to read full article. - Sustaining The Wild Coast

For attention:
Minister Collins Chabane
Minister in the Presidency
Performance Monitoring and Enhancement
John G I Clarke. Consultant Social Worker
Co-option, Subversion and
Offensive Exploitation:
[Type the abstract of the document here. The abstract is typically a short summary of the
contents of the document.]
The failure of Cooperative Governance for the Amadiba
Community of the Eastern Cape
[Company Address]
John GI Clarke
Consultant Social Worker
Amadiba Crisis Committee
Co-option, Subversion and Offensive Exploitation
The failure of Cooperative Governance for the Amadiba
Community of the Eastern Cape.
For the attention of:
Mr Collins Chabane: Minister in the Presidency, Performance Monitoring and Evaluation.
CC:
Ms Susan Shabangu: Minister of Mineral Resources
Ms Edna Molewa: Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs
Mr Benedict Martins: Minister of Transport
Mr Nathi Mthetwa: Minister of Police
Mr Marthinus van Schalkwyk: Minister of Tourism
Mr Gugile Nkwinti: Minister of Rural Development and Land Affairs
Mr Richard Boloyi: Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs
Author
John G I Clarke
B.Soc Sc (Social Work) B.Soc.Sc (hons) (Religious Studies)
Consultant Social Worker contracted by the Amadiba Crisis Committee and Traditional
Authority of the Amadiba.
Tel: + 27 83 608 0944: Fax 0866842405
Email: johngic@iafrica.com.
Post: P.O.Box 2408, Pinegowrie, 2123
Registered Social Worker: Registration Number: 10-12111
Member. South African Association of Social Workers in Private Practice.
Acknowledgments
This work has been supported by organs of Civil Society, Sustaining the Wild Coast,
(www.swc.org.za), the South African Faith Communities Environmental Institute
(www.safcei.org.za), and the South African Council of Churches.
Grateful thanks to Prof Clive Dennison for editing, Cheryl Alexander and Yvette Deschamps
for photographs and anonymous donors for meeting travel, accommodation, printing and
communications costs associated with this report.
Cover Photo
The Sunday Tribune report. August 2008, featuring Nonhle Mbuthuma (left) and Basheen
Qunya (right). Below. Excerpts from fraudulent lists of 3087 residents with forged signatures.
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Author ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 2
Acknowledgments .............................................................................................................................................................. 2
Cover Photo ........................................................................................................................................................................... 2
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 4
MANDATE AND METHOD OF WORK .................................................................................. 6
Storytelling for emancipation ...............................................................................................................................6
Social work role .........................................................................................................................................................7
Cursing the Darkness vs. Lighting candles .......................................................................................................9
The Darkness: Failure of Cooperative Governance ............................................................................................. 9
The Candle. “Reframing” .................................................................................................................................................. 9
Lighting the candle requires decisive leadership from Government ........................................................ 10
SUMMARY BACKGROUND HISTORY ................................................................................ 13
Origins of the Mining proposal .......................................................................................................................... 13
Controversy over The N2 Wild Coast Toll Road .......................................................................................... 14
Defence of Communal Land Rights................................................................................................................... 15
Three Unexplained Critical Incidents ............................................................................................................. 18
Death of Scorpion Dimane ............................................................................................................................................ 18
Critical Environmental Report ‘suppressed’ ......................................................................................................... 18
Xolobeni Scholars beaten by police .......................................................................................................................... 19
Process leading to revoking of mining rights .............................................................................................. 19
Profanity against the Ancestors and the Constitution ...................................................................................... 20
Traditional Leadership Turmoil ................................................................................................................................. 21
The Holomisa Task Team Report............................................................................................................................... 21
The N2 Road Resurfaces ...................................................................................................................................... 23
THE CRISIS RECURS: MINING INTERESTS TRY AGAIN ........................................................ 24
Emergency meeting of Amadiba Crisis Committee .................................................................................... 25
Consultation with Queen Masobhuza Sigcau ................................................................................................ 25
Failed plot to arrest ACC leadership ................................................................................................................ 25
Public Participation Meeting at Komkulu ..................................................................................................... 26
Concluding consensus ........................................................................................................................................... 28
Mr Bhalasheleni Mtwa of Kwanyana ........................................................................................................................ 28
Mr Zadla Dlamini of Mdatja .......................................................................................................................................... 28
Mr Samson Gampe of Sigidi .......................................................................................................................................... 29
Way forward ............................................................................................................................................................. 29
Public Participation Meeting at Dangeni ....................................................................................................... 29
Public Participation meeting in Mbizana ...................................................................................................... 29
THE KEY ISSUES ............................................................................................................... 31
Is the community “divided”? ........................................................................................................................................ 31
Is the community ‘poor’? ............................................................................................................................................... 33
What does BEE really mean? ....................................................................................................................................... 34
THE WAY FORWARD: UPHOLDING THE RULE OF LAW ...................................................... 37
Alleged theft of soil for prospecting purposes ............................................................................................. 37
Theft of names to claim consent ................................................................................................................................. 38
Sabotage of Amadiba Adventures ..................................................................................................................... 39
Sanral CEO’s alleged abuse of power and manipulation of SANRAL board ....................................... 41
CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 43
3
Introduction
"It seems that almost every time a valuable natural resource is discovered in the world whether it be diamonds, rubber, gold, oil, whatever - often what results is a tragedy for the
country in which they are found. Making matters worse, the resulting riches from these
resources rarely benefit the people of the country from which they come.”
Ed Zwick, Director Blood Diamond.
Besides its relevance to South Africa and the African continent, this observation by the award
winning Hollywood filmmaker becomes
most explicit at the micro level of a
Figure 1: The Cover Story in July 2007
particular Wild Coast rural community
from the Amadiba Traditional Authority,
part of the amaMpondo Traditional
Authority headed by King Justice
Mpondombini Sigcau. Agents from an
Australian venture capital mining
exploration company, MRC Ltd, have had
their eye on the heavy mineral deposits,
which they regard as “one of the largest
undeveloped mineral sands resources in
the world, containing in excess of 9
million tonnes of ilmenite” (their
emphasis).
Ironically Blood Diamond was largely
filmed on the Wild Coast in February
2006. There are chilling parallels between
the fictional script of that film and the
subsequent real life experience of the
Amadiba Community, many of whom were employed as extras in the film.
In August 2006, six months after Blood Diamond was filmed, a local resident from the
Amadiba Tribal Administrative Area and a member of the Royal Baleni Clan, Mr Sinegugu
Figure 2: Mzamba River Gorge, where Blood Diamond was filmed. Sigidi Village is on the left. The proposed N2
Wild Coast will cross this gorge
Zukulu engaged me in my professional capacity as a social worker. The rural roads and
bridge crossings were in such a poor state that medicines could not be delivered to rural
clinics and teaching was being disrupted as learners and teachers could not get to school, as
early spring rains had turned the roads into quagmires. The school, where Mr Zukulu had
matriculated in 1990, became one of the focal points of my social work intervention to
explore ways of enhancing the functioning of the educational system, and to engage the media
in an advocacy campaign to press for road upgrade and maintenance.
The other focal point was the declining fortunes of the community-based eco-tourism venture,
Amadiba Adventures, controlled by Mr Zamile Qunya, who had matriculated with Mr
Zukulu. His one-time best friend had recruited Mr Zukulu to help run the EU-funded Hutted
Camp on the Mntentu River Estuary, but things were not going well. Zukulu suspected that
Qunya had in fact ‘sold out’ to MRC Ltd. (the company planning to mine the local dunes),
and was systematically working to slowly kill Amadiba Adventures – because, if eco-tourism
could be seen to have been a job-creation failure, the Amadiba Community would more
readily embrace the mining venture as an alternative.
“We are now
So commenced an intervention that we thought would be
concluded in a matter of two years, but six years later Mr Zukulu turning to the
and I are still working to get to grips with the challenges.
Office of the
We had assumed that the Government would be a resource to Presidency to plead
assist in rooting out any corrupt practice and all that would be
required was strategic media advocacy and tactful interventions for an intervention
to overcome bureaucratic inertia and confused service delivery in a situation that
priorities at local government level. Unfortunately certain organs has become a
of government, notably the Department of Mineral Resources
and the OR Tambo District Municipality, which had jurisdiction national disgrace.”
over the area at the time, became the biggest obstacles.
We are now turning to the Office of the Presidency to plead for an intervention in a situation
that has become a national disgrace.
Figure 3: Indicative Route for the N2 Wild Coast Toll Road, showing proximity to the mining area.
5
Mandate and method of work
The professional mandate of a social worker is first and foremost to challenge social injustice,
by working with vulnerable and disadvantaged individuals, families and communities. The
client community is in this instance the Amadiba Community who have been affected by two
major controversial proposals from Government that, although promising opportunities for
the improvement of the quality of life of the community, have in fact disturbed their peace
and harmony. My work has been to ensure that all local residents, who derived their
livelihoods and identity from the land, could meaningfully participate in government
decisions with respect to the two development proposals from outside commercial interests
that would have major impacts on their traditional way of life.
The controversial proposals are:


The development of a mining operation by Transworld Energy and Minerals (Pty) Ltd.
(TEM), the wholly owned subsidiary of an Australian listed venture capital company
MRC Ltd. and their BEE partner, the Xolobeni Empowerment Company (Pty.) Ltd.
