DMR Minister and Deputy downplay Mining Charter public inputs at Rustenburg

Posted on Updated on

Mine-hosting communities in the Bojanala Platinum District Municipality converged at the Rustenburg Civic Centre on the 10 May 2018 to make inputs on the Mining Charter.

In attendance were a handful of: young people working in the local mines; local Municipal Councilors; local BEE companies; members of Bapo, Bafokeng and Bakgatla traditional communities.

The hearings lasted the whole day and 95% of the attendants rejected the Mining Charter on account that:

  1. No proper notice about the public hearings was given;
  2. The mining charter is a document crafted elsewhere by unknown persons, without and about them;
  3.  The Charter is subject to MPRDA which itself was rejected by the communities during last year hearings on the latter Act amendment process;
  4. The Charter and the MPRDA promotes the controversial migrant mine labour system and ethnic divisions;
  5. Land ownership disputes should be resolved first before mining takes place;
  6. As land claimants and affected communities, negotiations and agreements about mining should be done with them and not with the chiefs;
  7. The Charter and the MPRDA are legal instruments used by mining companies, traditional chiefs and DMR to deprive people of their informal rights;
  8. Officials and political leadership are agents of white supremacy and white monopoly capital;
  9. There are competing rights and interests between mine-hosting communities and labour sending communities;
  10. The true definition and geographic location of labour sending communities cannot be determined and support to these unknown communities therefore unjustified.

Members complained about possible fraudulent acts in the legal department of the DMR where applications for prospecting rights were unscrupulously refused. In other instances appeals for the suspension of mining licenses ignored.

BLBA input on the Mining Charter  blames the ANC in around 1992 for accepting advice by the World Bank to deprive local traditional communities and Local Municipalities of control over land and minerals, much to their chagrin.

BLBA requested the Department not to renew Impala Platinum Mine’s application to renew their expiring mining license, and to refuse them further mining developments at Luka village.

Municipal Councilors requested the DMR to scrap the Mining Communities’ Leadership Forum (MCLEF) which they found abused by the mines to escape compliance.

In their response Minister Mantashe and his Deputy Mr Oliphant ignored dealing with the above inputs. Mr Oliphant’s response was mainly appreciative of the 5% that sought procurement opportunities in the mines. His response suggested that the gathering amounted to a proper consultation on the Mining Charter.

Minister Mantashe’s short response on the other hand took a swipe at mine-hosting communities, suggesting that they were greedy not to share their mineral wealth with the whole nation.


Successful BLBA AGM supports NW Province Premier recall

Posted on Updated on


BLBA held a successful march demonstration and its Annual General Meeting on Sharpeville Day, March 21 in commemoration of the human rights month. The march which started at Mogono Section of Luka Village, culminated into a General Meeting at Thethe High School.
Bafokeng communities commended the leadership of BLBA for their resilience in their fight against mining injustice and poor, repressive traditional governance by the Royal Bafokeng chief.
Communities welcomed the recent NW Appeal Court judgment in which the Court found conduct by the Bafokeng chief and his so called Supreme Council to be in violation of communities’ right to be consulted. The communities expect the Court to refuse the chief an opportunity to appeal the matter. Communities have vowed that should the chief appeal the matter, it would be for his personal account, and that he should actually be impeached for his delinquent autocratic behaviour.
The communities further welcomed grant support by International Alliance on Natural Resources in Africa (IANRA) and the European Union Parliament for communities to develop relationships with their Members of Provincial Legislature responsible for mining and traditional leadership. Communities hope to inform MPLs about developments in their mining affected areas, and to hold MPLs accountable.
The mine-hosting Bafokeng communities are worried that they made inputs against the MPRDA Amendment Bill in recent public participation processes, and yet the Provincial Legislature voted in favour of the Bill, against communities’ wishes.
It is on this latter point and many others that the communities called for the recall of Premier Supra Mahumapelo with immediate effect.


Posted on

In a unanimous judgment delivered on Friday 09 March 2018, the Appeal Court at the North West High Court upheld Bafokeng communities’ appeal to dismiss Royal Bafokeng Nation’s 2008 Court application (‘main application’) to have some 61 farms registered in its name. The farms are currently held by the Minister of Land Reform and Rural Development in trust for the Bafokeng ‘tribe’.

