The government’s land reform programme has become a breeding ground for litigation, corruption and fraud "on an enormous scale" — accelerated by policies described as "weak" and "vague" by the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) and political leadership in the ANC itself.
Essentially, the administration of land reform in SA is a hot mess — and it is black farmers, who should be benefiting from such programmes, who are getting burnt the worst.
The effects of policy incoherence are glaringly apparent in the SIU’s 2018 report on payments to land reform beneficiaries. The report focuses largely on the now suspended land redistribution for agricultural development (LRAD) subprogramme.
The report, which was released by the presidency last week, provides extraordinary insight into how a programme intended to empower poor black farmers was effectively used to secure grants and farms for people who should never have qualified for them.
It also supports the alarms sounded by the high-level panel headed by former president Kgalema Motlanthe, which suggested that land reform has been stymied by weak policy, corruption in the state and a lack of both political will and capacity.
The SIU says its seven-year investigation of 148 land reform projects has shown that "considerations of prevention of risks pertaining to fraud, maladministration and consequent losses had clearly been compromised in favour of delivering ‘the desired rate of implementation’".
This, the SIU says, enabled "fraudulent activities on an enormous scale — with vast implications in terms of irregular and fruitless and wasteful expenditure — ultimately at the cost of the taxpayer".
The SIU recommended that 42 people, including department officials, face prosecution for fraud and corruption, and it successfully applied for the forfeiture of 24 farms valued at more than R382m. It also recommended disciplinary action be taken against 37 department officials.
The department has not responded to questions about whether or how this was done.
The ANC’s land reform programme ended up as tainted by the self-enrichment of a corrupt and undeserving few, and the betrayal of those most fully invested in making it work
More than just providing painstaking detail on how alleged land reform grant scams were carried out in a quarter of the 148 projects it investigated, the SIU report highlights how the department charged with managing SA’s pivotal land reform processes seems incapable of the most basic checks and balances.
In addition to a lack of controls and appropriate measures for implementation, the investigation indicated that "the [LRAD] grants largely constituted free handouts, which contributed nothing to very little to the objectives of land reform, and resulted in irregular and fruitless and wasteful expenditure of taxpayers’ money on a massive scale".
Critically, beneficiaries of the LRAD programme were expected to stay and work on the farms they were given grants to purchase — often as part of large community trusts — so as to partially pay back the money they had received.
But this is not what happened.
The unit uncovered scams in which the people who had been awarded grants had no idea they were beneficiaries, weren’t aware that the grant required them to work on the farm, had never worked on a farm before, or lived hundreds of kilometres away from the farm they were given grants to buy.
It’s unclear whether the evidence turned up by the SIU resulted in the LRAD programme being suspended, or whether its replacement with the proactive land acquisition strategy (PLAS) was the consequence of a political shift in the ANC towards the nationalisation model favoured by then president Jacob Zuma.
We know now that Zuma is in favour of nationalising land ownership because he helpfully posted two videos on Twitter recently outlining his views on what should happen to land expropriated by the state.
"My information says European countries don’t sell land to private people or companies. It is in the hands of the state. If you want to use it, you lease it. Why in our case should it be different?" he asked.
Zuma did not identify which countries he was talking about. He added that he had become convinced that the drafters of the Freedom Charter were "more advanced than us … Because they talked about nationalisation of the land. And that’s what the developed countries do. No land is sold to individuals."
That stance appears to directly contradict the position taken by the ANC, which has said it does not support the nationalisation of land called for by the EFF.
But the PLAS seems to suggest that the government has been quietly pursuing a scheme that kept ownership of property earmarked for land reform very much in its own hands.
This strategy differs drastically from LRAD, which allocated grants to beneficiaries so they could buy land to farm.
As the SIU notes in its report, "the PLAS programme entailed that the government acquired ownership of the land concerned. The programme focuses on purchasing land with a high agricultural potential, with a view to then identify beneficiaries and to lease the land to them with the eventual goal of purchasing it themselves."
But what does "eventual goal" mean in real terms?
For Limpopo farmer David Rakgase, 77, that translated into the government offering him a 30-year lease on the farm he had been renting from the state since 1991 — and had been trying to buy, under the LRAD programme, for 16 years.
Rakgase has produced letters showing he was offered, and accepted, the opportunity to purchase the farm in November 2002 for R1.2m. The agreement then was that the government would give him a R400,000 grant and he would pay a further R800,000 to buy the land.
But despite multiple letters from government officials confirming this arrangement, it was never put into force. Rakgase never got the title deed to the land he had spent years turning into a profitable farm, and on which many of his family members were buried. Instead, he was offered a 30-year lease.
This, after he and his family invested heavily in the farm, which had become a training ground for aspirant young black farmers.
"I respectfully submit that it is inexplicable that at a time when there is, quite rightly, national concern about the relatively limited amount of agricultural land which is owned by black South Africans, the minister should have a policy that requires that an experienced black farmer, who has successfully farmed state-owned land for 27 years and who has at all times made payment of rent which is due, who has been training young black would-be farmers, who wishes to buy the farm that he has leased for 27 years, whom the Land Bank was willing to support with a loan, and whose business plan has been approved by the department, should be required to enter into a lease for a further 30 years in order to obtain any assistance from government’s land redistribution programme, and to be able to remain on the farm," Rakgase says in court papers.
He has also told the Pretoria high court that the state’s broken promises led to the 1,560ha farm Nooitgedacht, in the Waterberg, being illegally occupied in May 2016.
"When I approached [the illegal occupiers] and told them they must leave the farm, they responded that I have no authority to evict them, because I am not the owner," Rakgase says.
He adds that government inspectors found the unlawful occupation had resulted in significant overgrazing, as the occupiers owned 300 cattle.
The government was forced to go to court to obtain an order to evict the illegal occupants.
An SIU investigation of land reform uncovered scams at a quarter of the 148 projects it probed
— What it means
Minister of rural development & land reform Maite Nkoana-Mashabane has yet to provide any answer to Rakgase’s application, which is effectively a challenge to the legality of the PLAS programme.
Nor has she provided any record that may explain why the department refused to sell the farm to Rakgase.
The stance taken by the department in the Rakgase case seems to contradict all the stated objectives of the government’s land reform programme.
It also demonstrates how the state’s incoherence on land redistribution has had devastating consequences for the black farmers it is meant to empower.
As the Motlanthe panel notes in its evaluation of land reform, "there are instances where weak outcomes reflect a lack of political will to pursue stated policy objectives, such as in land reform, where policy has shifted away from constitutional imperatives such as equitable access to land, towards state ownership that echoes apartheid-style notions of custodianship".
The Rakgase case is arguably not just about the plight of a black family who have spent years turning land they were promised by the state into a successful farm. It’s not just about how the family used that land to empower young black farmers. And it’s about more than the terrible way illegal occupants moved in and damaged and vandalised the property.
The Rakgase case is a heartbreaking metaphor.
Land reform could have been one of the ANC’s most profound success stories. Instead, it ended up tainted by the self-enrichment of a corrupt and undeserving few.
What’s most terrifying, of course, is that those responsible for this democracy-defining project seemingly couldn’t tell the difference. Or refused to.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.