(Xolco), to extract heavy mineral deposits from a coastal dune system known as the
Xolobeni Mineral Sands.
The N2 Wild Coast Toll road, a Public/Private Partnership venture between Sanral and
the N2 Wild Coast Consortium, which will involve the construction of a new highspeed motorway to shorten the current N2 route between Durban and East London by
85 kms.
Storytelling for emancipation
Ben Okri the renowned Nigerian storyteller and poet, explains how stories can either
emancipate or emasculate the subjects of the narrative.
“Stories are the secret reservoir of values: change the stories individuals and nations live by
and tell themselves and you change the individuals and nations. If they tell themselves stories
that are lies, they will suffer the future consequences of those lies. If they tell themselves
stores that face their own truth they will free their histories for future flowerings.”
In a book due for release later this year, I relate the full story of the ‘long walk to economic
freedom’ that the Amadiba Community have trod over the past decade to become self-reliant
by developing the potential for community based eco-tourism latent along this beautiful
relatively unspoilt Wild Coast. Their walk has been needlessly and cruelly prolonged by the
ambitions of MRC and their partners, who have co-opted certain residents into their ambitions
to mine their ancestral lands and attempted to subvert their traditional leaders who have
opposed them. The narrative relates how the Amadiba Crisis Committee – a conflict
resolution structure formed under the auspices of the Traditional Leadership System – in 2011
successfully convinced the Minister of Mineral Resources to revoke mining rights (awarded
in July 2008 by the former Director General of Mineral Resources Advocate Sandile
Nogxina) and resumed their quest for self-reliance and sustainable livelihoods.
However, circumstances have conspired to cause me to set aside my writing and return to the
area to assist the Amadiba Crisis Committee and Traditional Leaders in my professional
capacity as a social worker to address a resurgence of the crisis. This was precipitated by a
fresh Mineral Prospecting Rights Application submitted by MRC/TEM and Xolco which
unfortunately continues to “tell themselves stories that are lies”, which as Okri warns will
lead to people suffering emasculation as “the future consequences of those lies” if not
strongly challenged and substituted with a truthful narrative for further emancipation.
Thus this report has three objectives:
6



Firstly, to alert the Presidency to the risks of further erosion of Cooperative
Government posed by the ambitions of the Australian-backed mining rights
applicants, TEM (Pty.) Ltd. and Xolco (Pty.) Ltd., and the risks posed to the local
community’s arduous efforts to become self-reliant.
Secondly, to put on record my strongest possible objection to the mining rights
application being considered at this time, and provide reasons why I believe it is an
insult to the local residents for the application to even be entertained in the first place.
Thirdly, to educate the South African public about the situation and the risks it poses
to the furtherance of the values and ideals expressed in the Preamble to the South
African Constitution.
Social work role
In challenging social injustice my method of work has been as follows:

Firstly, to ensure freedom of expression by facilitating access for journalists to the
area and interview local residents, and thus to promote extensive media coverage.
 Secondly, to obtain access to information in government files and corporate
communications of the holding company MRC Ltd. from the Australian Securities
Exchange website1.
 Thirdly, to report allegations that have arisen, regarding the conduct of the applicants,
to impartial institutions of the State, for investigation. These include human rights
violations, improper professional conduct by an attorney, maladministration, abuse of
power, dishonesty by government officials and criminal conduct.
Since local residents are more vulnerable to intimidation and reprisals from those against
whom complaints and allegations have been lodged, these have been lodged in my
professional capacity on their behalf, without disclosing their identities. Those making the
allegations have presented evidence with the expectation that statutory institutions will
impartially investigate and weigh up the evidence, without fear, favour or prejudice, to
determine the truth or otherwise of the allegations.
When the behaviour of stakeholders in a conflict situation becomes in itself problematic, the
first recourse is to report such behaviour to the authorities for impartial investigation. This is
not done to constrain the democratic freedom of any stakeholder but to restrain those with
criminal and sociopathic inclinations, especially when they command greater power and
influence to exploit those disadvantaged by lack of literacy, resources and access to
information. In other words, to even up the playing field and ensure everyone plays by the
rules, so that a fair and mutually beneficial game is enjoyed.
Over the past five years the following institutions have been presented with evidence and
sworn affidavits alleging variously unfair, unjust and manipulative behaviour that has not
been conducive to the development aspirations of any party, especially the most vulnerable
and disadvantaged.

1
The South African Human Rights Commission, with respect to allegations made in
July 2007 against pro-mining interests that seven of the fundamental human rights of
local residents had been violated. The HRC investigated but has yet to make a finding
with respect to the allegations. However the Commission did release a report (see
appendix 1) with observations and recommendations, which have yet to be fully
implemented.
To access MRC’s reports log on to www.asx.com.au, and search for MRC.
7

The Independent Complaints Directorate, with respect to complaints lodged in
September 2008 on behalf of parents and learners of the Xolobeni Junior Secondary
School against the three police officers in the incident described in appendix 2. The
ICD found that the allegations were factually correct and recommended disciplinary
action against the police officers. To my knowledge no action was in fact taken. A
social workers report was submitted to the Minister of Education (Mrs Naledi Pandor
at the time) but I received no written acknowledgement.

The Cape Law Society, lodged in March 2011 with respect to the alleged
professional misconduct of attorney Mr Maxwell Boqwana in his representation of the
interests of his client, the Xolobeni Empowerment Company. I allege that he
condoned the use of manipulative and dishonest tactics by Xolco directors to obtain
the manipulated consent of the local residents for the mining proposal, secondly that
he attempted to besmirch my professional reputation to deter local residents from
using my social work services and, thirdly, for condoning the submission of false and
fraudulent information by Xolco to the Department of Mineral Resources.

The Office of the Public Protector, with respect to two complaints:
Firstly, in July 2011 a complaint alleging that Advocate Sandile Nogxina, former
Director General of DMR, awarded the original mining rights for the Kwanyana Block
without declaring his conflict of interests; offered gratifications to persuade local
residents to ‘change their minds’ in opposing the mining rights; and, after Independent
Newspapers offered him the right to reply to statements made by local residents, for
intimidating the sources of the allegations into retracting their statements (see
appendix 3).
Since the allegations were matters of a criminal nature, The Public Protector referred
the complaint to the National Director of Public Prosecutions and forwarded my
sworn affidavit to Advocate Menzi Simelane. He advised me that the allegations
should be reported to the SAPS, before the NPA could decide whether or not to
prosecute the matter (see appendix 3 a). I accordingly met Brigadier Moodley, the
SAPS Cluster Commander for the Lower South Coast, in Margate and handed him a
copy of my sworn affidavit. I have been informed that the charges were referred to the
Mzamba Police Station for further investigation, but have heard nothing since.
Secondly, on 9 May 2012, a complaint was made to the Public Protector against
Sanral CEO, Mr Nazir Alli, concerning suspected irregularities in his decision to
invest treasury funds to bring the N2 Wild Coast Consortium’s unsolicited proposal
within reach of commercial viability in return for a 30 year tolling concession.
Unfortunately the Public Protector has informed me that she is not empowered to
investigate matters that extend more than two years into the past. I have informed the
Minister of Transport of this and await his guidance on how to proceed.
Prior to formal complaints, efforts were made to engage all parties personally in a nonadversarial manner. I have engaged the mining rights applicants as well as government, from
the Ministerial level downward.
The Minister of Mineral Resources, the Hon. Minister Susan Shabangu has received letters,
documents and film footage from me so that she may be better informed on local dynamics.
In addition senior officials in her department have been engaged.
8
With respect to the N2 Wild Coast Toll Road, I have communicated with the former Hon.
Minister of Transport, Mr Sibusiso Ndebele, who has been responsive, appreciating my
assistance to resolve the issues that have prevented new and upgraded road infrastructure.
The ACC’s attorney, Ms Sarah Sephton, of the Legal Resources Centre, will be formally
lodging an objection against the application of this particular mineral prospecting right and is
contesting the validity of previously held prospecting rights. However, this report is written
from a social worker’s perspective to again engage government leaders in the peace-building
process, which has now suffered a serious setback by the return of the mining rights
applicants.
Cursing the Darkness vs. Lighting candles
“If I had a crystal ball to guide me in addressing complex human problems, the two most
important questions I would ask it are not “what is wrong?” and “how can I fix it?” Rather I
would ask ‘what is possible?’ and ‘who cares?’ Martin Wiesbord.
There is much that is wrong and needs fixing, but a constructive social work intervention
must aim to amplify the positives, as well as pinpoint negatives: to ‘light candles’ rather than
merely ‘curse the darkness’.
However, the past six years have had some very dark moments. Honesty compels that they be
cursed.
The Darkness: Failure of Cooperative Governance
Despite interventions by the South African Human Rights Commission and the Public
Protector, the Amadiba Community are poorly serviced, because of what appears to be an
inability on the part of Government to achieve the Constitutional imperative of Cooperative
Government.
Chapter 3 of the Constitution in section 41 (1) states:
All spheres of government and all organs of state within each sphere must –
(h) cooperate with one another in mutual trust and good faith by
(i)
fostering friendly relations;
(ii)
assisting and supporting one another;
(iii)
informing one another of, and consulting one another on, matters of
common interest;
(iv)
coordinating their actions and legislation with one another;
(v)
adhering to agreed procedures; and
(vi)
avoiding legal proceedings against each other.