In the main application, the RBN argues that the trust instrument created by apartheid legislation that land belonging to Bafokeng people be held in trust on their behalf was racially discriminatory, and that the ‘trust’ does not conform with current laws regulating trust formations.

Bafokeng communities organsised under the banner of the Bafok eng Land Buyers’ Association (‘BLBA’), argued that the sought transfer and registration of Bafokeng land should be done in the names of the original buyers of Bafokeng land, being various communities or villages that forms the Bafokeng ‘tribe’.

Communities claim they were forced around 1883 by the British government to amalgamate their land to form what is now known as the Bafokeng ‘tribe’.

The communities later challenged the authority of the chief to have launched the main application in 2008 without proper authorisation and ‘tribal’ consultation.

Judge Landman found in the lower Court that the chief ought to have consulted first with the people when he applied at North West High Court for the land to be transferred and registered in RBN names. The Judge however held that the chief could exercise a discretion not to consult, as it was his prerogative to or not to consult. It was these findings which BLBA, Thekwane Community and Setuke Family appealed against.

The Appeal court found that Judge Landman erred in his ruling. The Appeal Court found that RBN and the chief ought to have consulted, and that failure to consult was fatal to RBN case. It was therefore not necessary to determine validity of the authorisation o litigate, and whether if the Supreme Council was properly constituted at its meeting of 22 September 2005 to authorise the said 2008 main application by the RBN. The Appeal Court importantly found that the Supreme Council did not possess powers mandating the chief to apply to the Court to have the said transfer and registration of farms in RBN name.

The Court found that the so-called Supreme Council had habitually and unlawfully exercised powers ordinarily reserved for and vested with the statutory Traditional/ Executive Council.

The overall result is that RBN’s 2008 main case is therefore dismissed with costs. Further to that, the appellants succeeded in their appeal against Judge Landman’s order, and RBN ordered again to pay costs of the appeal.

The Bafokeng chief is found by many within the Bafokeng to be autocratic in his style of leadership. He is as such likely to approach the highest Court of the land. BLBA is of the view that should the chief attempt a Constitutional Court review, that such application would be reckless and wasteful, and that the chief should then be held personally liable for delinquent conduct.

BLBA intends approaching the Royal Family and the Traditional Council to commence impeachment proceedings against the chief, should he persist with his conduct at the ‘tribe’s’ expense. Such conduct has brought the ‘tribal’ affairs into disrepute.

BLBA shall discuss the implications of the case at its upcoming Annual General Meeting scheduled for 21 March 2018 (formerly Sharpeville Day). The meeting shall be preceded by a protest demonstration to create awareness about human rights injustice the Bafokeng communities are subjected to by the mining complex (mines, banks, government) operating in their areas.

See Appeal judgment here: BLBA and two others v RBN Case No CIV APP 3/17 in case 999/08 NWHC



Semantlana Mighty Makgatlha, land rights fighter gone too soon

Posted on Updated on

Bafokeng communities are mourning yet again, this time the passing of ‘Mighty’ Semantlana Vincent Makgatlha, a gallant heritage activist, a sharp historian, a lover of his people.

It was Semantlana back in 2006 after the 29 July Bafokeng Kgotha-kgothe meeting who convened a meeting of the Makgatlha Family at Luka to consider reopening the Klipfontein 300JQ (Bleskop Photsaneng) land claim.

Hardly two years later in June 2008 the claim was gazetted as valid and a process of verifying who the rightful beneficiaries of Photsaneng land were, was initiated by the Land Claims Commission.

Anglo Platinum owned two of the claimed farms and was ready to hand them back when the Royal Bafokeng Nation (RBN) intervened claiming that the portions of land Anglo intended to transfer back to the community should instead be transferred to them, RBN.

In a meeting with the Department of Land Affairs to consider Anglo’s commercial rights on the land, Semantlana was steadfast that royalties should flow to the Photsaneng community. Present also in the meeting was the late Durke Gulfillan, Louise Du Plessis, Thusi Rapoo,  the late Rudolph Jansen, and the late Ben Huma.

