande is en word in Trust gehou sedert 1994 .   Titelaktes bly die regeringseiendomme (hansards).

Dis onduidelik hoekom die ANC en ook die ondersoekbeamptes van die ANC die Trustgebiede hierby wil insluit of uitsluit as dit reeds hul eiendom is.

Kommerwekkend is dat tradisionele leiers (gerieflik saamspeel) en wat hul eie wette help skep het, weet hulle is ‘n Trustee en dat titelaktes moeilik oorgedra word.   Die wetgewing is alreeds tydens Kodesa geskryf en ge-implementeer, onder hand van vorige regime leier, F W de Klerk.  Met sekere wetgewings in plek, kan dit nie oorgedra word nie.  Later meer oor wetgewing wat beheer daaroor uitoefen.

Dis ook nie baie duidelik hoeveel grond reeds vanaf 1994 hierby gevoeg is nie, want grondeise val onder die kommunale wetgewing (CPA) waar die grondeise ook in Trust gehou word met slegs lewensreg aan die burgers wat daar woonagtig /werksaam is.  Dis onseker hoekom daar soms net ‘n paar Titelaktes uitgereik word en nie aan almal nie.   Die vraag kan ook gevra word, hoe eg is hierdie “titelaktes” wat oorgedra word, selfs aan HOP huise?    Dit bots met wetgewing, later meer hieroor.

Dit is totaal en al ‘n vals front wat geskep word om dit aan ou dames of here te bied en dink dit gaan verby.  Luister na die volgende video materiaal, wat bevestig wat geskryf word – en Hansards (van Parlement) is bewys hiervan.

INGONYAMA TRUSTLAND  (ZULU PEOPLE)

AGREEMENTS 1994

The Ingonyama Trust was the outcome of a deal between the National Party and the Inkatha Freedom Party during the dying days of apartheid just before the transition in 1994. The Trust was established to manage land owned by the government of KwaZulu, and is currently responsible for managing some 2.8 million hectares of land in KwaZulu-Natal. The land vests in the Ingonyama (or king) as trustee, to be administered on behalf of members of specific communities.

Ingonyama Trustland 1994 agreement

Click to access FactsheetIngonyama_Final_Feb2015.pdf

QUOTE

PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS
 While land rights over land administered by the Ingonyama Trust have strong
protection, these rights are not well known.
 If you or anyone you know has their land rights threatened, please immediately contact AFRA at 033 345 7607 or afrakzn@gmail.com, or Michael Clark or Stha Yeni of the Centre for Law and Society at UCT, by phone at 021 650 3360 or by email at cls.uct@gmail.com.

.

The Ingonyama Trust was the outcome of a deal between the National Party and the Inkatha Freedom Party during the dying days of apartheid just before the transition in 1994. The Trust was established to manage land owned by the government of KwaZulu, and is currently responsible for managing some 2.8 million hectares of land in KwaZulu-Natal. The land vests in the Ingonyama (or king) as trustee, to be administered on behalf of members of specific communities.

While the Trust has wide powers to manage the land, the law also provides that the land rights of individuals and communities under the Trust must be respected by the Trust. This fact sheet seeks to examine the Ingonyama Trust Act, which created the Trust, to consider the nature of individual and community land rights under the Trust.

THE INGONYAMA TRUST ACT

The Ingonyama Trust was established in 1994 to manage land owned by the  government of KwaZulu immediately prior to the Act’s commencement. The Trust was established by the KwaZulu-Natal Ingonyama Trust Act, which was enacted by the KwaZulu Legislative Assembly and came into effect on 24 April 1994. The trust land vests in the Ingonyama, King Zwelithini, as trustee on behalf of members of communities defined in the Act. The Act was significantly amended in 1997 to create the KwaZulu-Natal Ingonyama Trust Board to administer the land in accordance with the Act. The current chairperson of the Board is former judge Jerome Ngwenya.