The only point on which cooperative government has succeeded so far is with respect to
‘avoiding legal proceedings against each other’. However, the legal battle has been left to
civil society to fight through civil litigation. This begs another question. Is it fair for
vulnerable and disadvantaged local residents to have to bear responsibility for exposing the
contradictions and lack of cooperative government through the courts? Cabinet Ministers
swear a solemn oath of office to uphold the constitution. Why are they failing to do so?
The Candle. “Reframing”
Because of the high profile media coverage in the early ‘90’s over the application by Richards
Bay Minerals to mine the St. Lucia Dunes for heavy minerals, the stereotypes and caricatures
that arose from that controversy have tended to be uncritically imported into the Xolobeni
mining controversy, resulting in grossly simplistic interpretations. Over a decade ago, in what
9
was generally considered a fair fight, the ‘greens’ (with prominent ‘white’ conservationists
like Dr Ian Player expertly using the media to mobilise public support) won the “Save St.
Lucia” battle, when Government was persuaded to pursue World Heritage Status, and ecotourism as the best way into the future, and to specifically preclude mining.
Although Richard Bay Minerals accepted the outcome2, clearly not everyone in Government
did. The emergence of the Xolobeni controversy opened another site for the ‘mining’ vs.
‘eco-tourism’ adversaries to again do battle.
It appears that the ultimate resolution of the ‘hot button’ issues that are all mixed into this
situation requires a ‘reframing’ process. Because of the history of what happened to “Save St.
Lucia” the Amadiba mining controversy tends to be presented as an ‘environmental’ issue,
with the Minister of Environment having the ultimate say.
This report argues that while the Minister of Environment does indeed hold one key, there is
another equally important key to resolving the impasse and tensions that exist, which is held
by the Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform, Mr Gugile Nkwinti.
The area in question is communally owned land and the Minister holds it in Trust on behalf of
the beneficiaries, viz, the Amadiba residents. It seems self-evident from the Bill of Rights (in
Chapter 2 of the Constitution) that any mining operation can only be embarked upon if two
fundamental conditions are met:

That the existing beneficiaries of the communally owned land decide through a free,
fair and transparent process of education and debate, for the proposed mining
operation, and that no breach of their property rights (Section 25) will occur.
 That specialist studies convincingly show that negative environmental and social
impacts of any proposed venture can be successfully mitigated, and no breach of
Environmental Rights in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution (Section 24) will occur.
It is my impression that the local residents have, over the long six-year walk to economic
freedom, effectively arrived at a de facto communal land rights resolution to decide against
mining of their ancestral land. However, to put the matter beyond doubt, this report
recommends that the Minister of Land Reform invites the Independent Electoral
Commission to organise and oversee a democratic process to establish this as a de jure
resolution.
Three other State institutions supporting the constitutional democracy, viz, the Public
Protector, the S.A. Human Rights Commission and the Commission for the Promotion and
Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities have already
played their role in the situation. The Independent Electoral Commission has a register of all
voters from the area and has shown itself a very capable, impartial, and efficient organisation.
With the requisite political will from Cabinet, the conflict can be effectively and efficiently
resolved by a simple democratic process, which will deepen the democratisation of our
troubled society.
Lighting the candle requires decisive leadership from Government
This report is directed specifically to the Minister for Performance Monitoring and
Enhancement, Mr Collins Chabane, located in the Office of the Presidency, because it begs
serious questions not only of the Minister of Mineral Resources but also of other Ministries
2
The MD of RBM, Dr Elaine Dorwood King, said that their holding company, Rio Tinto, had since changed their policy to
preclude mining in any conservation area, such that even if they were now offered the mining rights they would not take
them. She also said that RBM had in fact held the Prospecting Rights for the Xolobeni Mineral Sands but when they came up
for renewal in 1996 they decided not to renew them because the infrastructure required for the transportation of the mineral
concentrate to their smelter was prohibitive.
10
and government departments. It is therefore copied to the heads of all the following entities,
hoping that the criticism implied will be taken in the spirit intended – to promote learning and
insight for constructive change.







Pre-eminently the Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform, Mr Gugile
Nkwinti, for the reasons already outlined above.
The Minister of Mineral Resources, Mrs Susan Shabangu. Had the Ministry
respected the original consensus in Cabinet, which was for eco-tourism to be the key
driver of socio-economic development for the Wild Coast, the disastrous situation that
currently prevails would never have arisen, job creation would be thriving and an
entirely different political climate would prevail.
The newly appointed Minister of Transport, Mr Ben Martins who inherits both this
and other major infrastructure schemes that Sanral had brokered with Private Sector
interests that have proved very controversial, notably the Gauteng Freeway
Improvement Project’s e-tolling scheme and the Cape Winelands tolling proposal for
the N2 and N1 routes. Sanral features prominently in this report because Mr Alli has
gone to considerable lengths to champion the N2 Wild Coast Toll Road without due
consideration of the local residents interests, such that the scheme has come to be
associated as part and parcel of the proposed mining development, even though this
may never have been intended. This report raises very serious questions about Mr
Alli’s handling of his responsibilities as CEO of Sanral, which I reported to former
Minister of Transport Mr Sibusiso Ndebele before approaching the Public Protector.
Mr Ndebele showed genuine and welcome concern whenever I approached him. The
fact that President Zuma has decided to shift Mr Ndebele out of the Ministry of
Transport so soon after it was announced that Mr Alli had withdrawn his resignation,
is frankly very alarming. However, I congratulate Minister Martins on his
appointment to cabinet and offer him my full commitment and support to enable him
to get to grips with the problems that bedevil the Eastern Cape communities that I
serve.
The Minister of Water and Environment, Mrs Edna Molewa, has also been caught
in an invidious position. In its previous incarnation as the Ministry of Environment
and Tourism, the previous incumbent Minister, Marthinus van Schalkwyk, was
decisive in opposing mining in favour of tourism as the desirable economic
development strategy. He also set aside the first Record of Decision approving the N2
Wild Coast Toll Road. However, his successor, Minister Edna Molewa, is now first
respondent in a high court application brought by local residents to have the
environmental authorisation for the resubmitted proposal, which she upheld, set aside.
Since Mr van Schalkwyk has in interest in his capacity as Minister of Tourism, he is
also included to invite him to re-engage having played an important role in 2004 to
2009 when he was also responsible for the environmental affairs portfolio.
Notwithstanding the destabilising efforts of the pro-mining interests, the Amadiba
Traditional Authorities have coped admirably to contain a situation that has on many
occasions trembled on the edge of anarchy. The police have played a relatively
effective role to keep public order, but there have been many instances of crimes
having been committed, which were never investigated or solved, least of all
prosecuted. Of particular concern is the lack of progress in investigating allegations
against the former Director General of Mineral Resources, Advocate Sandile Nogxina.
Consequently the Minister of Police, Mr Nathi Mthetwa, is copied in this report.
The Minister of Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs, Mr Richard
Boloyi. Traditional leaders are responsible for ensuring inter-generational justice.
11
Unfortunately, under the late Mr Sicelo Shiceka, this ministry delivered precisely the
opposite to what it promised. The Commission for traditional leadership disputes and
claims has lost credibility since 2008, with a strong perception that in Pondoland at
least it has become a means of ‘domesticating’ the Traditional Leadership System to
short term political interests of Provincial and National leaders from the ruling party.
12
Summary background history
To distill the essence of a saga that has stretched over more than a decade necessitates that
some time is taken to read this lengthy background history.
Although coastal dune mining along the East Coast has been a matter of controversy since the
1980s, with the St. Lucia Dune Mining Controversy being the most memorable, this overview
commences in 1996, when RBM relinquished their prospecting rights for the Xolobeni
Mineral Sands, and Transworld Energy Minerals (Pty.) Ltd. acquired them.
Origins of the Mining proposal
Although the long-serving CEO of Sanral, Mr Nazir Alli, adamantly maintains that the N2
short-cut plan was conceived in 1997, “long before the question of mining arose, which was
only in 2002”, Mr Mark Caruso, CEO of MRC Ltd., personally told me that he had first
visited the Xolobeni Area in 1996, encouraged by senior government officials, with a view to
developing the mineral sands mining operation. Although he would not name them,
circumstantial evidence points to the likelihood that they were the former Director General of
Minerals and Energy, Advocate Sandile Nogxina, and the former Director General of the
Department of Trade and Industries, Dr Alistair Ruiters.
The Xolobeni mining venture was incubated in secret while Mr Caruso’s company quietly
worked to investigate the commercial feasibility of extracting the heavy mineral deposits
from the 22 km stretch of coastal dunes within the Amadiba Traditional Authority, and the
prospects of raising venture capital to finance the operation.
When heavy machinery arrived to drill for core samples in 2001 the secret was out, causing
much consternation.
By then MRC had revived its listing on the Australian Securities Exchange to attract venture
capital investment. In his first Quarter Report for 2002, MRC CEO Mark Caruso stated:
“As part of the 2001 drilling program, TEM collected a 60 tonne bulk sample from
the Kwanyana Block. This material was transported to Richards Bay Minerals for
treatment through their pilot plant. This bulk sample was processed by RBM in
November 2001 and approximately 2.4 tonnes of heavy mineral concentrate and
700 kg of original sample was shipped to AMMTEC in Perth, Western Australia, for
metallurgical test work.”