Unfortunately, RBN overtook the claim and rushed to the Mafikeng High Court to lay claim to some 61 farms around Rustenburg, including Klipfontein 300JQ. Had it not been for this unholy intervention by RBN, Photsaneng would be enjoying the rights on land, including the mining royalties. And many other Bafokeng communities would have followed suit with their claims.

The Mafikeng case continues, and the Bafokeng communities are upbeat they shall celebrate victory judgment come Human Rights Day, 21 March 2018.

Bra Mighty, as he was affectionately known shall be laid to rest at Bleskop Photsaneng on the 13 January 2018.

May his fighting, loving spirit live on.

Judgment reserved: Royal Bafokeng Supreme Council bogus status and its failure to consult communities

Posted on Updated on


The full bench at the North West High Court, Mafikeng reserved judgment today in a matter between Bafokeng communities and the so called Royal Bafokeng Nation (‘RBN’).

Senior Counsel for the RBN, Adv Mark Antrobus, struggled to convince the Court that the Royal Bafokeng Supreme Council had the power on the 22 September 2005 to authorise litigation in which the RBN sought some 61 farms transferred and registered in RBN names. The farms are currently registered in the name of the Minister for Rural Development and Land Reform in trust for the ‘Bafokeng’ chief and his ‘tribe’. Many of these farms are claimed by the individual communities as theirs, and not the RBN’s.

Antrobus opened his account at the hearing by insisting that the crux of the dispute lie in customary law, not statutory law. That the impugned decision of 22 September 2005, was taken in terms of Bafokeng customs, and therefore that the Court ought to determine the matter in terms of Bafokeng customary law.

The latter submission unfortunately for Antrobus self-contradicts RBN earlier submission that the chief did not have to consult, as required in terms of Bafokeng custom. The chief had also taken a rigid adversarial direct litigation decision and approach in lodging a Court claim for the said farms, abrogating customary practice. It is interesting that Antrobus submits now that the decision was taken in terms of customary law or practice.

At trial, RBN expert witness, Mr Rapetsana, submitted that the Supreme Council power lie in the fact that the Supreme Council had a practice of taking decisions. He did not say that such power is found or established in the Supreme Council Constitution, which did not exist, or any other law. But that they possess the power since they have always been taking decisions. In trying to defend or clarify this absurd reasoning, Antrobus said Rapetsana did not understand himself as he battled with the english language.

Antrobus asserted that about 72 representatives of various Makgotla (village councils) who constituted the Supreme Council were, as representatives, inherently empowered or authorised to take decisions on behalf of their Makgotla constituencies without further consultations with them.

The three Judges were at pains further to understand Antrobus line of reasoning in asserting that the Supreme Council did not have to consult their constituent communities when they took a decision on the 22 September 2005 to launch the impugned application with the Court for the said transfer and registration of the 61 farms in RBN’s names.


He submitted further that in taking such decisions, the Supreme Council did not have to form a quorum because in terms of Bafokeng customs, it is not a requirement to have quorums in traditional meetings.

Senior Council Adv Geoff Budlender of the Legal Resources Centre on behalf of the communities, rubbished Antrobus submission. What Antrobus proposes is that, for lack of a quorum requirement in terms of the alleged Bafokeng customs, one member of the Supreme Council could take a decision for the other 71 Dikgosana in their absence.

Budlender indicated that Judge Landman had already found, against the RBN, that the Supreme Council did not have such powers to take such a decision. The Judge however, erroneously held instead that the decision was in fact taken by the statutory Traditional/Executive Council in a joint sitting with the Council of Dikgosana, the two structures together forming the Supreme Council.

There was no basis for this finding as (1) it was never the RBN case that the decision was taken by the statutory Traditional/Executive Council, and (2) the Judge himself could not have established, without the attendance register, which (number of) members of the statutory Traditional/Executive Council had taken the decision. RBN failed to produce the attendance register at trial.

In a nutshell, according to both Landman and RBN, the decision was taken by one or both of the structures, and none of which quorated.

It is Budlender’s submission that the decision was invalid, null and void, and the main application therefore stands to be dismissed due to the chief’s lack of proper authorisation and standi.

As the Court reserved Judgment, the communities are adamant that the chief is simply wasting tribal monies with the case and the lawyers.