Key provisions of the Act

 Section 2(2) – “The Trust shall, in a manner not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, be administered for the benefit, material welfare and social wellbeing of the members of the tribes and communities as contemplated in the KwaZulu Amakhosi and Iziphakanyiswa Act.”
 Section 2(3) – “The Ingonyama shall be the trustee of the Trust which shall  be administered subject to the provisions of this Act by the Ingonyama and the board.”
 Section 2(4) – “The Ingonyama may, subject to the provisions of this Act and any other law, deal with the land referred to in section 3(1) in accordance with Zulu indigenous law or any other applicable law.” (Lawyers advise that “may” probably means “must” in this context)
Section 2(5) – “The Ingonyama shall not encumber, pledge, lease, alienate or otherwise dispose of any of the said land or any interest or real right in the land, unless he has obtained the prior written consent of the traditional authority or community authority concerned.”
 Section 2(7) – Notwithstanding the provisions of this Act, any national land reform programme established and implemented in terms of any law shall apply to the land referred to in section 3(1): Provided that the implementation of any such programme on the land referred to in section 3(1) shall be undertaken after consultation with the Ingonyama.”
 Section 2(8) – “In the execution of his or her functions in terms of this section the Ingonyama shall not infringe upon any existing rights or interests.”

~

UNDERSTANDING THE ACT

As seen in the map on the back page of this fact sheet, the Ingonyama Trust administers significant amounts of land across KwaZulu-Natal. The Trust estimates that it administers some 2.8 million hectares. Given the Trust’s wide powers and broad impact, it is important to understand the rights of people living on land administered by the Trust.    Recently, it has become clear that there are two ways in which the Trust is threatening the rights of rural communities:
 by authorising mining activities and other developments on the land, which is frequently done without proper community consultation and could lead to the deprivation of use rights and access to land; and
 by converting people’s land rights (over land occupied and inherited by families over generations) into lease agreements.

These actions affect the community rights and individual rights of people living on Trust land, and will be discussed in more detail below

.

COMMUNITY RIGHTS ON INGONYAMA TRUST LAND

As stated above, the Act places a burden upon the Trust to administer the land for the material benefit and social well-being of communities listed in the Act. This places an obligation upon the Trust to not conclude agreements in relation to community land that would prejudice community members. This obligation is enforceable in the courts.

One of the specific protections in this regard is that the written consent of local traditional leaders must be obtained before any steps are taken in regard to land rights. This does not mean that the written consent of a traditional leader is enough to establish that the Trust is acting in the best interests of a community. If the Trust enters into an agreement about land rights that is harmful to the community, it can be challenged.

The problem is that it may be difficult to prove the harmfulness of the Trust’s decisions in some circumstances. While an agreement that is clearly negative for the community can be challenged, many agreements will come with both advantages and disadvantages. As courts will generally tend to leave decision-making to the trustees’ discretion, it seems likely that only decisions that seriously undermine community rights will succeed.   Community objections and disapproval will not necessarily be enough to legally challenge a decision of the Trust.

Community consultation

While the content of an agreement may be difficult to challenge, a lack of community consultation may result in possibilities for challenging an agreement on procedural grounds.

Section 2(4) of the Act establishes that the Ingonyama may administer the land in accordance with Zulu customary law. Section 2(8) establishes that the Ingonyama shall not interfere with existing rights or interests to the land. According to a study of customary land law in Msinga conducted by the Institute for Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS), when an outsider is seeking access to land it is not sufficient for them to merely receive the approval of an Inkosi or an Induna.

The demarcation of the land must include the consultation of the Ibandla and the potential neighbours of the outsider applying for land. A similar study by the LEAP project found that the agreement of the potential neighbours is essential for an outsider to be allocated land. The Ibandla must also be consulted.

Customary land law clearly requires consultation with neighbours and the Ibandla. If an agreement is made to give rights to community land to an outsider without such consultation, communities may be able to challenge this agreement in a court. The Constitution upholds rights derived from customary law that are consistent with the
Bill of Rights in sections 39(3) and 211(3).

The Promotion of Administrative Justice Act

Apart from the rights under the Trust Act, affected communities may also challenge decisions the Trust makes in regard to land under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 (PAJA). PAJA regulates administrative action (the exercise of government power or performance of a public function) to ensure that it is exercised in a just fashion.

PAJA defines administrative action as including action by non-state bodies exercising a government power or performing a public function in terms of law. There is no doubt that the Ingonyama Trust is subject to the PAJA and administrative law.

The PAJA provides for fair administrative action in two sections. Both require that the
people affected by the decision participate in the process of making it.

 Section 3 sets out the requirements for fair administrative action when a person’s rights or expectations of fairness are involved. Unless there are clear reasons for not doing so, a person whose rights would be affected is entitled to be informed
about the proposed action, to request reasons for the action, and to be consulted regarding the action.
 Section 4 sets out the requirements for procedurally fair administrative action where a proposed administrative action affects the rights of the public in ways that cause them significant harm. If the rights of the public are affected, the trustee must either hold an open public inquiry or give people the opportunity to comment on the action, or both.  Where individual rights are affected, or public rights are adversely affected, the Ingonyama Trust must comply with the public consultation requirements set out above. If it does not, the decisions it makes may be set aside if the Trust is not able to justify why it acted as it did.

INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS ON INGONYAMA TRUST LAND

While the claim of community interests may prove difficult, individual rights are easier to protect. Section 2(8) clearly provides a guarantee against the Trust undermining existing rights and interests. This means that if a person currently has a right to occupy land, this right cannot be interfered with by the Trust except as permitted  by law, including customary law.

Strong rights in customary law

In reviewing land tenure security under customary law, Professor Kerr notes that in customary law an individual’s right to land are very strong in relation to inheritance and law. While traditional leaders played a role in administering land, Professor Delius finds that “once land was allocated to households it was very unusual for it to be reclaimed by a chief or a local leader.”

In surveying current land rights under customary law in KwaZulu-Natal, the LEAP project found that land tenure security traditionally was very strong and could only be interfered with if occupants committed very serious crimes.

The Trust also recognises that people have very strong rights over the land. The Trust’s chairperson, Jerome Ngwenya, has said that “people who live according to indigenous law and custom know that their rights are not adequately described by leasehold as theirs is more than this”. He has even acknowledged that “in reality are the true owners. They derive their rights of occupation from historical rights of various clans (tribes).”

It is therefore clear that individuals have strong rights to land that they occupy. If the Ingonyama Trust were to attempt to dispose of occupied land contrary to customary law or other law, it would clearly infringe section 2(8)’s protection against the loss of rights.

Converting land rights into lease agreements

Despite these statements the Trust has increasingly been converting people’s customary or informal rights over the Trust land into lease agreements – which is generally a weaker type of right. In fact, since 2007 the Trust has largely stopped providing other forms of tenure security to people living on the land. The Trust has also claimed that lease agreements strengthen the rights of the people living on Trust land rather than diminishing them.

In reality, lease agreements mean that the people on Trust land are paying rental to live on land that they effectively ‘own’. This problem is worsened by the fact that there are no clear limitations on the amounts of rental the Trust can claim in relation to the land.

The Trust’s reasons for converting people’s rights into leases

The Trust has given a number of reasons for converting people’s rights into leases.

These reasons are will be discussed below.

Previously, permission to occupy certificates (PTOs) were an important form of tenure which people living on the Trust land were provided.

Historically, the former homelands had the power to issue PTOs to black people living on Trust land.

However, these powers were jeopardised by the repeal of Bantustan legislation after South Africa became a democratic country in 1994.

The only exception was KwaZulu-Natal, where the Minister of Land Affairs delegated this power to the provincial MEC for Traditional and Local Government in September 1998. PTO certificates could therefore be issued by the provincial government in KwaZulu-Natal. 

(Note:  ALL Provinces are part of ANC government – Provinces are Government levels 2 – Same with all Municipalities that are level 3 government – all under National Government of ANC – Constitution and all national legislations – B-BBEE – mining rights – land rights – reform – etc)

~

The Trust claims that this created an unusual situation in terms of which someone other than the Trust (the provincial MEC) could issue tenure rights over Trust land, while the Trust had the power to provide all other forms of tenure (provided that the Trust could obtain the consent of the relevant traditional council). The Trust considered this problematic. In response, the Trust concluded an agreement (presumably with the MEC) that no new PTO certificates would be issued over Trust land after 1 April 2007.

It thus seems that issuing leases over the Trust land was one of the ways in which the Trust sought to strengthen its own power in relation to holding and administering the Trust land. The Trust has also tried to convert existing PTOs (which remain legally valid) into leases.

Another main reason the Trust is converting people’s rights into leases is that rental income is the main income of the Trust. The Trust expects that in 2015, it will receive R15.3 million in rental income. The Trust has often stated that the rental it receives in terms of leases is significantly more than it would receive in terms of PTOs.   For example, the Trust received R100 annually in terms of residential PTOs but receives, on average, R1000 annually in terms of lease agreements.

The Trust argues that signing lease agreements has therefore increased the revenue of the Trust which is advantageous to the beneficiaries of the Trust, but this loses sight of the fact that it is the beneficiaries of the Trust who have to pay the rental in the first place.

The Trust argues that it encourages people living on the land to conclude lease agreements because lease agreements are formal documents that “can be interpreted in the context of the common law”.