Scientific analysis revealed that the deposits were significant and worthy of investment,
provided other obstacles could be overcome. These included:

A shorter, flatter route than the current national road, in order to truck the mineral
concentrate to East London for smelting,
 Guaranteed approval of mining rights, and,
 Seed finance to continue with prospecting operations and issue a prospectus to attract
the investment.
Mr. Caruso proceeded to aggressively sell the venture on foreign capital markets for both a
mining operation at the Xolobeni Mineral Sands and a new smelter in East London. In return,
the unnamed officials undertook to ensure full mining rights would be duly awarded and the
necessary road infrastructure developed to truck the minerals from Xolobeni to East London
by the shortest and flattest route possible (which so happens to be Sanral’s preferred route).
They also arranged for seed capital for MRC to continue prospecting operations.
Since the road was critical for the project, the Department of Minerals and Energy had to be
reasonably assured that Sanral’s schemes for the N2 short cut would prevail. By June 2002
13
plans were sufficiently well advanced, and it was announced that the DTI-controlled S.A.
Export Development Fund had approved an R18 million loan to MRC. Further, the East
London Development Zone Corporation (ELDZC) had incorporated plans for the smelter
facility into their development planning to, “revive the East London harbour facilities”.
However, while Mr Caruso was assured by the officials that they would be able to deliver on
all three promises, there was no consensus in the National Cabinet nor in the Provincial
Government of the Eastern Cape that mining of the Wild Coast would pass muster in terms of
the constitutional imperative in the Bill of Rights. Section 24 obliges social and economic
development to be justified in terms of ecological sustainability and that negative ecological
and environmental impacts could be effectively mitigated so as not to disadvantage present
and future generations.
While the extent to which the proposed N2 short cut could be justified was debatable,
environmentalists in both Government and Civil Society were united in strenuously opposing
the mining proposal, not only because of its environmental impacts but because it threatened
the viability of the fledgling eco-tourism ventures along the Wild Coast towards which the
European Union had contributed a grant of some R80 million.
Controversy over The N2 Wild Coast Toll Road
To complicate matters, when the N2-WCC (Wild Coast Consortium - which would build the
proposed N2 short-cut) worked out that the costs of the large-span bridges over the numerous
gorges were unaffordable on the
strict “user pay principle” and was
promised that the treasury would
allocate approximately one third
Figure 4: Sanral's Media Campaign was heavily funded creating
into the R4,8 billion budget (now
suspicion rather than winning support
escalated to approximately R11
billion) to bring it within reach,
environmentalists
became
suspicious that there was a covert
deal whereby public funds would
be used to subsidise private sector
commercial interests in the
mining, trucking and construction
industry.
Mr Nazir Alli aggressively
marketed the N2 Wild Coast Toll
Road
as
a
Public/Private
Partnership to unlock the vast
latent eco-tourism potential of the
Wild Coast, but the anti dunemining/environmentalist lobby, led
by Anglican Bishop Geoff Davies,
were not convinced. However, Mr
Alli’s insistence that the Sanral
preferred route was the only
feasible route, and his justification
for the investment of state funding
in what was supposed to be a
Build-Operate-Transfer deal, only
14
served to confirm Bishop Davies’ suspicions that the route was intended to facilitate the
feasibility of the Xolobeni mining venture.
The strong environmental lobby in civil society delayed the construction for a further five
years through a successful appeal, when in December 2004 Environment Minister, Marthinus
van Schalkwyk found a fatal flaw: the “lack of independence” of the Environmental
Consultants, Bholweki and Associates, and set aside the authorization.
Several sources, including former members of his senior staff, have confirmed that Mr Alli
has invested considerable personal energy and passion into the N2 Wild Coast proposal,
somewhat out of proportion to what one would have expected from an “unsolicited bid”. The
obstacle posed by the Minister’s decision appeared to make him even more determined,
inviting suspicion because of the rash measures he took to get the scheme back on track.
To cure the fatal flaw of the “lack of independence” (Mr Alli euphemistically termed it a
technical impediment) according to a former staff member, Mr Alli appeared to further
compromise the independence of the process by substituting Sanral as the “Principal
Consultant”.
Mr Alli then visited Bishop Davies, to try to persuade him to withdraw his objections, but
only managed to deepen suspicions by angry outbursts and irrational justifications in response
to questions posed to him.
The proposal was re-submitted in 2006 with an independent EIA consultant, but it was no
longer the N2 Wild Coast Consortium who directed the consultants but Mr Alli himself. He
was still not prepared to budge on his insistence that the “Sanral preferred route” was the only
feasible option, a stance that was being strongly advocated by MRC and their local BEE
partners on the ground.
Civil Society again mobilised. After three years of futile efforts to convince the Department
of Environment and the Minister of Water and Environmental affairs not to allow the new
short cut to proceed, the matter has now reached the North Gauteng High court for a final
ruling. Local residents argue that the proposed route violates legislated provisions and
constitutional rights, and that consultation done during the EIA fell far short of the
subsidiarity principle3 enshrined in Pondo customary law.
Defence of Communal Land Rights
While environmentalists concentrated on the National Environmental Management Act and
the special legislation enacted to create a coastal conservation zone along the Wild Coast4 to
challenge the mining rights, the land rights issue was arguably more fundamental because of
the prevailing communal land tenure system.
The land rights problem first became evident in 2003, when the sub-headman for the Mntentu
area, Mr Mandoda Ndovela, expressed serious reservations about the mining prospecting
3
Subsidiarity is a principle first articulated within Roman Catholic Social teaching, which holds that all decisions at a
‘higher’ administrative level of formal authority must be subsidiary to decisions taken at a lower level. It is gaining
popularity in international human rights law and is an entrenched principle governing the European Union and the
coordination of the United Nations Humanitarian response to emergencies. Although the term is not used in the South
African Constitution it is implied in Section 235, the Right to Self Determination which states “The right of the South
African people as a whole to self-determination, as manifested in this Constitution, does not preclude, within the framework
of this right, recognition of the notion of the right of self-determination of any community sharing a common cultural and
language heritage, within a territorial entity in the Republic or in any other way, determined by national legislation.”
4
Section 39(1) of the Transkei Decree 9 (Environmental Conservation) of 1992 creates a 1 kilometre wide coastal
conservation area for the entire length of the Wild Coast between the Kei and Umtamvuna Rivers which lists a number of
prohibited activities “except under permit” including “the clearance of land or the removal of sand, soil, stone or vegetation”.
15
operations at the weekly communal imbizo at the Mgungundlovu Komkulu (Great Place). He
was shot and killed shortly afterwards, sparking terror, rumour and suspicion, which was
never assuaged because the police investigation was unable to identify a suspect or make any
arrests. The murder remains unsolved.
The communal land
rights
problem
became more clearly
defined in October
2006
when
the
media
exposed
wholesale
human
rights violations and
manipulative
methods by the
mining
rights
applicants in the
months leading up to
their Mining Rights
Application, which
was lodged on 30
March 2007.
These
violations
Figure 5: Scorpion Dimane Confronts MRC and Xolco. June 2007
became even more
obvious when the
environmental consultancy, Groundwater Consulting Services (Pty.) Ltd., which had been
contracted by TEM and Xolco to conduct the regulatory Environmental Impact Assessment
process, commenced the Public Participation Process in May 2007. Xolco tried hard to
manipulate and direct the process toward a favourable outcome for the mining interests, but
they completely underestimated the power of social mobilisation. Zamile Qunya resorted to
increasingly desperate measures to try and regain control.
By the end of June things came to a head at the Mgungundlovu Komkulu, after the founder
director of Xolco, Mr Zamile Qunya, was confronted by local resident, Mr Scorpion Dimane,
about their manipulative offers of material incentives sponsored by Mr Patrick Caruso (the
younger brother of Mark Caruso) to seduce local residents into supporting the mining
proposal. Mr Caruso was called upon
to come and explain MRC’s claims in
its publicity material that their venture
enjoyed
unanimous
community
support and approval to participate as
“shareholders” in their BEE partner,
Xolco, when the community had never
been openly consulted about the
matter.
Ironically, MRC’s share price peaked
at 37 cents in the same week that their
credibility and reputation within the
local community was irrevocably
destroyed. Mr Caruso has yet to appear at a community imbizo to explain MRC’s statements
and claims.
16
Figure 6: Strategic involvement of Royal House of amaMpondo in August 2007. Three years later the King was
declared, “not to be the rightful King” by the Commission for Traditional Leadership Disputes and Claims
17
The failure by MRC and Xolco to respond provoked a crisis. The rising anger was
successfully channelled away from violent confrontation through the formation of the
Amadiba Crisis Committee (ACC) under the auspices of the local Traditional Leadership, the
sub-headmen (indunas) of the five affected communities (Sigidi, Mdatja, Kwanyana, Sikombe
and Mntentu). The representative body channelled objections and grievances widely,
including to the King of AmaMpondo and the South African Human Rights Commission
commencing what turned out to be a long and arduous five-year struggle.
Advised by attorney Richard Spoor and thanks to the intervention of the SA Human Rights
Commission, the ACC managed to get the impending award of the mining rights delayed until
July 2008 and reduced in scope to the Kwanyana Block only, which was one third of the total
area.
Three Unexplained Critical Incidents
However, because of three critical incidents, the ACC were not mollified by what appeared to
be a workable compromise. One highly suspicious incident occurred in the offices of the
Department of Environmental Affairs and
Tourism in December 2007 and the other
within the community.
Chronologically they occurred as follows.
Death of Scorpion Dimane
Seven months after he had voiced his
protest against Mr Caruso of MRC and
challenge to Xolco director, Zamile
Qunay, in January 2008 Scorpion Dimane
died after a short illness. Although his
death was declared to be from natural
causes, “due to otitis media (middle ear
infection) which did not respond to
treatment” nobody in the ACC believed
this to be the true. However, they were
unable to show sufficient cause to
convince the police to investigate.
Scorpion Dimane’s widow, however,
agreed to speak on national television
about the circumstances leading up to his
death, and enough publicity was generated
to turn the tragedy into an opportunity. A
clear signal went out to ensure that it was
not in the interests of the mining company
for any more martyrs to be created, for that
is how Scorpion Dimane is now proudly remembered.
Critical Environmental Report ‘suppressed’
While still recovering from the shock of Scorpion’s death, in March 2008, after a tip off from
an anonymous source in government, I lodged an application for access to the official report
from DEAT and DEDEA officials commenting on the Environment Management Plan. It was
eagerly given over, and contained damning objections to the award of the mining rights.
However, the most alarming aspect was that the report had evidently not been submitted
18
before the due date, “in all likelihood due to an error that occurred over the festive season.
When the report was due, the department was operating on a skeletal staff”.
No-one in the ACC believed that either, suspecting that the report had been deliberately
suppressed by a corrupt official in a desperate attempt to prevent the damning comments from
reaching the officials in the Department of Minerals and Energy, who would then be obliged
to take them into account. They were so fatal to the fortunes of the mining venture that the
mining rights could never be awarded without violating Section 24 of the Bill of Rights,
among other provisions. Appendix 4. explains. Notwithstanding the report, the Director
General still contrived to award the mining rights, evidently hoping that the compromise deal
of only awarding them for the Kwanyana Block would allow the project to prevail.
Xolobeni Scholars beaten by police
The third upsetting incident occurred in September 2008, after the former Minister of
Minerals had been persuaded to hold back in signing the mining rights for the Kwanyana
Block. The following day the school principal of the Xolobeni Junior Secondary School,
which had benefited considerably from largesse from the mining company, called upon the
local police to “help restore discipline in the unruly student body”. Three policemen from
Kwampiso Police Station obliged, moving from one classroom to the next, lining up the
learners with their backs to them, so they could beat them with sjamboks. Each and every
child in the school was beaten.
It subsequently emerged that the learners had refused to sing and perform for the Minister
during her visit to the school in August, to announce the award of the mining rights. The
majority of the learners were from homesteads in the affected area and knew that their parents
were overwhelmingly opposed to the award of the mining rights, and felt obliged to obey
their parents. The School Principal said that he had called in the police because of ill
discipline and rebellious attitude, but nobody from the ACC believed him, especially since the
policemen had, while beating the scholars, scolded them for, “interfering in the mining issue,
which was none of their business”. An attorney started taking statements with a view to
instituting a class action lawsuit against the Minister of Police. Over sixty families joined the
action, but the attorney was unable to find an advocate prepared to take the case on risk and it
was abandoned. Appendix 2 contains a social worker’s report addressed to the Minister of
National Education which comprehensively explains the shocking incident.
The more pressing legal priority was lodging a formal appeal against the award of the mining
rights. Attorney Ms Sarah Sephton, of the Legal Resources Centre, agreed to take the case but
it was to take another three years (and a complaint to the Public Protector) before the
Amadiba Crisis Committee finally managed to persuade the Minister of Mineral Resources,
Mrs Susan Shabangu, to revoke the mining rights.
Process leading to revoking of mining rights
While the Department of Mineral Resources (in no great haste) proceeded to address the
objections, the change in political leadership, following President Mbeki’s resignation and the
eventual election of President Jacob Zuma in May 2009, led the Amadiba Community to
become hopeful. Minister Sbu Ndebele committed himself as the new Minister of Transport
to engaging all stakeholders to address all issues that were preventing the N2 Wild Coast road
from moving to construction. Meanwhile the Amadiba Community explored ways of reviving
the eco-tourism potential, with the FIFA World Cup providing an obvious opportunity to
attract eco-tourists.
In August 2009 the ACC attorney, Sarah Sephton, finally obtained the response from the
applicants, TEM/MRC and Xolco, to the ACC’s objection. It was immediately obvious why
19
DMR were so reluctant to have it in the public eye. To substantiate their claim that the mining
venture had received the endorsement from the Traditional Leadership, the applicants
(TEM/MRC and Xolco) included a letter from Ndabazake Baleni claiming to be “Chief
headman of Umgungundlovu Tribal Authority” stating that consultation had taken place with
respect to the Xolobeni Mineral Sands project through “my tribal authority”. Mr Ndabazake
Baleni, who was not literate and does not speak English, had clearly been manipulated into
signing the letter. He also had no basis for claiming senior jurisdiction for the tribal authority
as Nkosi Lunga Baleni was and remains the incumbent Senior Traditional Leader.
Appendix 5 (a) and 5 (b) contain the false claim, including a covering letter from attorneys
Boqwana Loon and Connellan representing Xolco and the “leaders of the Amadiba
Community Chiefs, to wit, Chiefs Kaliphile Baleni and Ndabazake Baleni”. The letter argues
that the ACC appeal should be rejected because it only represented “a minority of 25 people
as opposed to 3087 people who have consented to the project.”
The correspondence covered some 128 pages headed “CERTIFICATE OF CONSENT TO
XHOLOBENI MINIRAL (sic) SANDS PROJECT” with 26 names on each form listing
residents, their identity numbers and signatures. Superficial inspection shows that the
signatures are forgeries. Close inspection shows names of long deceased residents and most
tellingly the name of Sinegugu Zukulu himself, whose name also appears on the list of the
‘minority of 25 Crisis Committee members’.
Profanity against the Ancestors and the Constitution
The blatant fraud
stirred the ACC into
action again. Listing
Figure 7: King Mpondombini and Queen Lombekiso Sigcau with Councillors hear
the Amadiba Crisis Committee
Sinegugu
Zukulu
was a stupid ‘own
goal’, and cause for
mirth and mocking.
However, the listing
of names of revered
community
members who had
passed away was
experienced
as
especially galling
for a community
that reveres their
ancestors.
To
illustrate, on the
same page bearing
Sinegugu Zukulu’s
name, the name “Nokwanda Mazeka” is also listed (number 216). Until her death in 2006,
Mrs Mazeka was a high school teacher: the wife of the much revered founder and first
Principal of Baleni Junior Secondary School, Robert Mazeka, who in the finest traditions of
African self emancipation had struggled long and hard against innumerable odds to establish
the school in the 1960s to extend the light of education “across the Mnyameni (the dark
place)” - a river which had hitherto obstructed plans to build a high school to serve the
Amadiba residents living closer to the coast. Had Mrs Mazeka been alive she was certainly
capable of signing her own name. She is listed with an undignified ‘X’ in the signature
column.
20
Even for those with only a nominal faith in the Constitution, the appalling disrespect shown
by Zamile Qunya in master-minding the fraudulent listing of names must be of deep concern,
for it not only violates human rights as enumerated in Chapter 2, but it also profanes the
carefully crafted Preamble.
To vent their outrage, the Amadiba Crisis Committee decided to make an urgent visit to
Qaukeni to seek the counsel and guidance of the King of AmaMpondo and his councillors.
The crisis was transformed into an opportunity and, after a two-hour consultation, the ACC
returned much relieved and confident that, given this deceit, Xolco and MRC/TEM had
effectively ‘cooked their own goose’, and that since this was a clear violation of the MPRDA,
it was incumbent on the Minister to deal with it. The logistical effort of accumulating sworn
affidavits from people whose names had been fraudulently listed, and laying charges with the
police was not considered to be a priority, because the offence was so self-evident, that the
ACC expected the Minister or her Director General to prosecute the matter, to send a strong
message that the submission of manifestly false information would not be tolerated in any
mining rights application.
Traditional Leadership Turmoil
Soon after the FIFA world cup was over, the next bombshell struck. The Commission for
Traditional Leadership Disputes and Claims released its report. King Mpondombini Sigcau
was found not to be the legitimate King, and a claimant (his nephew) Zanozuko Sigcau was
named as such. The advice of Attorney Richard Spoor was sought. His report is attached as
appendix 6 .
King Mpondombini Sigcau successfully won the first round of what promises to be another
seemingly endless and costly legal battle, by obtaining an interdict to prevent the
implementation of the finding. Round two went the way of the claimant, when acting Judge
de Klerk dismissed the application of King Sigcau. The matter is now at the appeal stage,
with Webber Wentzel Attorneys briefing Advocate Patrick Mtshulwana SC and Advocate
Norman Arendse appearing for the Respondents.
A few months after his King was tied up in court battles, Chief Lunga Baleni received notice
that he too was being challenged for his position. The third wife of his late father, Chief
Malungelo Baleni, who died in 2002, is claiming the chieftainship on behalf of her ten-yearold son, proposing to act as regent on his behalf until he is old enough to assume the
responsibility himself. Richard Spoor is representing Chief Lunga Baleni and Advocate
Mwelo Nonkonyana is representing the claimant. The case was heard on 23rd March 2012.
Judgement was reserved and is still awaited. At the High Court hearing , Xolco director Chris
Ngcwele was present and it was plainly obvious that Xolco was behind the action.