The Trust thus argues that the customary rights that people have over the land are not registered or documented and that leases would provide more protection to people. This argument is clearly incorrect as leases give people weaker rights over the land than they had before as they can be evicted from the land if they do not pay the rental amounts consistently.

Tenure security through IPILRA

Section 2(7) of the Act establishes that any national land reform programme shall apply to the land of the Ingonyama Trust. Section 25(6) of the Constitution provides for an Act of Parliament to ensure tenure security for those who lack it due to past racially discriminatory laws or practices. While it was meant to be temporary, the Interim Protection of Informal Land Rights Act (IPILRA) has been renewed every year to fulfil section 25(6) of the Constitution. IPILRA protects “informal rights to land”. These informal rights are defined to include rights to use, occupy or access land in terms of customary law in the former KwaZulu and other former homeland areas. It therefore applies to people who use, occupy or access land administered by the Ingonyama Trust.

Section 2(1) provides that people who have such informal rights to land may not be deprived of these rights without their consent. They may only be deprived of land without their consent if the disposal of the land is approved by the majority of those who hold such rights within an affected community. If they are deprived of the land based on a community decision, they are entitled to compensation.

It is therefore clear that occupants of land under the Ingonyama Trust have very strong protections in terms of IPILRA.

UNQUOTE

*
*
*
*
*

BESTUDEER DIE HOFUITSPRAAK  2021

Die hooggeregshof in Pietermaritzburg het Vrydag 11 Junie verklaar dat die Ingonyama Trust onregmatig en in stryd met die Grondwet (1996) opgetree het deur residensiële huurkontrakte te sluit met persone wat ware eienaars van die grond is ingevolge Zoeloe gewoontereg.

UCT REGSAFDELING se Grond- en Verantwoordbaarheidsnavorsingsentrum (LARC) het ‘n sentrale rol gespeel in die bereiking van hierdie beslissing, saam met die Rural Women’s Movement (RWM) wat saam met sy stigter, wyle Mam’Sizane Ngubane, gewerk het. Die partye, wat die Raad vir die Bevordering van die Suid-Afrikaanse Grondwet (CASAC), RWM, en verskeie individuele gemeenskapslede ingesluit het, is verteenwoordig deur die Regshulpbronsentrum, en advokate Geoff Budlender, Janice Bleazard en Tembeka Ngcukaitobi. Die volledige LARC-persverklaring is beskikbaar vir aflaai.

Die Hof het alle huurkontrakte oor residensiële en landbougrond – met die ware en voordelige eienaars onder Zoeloe gewoontereg of gehou ingevolge die Wet op Informele Grondregte (IPILRA), of met Permissions to Occupy (PTO’s) – onwettig en ongeldig verklaar.

Die Hof het gelas dat die Ingonyama Trust alle geld wat ingevolge hierdie huurkontrakte aan hom betaal is, moet terugbetaal, en het verder beveel dat tot so ‘n tyd dat die Minister toepaslike meganismes aanvaar om gebruiklike, IPILRA, & bo-regte te beskerm, behoorlike prosesse heringestel moet word om voorsiening te maak vir die toekenning van PTO-regte ingevolge toepaslike KwaZulu Natalse wetgewing.

WATCH OUT FOR THIS COURT RULE

15 Jun 2021
The Pietermaritzburg High Court declared Friday 11 June that the Ingonyama Trust acted unlawfully and in violation of the Constitution by concluding residential leases with persons who are true owners of the land in terms of Zulu customary law.

UCT Law’s Land and Accountability Research Centre (LARC) played a central role in achieving this ruling, along with the Rural Women’s Movement (RWM) working with its founder the late Mam’Sizane Ngubane. The parties, who included the Council for the Advancement of the South African Constitution (CASAC), RWM, and several individual community members, were represented by the Legal Resources Centre, and Advocates Geoff Budlender, Janice Bleazard, and Tembeka Ngcukaitobi. The full LARC press statement is available for download.

The Court declared all leases over residential and agricultural land – with the true and beneficial owners under Zulu customary law or held in terms of the Informal Land Rights Act (IPILRA), or with Permissions to Occupy (PTOs) – unlawful and invalid.

The Court ordered that the Ingonyama Trust must refund all money paid to it in terms of these leases, and further ordered that until such a time that the Minister adopts appropriate mechanisms of protecting customary, IPILRA, & PTO rights, proper processes must be reinstated to allow for the granting of PTO rights in terms of applicable KwaZulu Natal legislation.

https://law.uct.ac.za/articles/2021-06-15-ingonyama-trust-landmark-ruling