To sum up the mood of the Amadiba Community, when news broke of the Commission’s
findings against her father, Princess Weziswe Sigcau called me and said, “John, have you
seen Avatar? That is exactly what they are trying to do to our people.”
Its release in December 2009, like Blood Diamond, was a welcome boost to the Amadiba
Community.
The Holomisa Task Team Report
The Minerals Board chaired by the DG had formed a three person Special Task Team, chaired
by Advocate Patekile Holomisa (an ANC MP and President of Contralesa) to consider the
ACC’s objection and make a recommendation. The Task Team had agreed to allow parties to
make oral representations but when the scheduled day arrived it proved to be a non-event.
The Chair adjourned the meeting after 20 minutes because the three-person task team had
21
only received the voluminous documentation from DMR a few days before and had not had
the time to study it.
The producer of SABC’s current affairs program, Fokus, had meanwhile sent a team to cover
the meeting, but was refused permission to film proceedings so the producer decided to probe
things on the ground. The TV crew were filming Mrs Nobuntu Mazeka, a granddaughter of
Mr and Mrs Mazeka, at their graveside, relating her shock and horror at discovering her
beloved ancestor had been listed as a pro-mining supporter when pro-mining thugs arrived to
chase them away. Undeterred the TV crew produced another instalment to educate the public
about the corruption and deceit of the Mining Rights Applicants.
The Special Task Team never reconvened the oral hearing as promised but submitted its
Interim report to the DG on 30 March 2010. The DG was, however, unwilling to make it
public, but was prevailed upon to do so under threat of a high court order, and in October
2010 it was released. (See appendix 7). Its assessment largely vindicated the ACC’s
objections (although it skirted any mention of the fraudulent lists), but the recommended
action was considered totally unsatisfactory. It recommended an “interdepartmental
committee involving the departments of Water and Environmental Affairs, Cooperative
Governance and Traditional Affairs, and Rural Development and Land Reform” be formed to
evaluate the issues. The ACC argued that this simply repeated what the SA Human Rights
Commission had already done in 2007/8, leading up to the award of the mining rights.
So reluctant were the Department of Mineral Resources to engage in cooperative government,
that the Commission was compelled to issue ministerial subpoenas to the Ministers of
Minerals and Energy, Environmental Affairs and Tourism and Land Affairs (as they were
then) in April 2008 to try and compel their respective departments to show compliance with
the law in this regard.
The ACC believed the ‘horse was dead’ and no amount of official flogging could bring it to
life. To further delay the inevitable was prejudicial to the interests of the amaDiba who
simply wanted mining rights to be revoked, so they could get on with their lives. The coastal
residents were determined to revive eco-tourism, that had been cynically undermined by
Xolco leaders, and were finding it difficult to attract investors for as long as mining was still a
theoretical possibility.
It was also decided that, given that Xolco’s attorney, Max Boqwana, had endorsed Xolco’s
fraudulent submission, to mandate me to lodge a complaint with the Cape Law Society
against him. An approach was made to the Minister of Mineral Resources to invite her to join
me in the action, on the assumption that, since this was a clear violation of the MPRDA, she
would be eager to send a strong message that the submission of manifestly false information
would not be tolerated in any mining rights application.
Although I personally delivered the letter to her office in Pretoria and received a signature of
confirmation from one of her staff members, I never received any acknowledgement from the
Minister herself.
It was to take another year before Minister Shabangu finally revoked the mining rights. It
only came after a ringing defeat of pro-mining “independent” candidates in the May 2011
Local Government Elections by a new group of anti-mining ANC Ward Councillors, and a
complaint to the Public Protector, before Minister Shabangu was finally compelled to do what
the local community were urging her to do.
She did so in May 2011, but still allowed a back door open for the applicants to revive their
application, “by addressing the environmental concerns raised” by the Department of
Environmental Affairs and the Provincial Department of Economic Development and
22
Environmental Affairs (the very concerns contained in the report that was submitted only
after the Promotion of Access to Information Act request had been lodged).
The N2 Road Resurfaces
No sooner was this battle over than the controversy over the N2 Wild Coast Toll Road reared
up to trouble the Amadiba Community.
Significantly, in 2006 most local residents were generally supportive of Sanral’s proposal.
However, by 2011, notwithstanding the absence of effective cooperative government, the
community now understood their constitutional rights to access to information and freedom of
expression. After five long years of learning the subtleties of effective public participation to
counter the bitter experience of manipulation and deceit by Xolco, they now knew what
questions to ask. However, insofar as their questions were answered they did not like the
answers. They had realised that human rights do not belong to the government, but to people,
and need to be fleshed out in civic action to hold their government accountable.
As a measure of this, perhaps the most devastating blow to Mr Alli’s ambitions was dealt by
the protagonists of the Xolobeni mining venture who, having so blatantly violated the human
rights of the local residents, contaminated the N2 Wild Coast project with suspicion as well.
At the community level, the pro-mining faction tend to be the same group that have been
championing the N2 short cut. Even at the Eastern Cape Provincial level, ANC leaders see no
reason to deny that the two schemes are connected, and at the National Level the first public
speech made by recently deceased Mr Sicelo Shiceka, when he was named as Minister of
Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs, was to declare in the same breath that his
first priority was to ensure both development schemes were immediately implemented. The
N2 plan thus became ‘guilty by association’.
Not only had Mr Alli failed to win over King and Queen Sigcau, Bishop Geoff Davies and the
vociferous ‘green’ anti N2 Wild Coast lobby, but he had lost the confidence of the very
people who he could once count on: the Amadiba. They no longer believed his assurances
that his road was going to transform their lives for the better.
Neither did they believe that the Commission for Traditional Leadership Disputes and Claims
was really an impartial commission working to “restore the dignity and integrity of the
traditional leaders and traditional communities and the entire institution of traditional
leadership”.
On the contrary, it was seen as having the opposite effect entirely, to emasculate the
amaMpondo, for precisely the same reason that motivated the colonial and then apartheid
powers to co-opt and subvert the African Traditional Leadership system. To steal the mineral
wealth of Africa, to make wealthy foreign powers still more wealthy.
23
The Crisis Recurs: Mining interests try again
The conflict between local residents and the ambitions of MRC and their BEE partners to
mine their ancestral lands was thought by the community at large to have been resolved when
the company’s mining rights were revoked by the Minister of Mineral Resources, the Hon.
Minister Susan Shabangu, in May 2011. The Amadiba Crisis Committee still existed, and had
decided it was premature to celebrate their victory until Xolco was no longer a force and
MRC had acknowledged that the game was over. I counselled the ACC to consider
transforming themselves into the Amadiba Peace and Development Committee, and, echoing
the preamble to the South African Constitution, to “heal the divisions of their past”, and “lay
the foundations for a democratic and open society” and shape a peace and a developmental
process that really did “improve the quality of life”, a concept they had come to understand as
considerably more than the mere improvement of physical and material conditions.
However the return of the same mining company, with the same crude ‘extractive-wealth’
mentality has disturbed the peace. However thanks to effective interventions by the
traditional leadership and democratic community structures, the risk of violence has abated.
On 15 May 2012 all Interested and Affected Parties (IAPs), who had registered as such during
the previous mining rights application, were notified by GCS Consulting Services that a new
Prospecting Rights Application had been lodged for the Kwanyana Block.
Mr Zukulu called me to again assist him and the Amadiba Crisis Committee to develop a
strategy to calm the anger and channel the fears that arose after notices appeared in various
locations in the affected community, informing them that TEM and Xolco had submitted a
Prospecting Rights Application for the Kwanyana Block of the Xolobeni Mineral Sands, and
inviting them to a Public Participation Meeting on 24 May 2012.
On the 21 May, we met with the executive members of the ACC, Mrs Nonhle Mbuthuma, and
Tribal Elders, Samson Gampe and Mashona Wetu Dlamini, to discuss how best to respond to
the new crisis.
It was decided that a full meeting of the ACC should be called for the following day (22 May
2012) at 12 midday at the Mdatja SSS, to plan how to respond to the advertised Public
Participation meetings scheduled for the 24 and 25 May 2012.
Figure 8: Mdatja residents arrive en masse to support Amadiba Crisis Committee
24
Emergency meeting of Amadiba Crisis Committee
Since it had been called at very short notice, only about 12 committee members were
expected to attend the meeting. By the end of the meeting some sixty residents had arrived,
mostly on foot, some on horseback to support the committee and voice their concerns. Some
participants were neutral, possibly in favour of the mining, but their interests and concerns
were expertly integrated into the lively interaction by facilitator Nonhle Mbuthuma, showing
the fruits of the Training for Transformation course she has completed5.
The meeting concluded after two hours with a clear plan of action so that the Mining Rights
Applicants would be left in no doubt after the upcoming Public Participation meeting as to
what the feelings and attitude of local residents were, and what steps would be taken to ensure
that the meeting would not degenerate into conflict.
Consultation with Queen Masobhuza Sigcau
On Wednesday, 23 May, Ms Nonhle Mbuthuma travelled to the amaMpondo Royal
Residence at Quakeni to consult with Her Majesty, Queen Mosubhuza Sigcau, about the
issues. She returned with a statement from King Mpondombini Sigcau to be tabled at the PP
meeting in support of the Traditional Leaders of the amaDiba and the Amadiba Crisis
Committee (appendix 8).
Failed plot to arrest ACC leadership
Late on Wednesday afternoon the daughter of Mr Mashona Wetu Dlamini, with whom we
had consulted on the Monday, called to inform us that her father had been arrested by the
SAPS earlier that day and was being held at the Mzamba Police Station on unspecified
charges. We rushed to the police station to make further enquires and arrange for an attorney.
We arrived at approximately 5 p.m. to discover that he had already been released without any
charges having been brought.
Figure 9: Pulbic Participation Meeting at Umgungundlovu Komkulu. Picture by Cheryl Alexander
The ACC’s local intelligence sources later revealed that several other community leaders,
including Mr Bhalasheleni Mthanjelwa Mthwa and Mr Mistoli Shezi, had also been targeted
by pro-mining elements for arrest. Had the plot succeeded, given the vital role played by these
leaders in keeping the peace, it would have raised the volatility of the situation well into the
danger zone. Suspicions pointed to Mr Zamile Qunya and Xolco leaders as the masterminds
behind the plan. The astute intervention that sprung Mr Dlamini from the police cells
5
The Training for Transformation course was pioneered by Anne Hope and Sally Timmel, in the 1980’s and has become
internationally renowned as a learner driven empowerment process based on the insights of Paulo Friere, and latterly
Manfred Max-Neef.
25
indicated that the plan could backfire badly for Xolco, which probably convinced them to
abandon the tactic.
Public Participation Meeting at Komkulu
On Thursday, 24 May, large numbers of local residents arrived at the Mgungundlovu
Komkulu. Although a regular imbizo takes place every Thursday at the venue, to afford local
residents an opportunity to bring any matter of communal concern for discussion, the Chair,
Mr Mistoli Shezi, explained that the regular imbizo would take place after the presentation by
the EIA consultants, GCS, and TEM and Xolco (the Mining Rights Applicants), concerning
the new Prospecting Rights Application. The meeting moved outdoors as numbers swelled
because the Tribal Courthouse could not be able to accommodate the large numbers.
The meeting opened with GCS consultants informing the gathering that they had scheduled
three Public Participation Meetings to inform local residents of the Mining Prospecting Rights
application, as obliged by legislation, to give local land owners and/or occupants the
opportunity to ask questions and table their concerns.
The consultants asked for permission to record the meeting and take photos and to take a
register of names of all those present. The meeting agreed to allow the proceedings to be
filmed, but decided unanimously against the signing of a register, given their previous
experience of fraud and manipulation.
It was immediately evident that the gathering (numbering between 300 to 400 local residents)
was overwhelmingly unsympathetic to the presentation. The main bone of contention was
again the presumption by Xolco directors that they enjoyed the confidence and support of the
community at large. The Xolco supporters were a small minority of approximately 12 people,
in contrast to the over 300 ACC supporters.
GCS will in due course produce minutes of the meeting, which will hopefully detail the
questions put by local residents and answers given by the consultants and their clients.
Two written submissions were lodged with GCS during the meeting.
The first was from the Amadiba Crisis Committee (appendix 9) which had been drafted after
the meeting on Tuesday, 22 May, at Mdatja SSS, on the advice of the ACC attorney, Sarah
Sephton of the Legal Resources Centre, and myself.
The second written submission was tabled on behalf of the King of the amaMpondo, His
Majesty Justice Mpondombini Sigcau (appendix 8), which Ms Mbuthuma had brought back
with her from Qaukeni.
After local residents had had their say, attorney Neil Reikert, instructed by Ms Sarah Sephton
of the Legal Resources Centre, put further questions to the applicants, aimed at establishing
whether this was a new application or a renewal of the previous application.
The applicants explained that it was an entirely new application, not a renewal, and that the
previous application had been effectively withdrawn and the process recommenced from
scratch.
The question was asked whether the information obtained from the core samples collected
during the first prospecting rights could be considered legal and valid, since the prospecting
rights had since been revoked
26
Secondly, Mr Andrew Lashbrooke was asked how he proposed to deal with the widespread
community distrust toward the leaders of his BEE partner Xolco in consequence of their
deceitful conduct, evidenced by their submission through their attorney, Max Boqwana, of the
aforementioned list of 3087 fraudulently obtained names of local residents claiming their
consent for the mining proposal.
In response to the first question, Mr Lashbrooke said that as far as he was aware the core
samples had been taken with the requisite permits. He did not answer the second question.
Also present was Ms Velaphi ‘Lolo’ Mhloyingana a member of the Senior Traditional Leader
Chief Lunga Baleni’s Traditional Council who pointed out that the applicants had not
explained that they had another Public Participation meeting planned at Dangeni. She said
that the applicants had failed to follow the proper procedure to obtain the support of the
Traditional
Authority at the next
level, and that the
meeting would not
have the sanction of
Chief Lunga Baleni
or his council.
After the applicants
had concluded their
presentation
the
Programme Director
explained that the
regular
weekly
imbizo would now
commence, with the
first item on the
agenda being a
Figure 10: Andrew Lashbrooke and Samson Gampe: Photo Cheryl Alexander
discussion as to how
the
community
wished to respond to
the prospecting rights application.
The Applicants and their consultants were asked by Mr Shezi to temporarily recuse
themselves to allow the residents uninhibited space to discuss among themselves their
collective response to the application.
The visitors agreed to leave, but the two directors of Xolco, Mr Zeka Mnyamana (the
chairman) and Mr Christopher Ngcwele (a director), refused to leave the meeting.
Mr Mnyamana argued that the gathering was in response to the agreement at a previous
Komkulu meeting, “that there should be peace and reconciliation” and an opportunity to bring
all development proposals back for discussion. “We have come today in respect to that call
made at this Komkhulu. We still want to talk together as a community. If we chase others
away the newspapers will portray us as a community that is divided.”
27
ACC spokesman, Mzamo Dlamini, explained to Mr Mnyamana that since Xolco was an
applicant for the mining rights it was in their capacity as a directors of a private company that
he and his fellow director had
been
asked
to
recuse
themselves because there was
conflict of interests between
their roles as directors and
their roles as community
members.
Other Xolco supporters and
pro-mining residents were free
to remain to contribute their
perspective
and
wishes.
Notwithstanding this ruling,
the two Xolco directors
refused to leave the meeting,
provoking
rowdiness
and Figure 11: Xolco chair Zeka Mnyamana refuses to recuse himself, arguing
disorder.
that the “there should be peace and reconciliation and the media will
portray us as a divided community”. Photo Cheryl Alexander
The Ward Councillor for Ward
28,
which
covered
the
Kwanyana Block, Mr Jackson Madayisa Dimane, suggested that all visitors or outsiders
(including journalists) should leave as well but there was no support for this suggestion, when
it was explained that the other outsiders were simply observers present in their profession
capacities either as as journalists (City Press, The Fever and SABC Radio covered the event),
or contracted by the ACC for professional services (attorney Neil Reikert and myself as social
worker).
After Mr Mistoli and the tribal elders restored order the meeting continued, the lack of respect
shown by Xolco Directors for the Traditional Authority having demonstrated to Mr
Lashbrooke living proof that Xolco was a disruptive force without local legitimacy.
Concluding consensus
To conclude matters three sub-headmen elders who were present were asked to express the
consensus of the meeting.
Mr Bhalasheleni Mtwa of Kwanyana
“With all this noise, it is evident that the community do not like the proposal. That is why
they make such a noise. So let us take home that message from Mgungundlovu Komkulu, that
anyone who is a local resident and has an offering must make a fresh request, which needs to
be put to the meeting without quarrelling, so that it can be discussed peacefully.
We thank the journalists who have come for being here, so that they can tell the world out
there that we as a community do not want this mining proposal.”
Mr Zadla Dlamini of Mdatja
“People have come in these large numbers to show clearly that the local residents here do not
want mining. That is the message you should take home. If any local person is wanting it, he
or she will come to Komkhulu again, but it is too late now to hear any appeal against our
decision today to reject the proposed mining.”
28
Mr Samson Gampe of Sigidi
“A cow that is a stranger in the herd is always chased by the rest of the herd by showing it
horns. This is what we have done today, to tell the world that people of Kwanyana do not
want this foreign ‘cow’ - this mining proposal. If you (the applicants) have a different animal,
you are welcome to bring it along for us to have a look at it, and if the herd accept it, that is
fine, but do not bring a mining ‘cow’ back, because it is only going to cause conflict in the
herd. We need a proposal that brings us together, not the one that brings us conflict.
Also you must understand that we who are born here and have grown up here. We are the
ones who know best what would be good for our land. So you must not treat us as if we are
children who don’t know better. We are not kids any more, we are adults.”
Way forward
No further dissent was expressed and the applicants were therefore informed that as far as the
local residents were concerned they had made their decision already and were not prepared to
cooperate with the consultants in any way to further the Prospecting Rights Application.
Mr Lashbrooke thanked all present and said he appreciated the opportunity to engage.
In conclusion the Chair of the ACC, Mr Bazooka Rhadebe, emphasised that,
“when we say people must come here with proposals, we do not mean mining. We mean other
proposals for development.
Secondly, I would like to also register a concern that when you decided to come back here you
should have informed us as the ACC, because we are the structure that was established to
address the mining issues when it became a matter of conflict. We were responsible under the
Tribal Authority, to appeal to the Minister who to have the mining rights revoked. For you to
return but go behind our backs without showing respect is wrong. As the chairperson of ACC
I would have expected to have been approached.”
For another perspective City Press journalist Sibelo Skiti’s report can be found at
http://www.citypress.co.za/SouthAfrica/News/Mining-in-paradise-divides-residents20120602.
Public Participation Meeting at Dangeni
According to the journalists who attended the meeting approximately 20 people attended the
meeting. Because it did not have the sanction of Chief Lunga Baleni, the Senior Chief of the
Amadiba Administrative Area it was apparently over in less than an hour. It was explained
clearly that the residents who should make the decision about the mining are Xolobeni people.
According to customary law, since it was their communal land it would only lead to conflict if
residents from elsewhere, who were not directly affected were to interfere in the process.
Public Participation meeting in Mbizana
The following day, 25 May 2012, another Public Participation Meeting was held at the
Mbizana Youth Centre to afford other IAPs the opportunity to ask questions and make
comments. Ms Nonhle Mbuthuma and I attended to monitor the meeting on behalf of the
Amadiba Crisis Committee.
A register was taken of participants with Mr Christopher Ngcwele (a director of Xolco)
overseeing the process.
A local Councillor, who claimed to be representing the Mayor, hosted the meeting, saying he
welcomed any initiative that would bring jobs and employment prospects to the Bizana
district.
Mr Zamile Qunya was present and the opportunity was seized to repeat the question that had
not been answered on the previous day. I publicly confronted him with the evidence of the
29
fraudulent submission of the 3087 names of local residents. This confrontation provoked an
angry response from certain participants who felt that it was irregular for concerns from
another meeting to be tabled at the meeting. It was clear that many participants were either
ignorant of the feelings of the Amadiba residents or were clearly aligned with Mr Qunya’s
interests and did not welcome the revelations of deceit and deception that were presented
before the meeting.
Mr Lashbrooke in response stated that as far as he was aware the authorities had dealt with
the matter, and that his company and their BEE partner were starting afresh. He said TEM
and their holding company, MRC, would cooperate in any investigations into irregularities or
alleged wrongdoing, but had no reason to distrust his BEE partners.
The meeting was closed and Mr Qunya hastily left, avoiding any opportunity to further
engage over the concerns.
In personal engagement afterwards I asked Mr Lashbrooke if he was aware of the plot to
arrest community leaders in what appeared to be a cynical attempt to prevent them from
exercising the vital leadership roles expected of them to maintain good order during the
Komkulu imbizo. He confirmed that he was aware of the arrest and the rumour but denied that
either TEM or Xolco had been party to this subversive tactic.
Ms Mbuthuma and I then spent time explaining to two participants who had objected to my
intervention my reasons for so doing. They seemed to appreciate the explanation and
information shared, and we parted on good terms.
30
The Key issues
The Preamble to the Constitution expresses a vision for South Africa that the Constitution is
supposed to facilitate.
Preamble to The Constitution.
If this process does not
acquire meaning in deep We adopt this Constitution as the supreme law of
rural areas - such as within the Republic so as to –
the social, economic and
* Heal the divisions of the past and establish a
political
reality
of
communities
like
the society based on democratic values, social justice
amadiba - it has no and fundamental human rights;
meaning anywhere.
* Lay the foundations for a democratic and open
The community and civil society in which government is based on the will of
society can only do so the people and every citizen is equally protected by
much. Unless Government
law;
cooperates with them to
uphold the rule of law and * Improve the quality of life of all citizens and free
restore a climate of peace, the potential of each person; and
the underlying problems
will continue to fester and * Build a united and democratic South Africa able
undermine their efforts to to take its rightful place as a sovereign state in the
promote
sustainable family of nations
livelihoods and revive the
community-based
ecotourism initiatives that once thrived.
To help make sense of the complexities, herewith is a summary interpretation of the key
issues that Government leaders must address.
Is the community “divided”?
The media tend to portray the amaDiba Community as being “divided” and it is significant
that the Xolco chair, Zeka Mnyamana, did not want them present at the recent imbizo. Having
known him ever since he was a tour guide for Amadiba Adventures in 2001 - 2005, it was
very sad to see the division
within this intelligent young
man, who has clearly been
co-opted into a perilous
effort to try and ride two
horses at the same time,
being projected onto the
media.
However, Zeka is in a sense
correct. The media do
misconstrue the reality
somewhat
by
using
sensational headlines that
imply a heated contest
between sharply opposing
factions in a roughly even
31
contest. Although conflict does indeed exist within the community, the more serious
‘division’ comes from beyond the domain of the Traditional: the division within Government
over the mining proposal, which has allowed MRC and their backers free reign to engage in
co-option, subversion and offensive exploitation.
From my interviews with former cabinet ministers in researching my book, it appears that
when the contest between Mining vs Ecotourism arose under former President Mbeki’s
tenure, He personally showed a bias toward promoting the Wild Coast as a tourism rather
than mining option. However Mr Mbeki tended to leave his cabinet ministers to settle their
differences within the dictates of ANC policy, to work out a cooperative arrangement.
However, ANC policy with respect to mining is probably the most unresolved and
contentious policy area.
While the conflict between the now
expelled former ANCYL President,
Figure 12: Media reports from August 2008 (left) and September
Julius Malema, and the mother
2008. Court action was avoided, but it took three further years for
body has raged in a clash of
the mining rights to be revoked.
ideological
assumptions,
the
amadiba residents have effectively
decided for themselves literally ‘on
the ground’. Mining the dunes
would be an open cast operation,
and abstract distinctions between
surface land rights and belowground mineral rights are nonsense.
They don’t want mining, especially
if MRC and Xolco are the
companies proposing such.
It is not inconceivable that, at some
time in the future, another mining
company who approaches them
with greater ethical sensitivity and
transparency, may be given a
hearing, (perhaps even a state
owned mining company) and
offered a fair opportunity to
convince them that removing the
heavy minerals from the coastal
dunes can be done without
irreversible environmental damage
and disruption to the social fabric of
rural society. However, the future
applicant will have a massive legacy of distrust and suspicion to overcome due the conduct of
MRC and Xolco over the past decade. Ben Okri’s wisdom on the dangers of telling stories
that are lies couldn’t be more self-evident.
The amadiba don’t mind eco-tourism, and the coastal residents especially welcome it, but the
more fundamental issue, especially for the older generation, is to conserve the integrity of
their ancestral home as a living landscape. It still sustains them in a traditional peasant
agricultural production mode that prevails elsewhere in rural Africa as a basis for food
security. For all the benefits brought by modernity in South Africa peasant agriculture has
been largely decimated by the mining-led industrialisation process, that for the past 150 years
32
has shaped (or perhaps more accurately distorted) South Africa into what it has become
today: a place where a Better Life is only achievable in urbanised settings if one is lucky
enough to have marketable industrial and commercial skills.
While one can understand that the minerals and energy complex has been a major employer,
and natural resources that have high market value such as titanium, they are non-renewable
resources and require a skills set that will have to be imported to exploit them. The Wild
Coast is perfectly suited to creating employment from eco-tourism which as a service industry
does not require maths, science and technological sophistication. All it requires is warmth,
hospitality and an eagerness to please, qualities that are in massive abundance among the
Amadiba, and which multiply rather than deplete through usage (unlike heavy minerals).
Given such a contrasting analysis the only advantage that mining has from an economic
perspective is that it generates a lot more money in the short term, but which declines in the
long term in a ‘boom and bust’ scenario. Eco-tourism requires a much more patient and
steady growth horizon but, it last for as long as there are tourists, and for as long as there is a
special ecological system for them to see.
Until such time as Government has resolved its own internal division over mining vs
environment the amadiba Community cannot be held hostage to the process. For as long as
the Minister of Mineral Resources appears so reluctant to permanently ‘red card’ TEM and
Xolco, the suspicions will remain that there are corrupt interests behind their application, who
simply want to cash in on the ‘boom’ and really couldn’t not care less about who has to suffer
the consequences of the ‘bust’ when it comes. The conduct of the applicants show that they
do not care. The Amadiba expect Government officials and political leaders to show that they
do care.
Is the community ‘poor’?
In fairness one cannot heap all the blame for the situation that prevails among the amadiba on
Government. Cabinet Ministers cannot be expected to micro manage every problem that
arises, and must rely on officials and the media to form a balanced assessment of individual
trouble spots. In the course of my intervention I have opened up channels between the
community and Ministers by providing DVD’s of video interviews and confidential briefings,
aware that, as helpful as the media has been, journalists and editors have their biases as well.
I have also worked hard to help journalists, not only gain access but develop deeper insight.
Six years ago they tended to portray the local residents as, “living in abject poverty in mud
huts”, which not only left Cabinet Ministers rightly concerned, but gave the mining rights
applicants a plausible rationale for selling their mining proposal.
In truth, the local residents enjoy a measure of food security that is enviable compared to
other situations of poverty I have seen in my long career in humanitarian and development
work in Africa.
Figure 13: Carte Blanche film crew chanced upon the women of Mdatya, who needed no prompting to express
their views.
33
Former Minister of Minerals, Mrs Buyelwa Sonjica, can testify from personal experience
what happened when she tried to persuade them in visits in August and September 2008 that
the mining would solve their problem of ‘poverty’. She was shocked at the loud objections
from the community who found her depiction of their situation highly pejorative. She
apologised and suspended the mining rights.
The former Minister of Transport Sbu Ndebele in his 2009 budget speech in parliament
helped clarify the terminology. He distinguishing between poverty as it affects an individual
and poverty as it affects a community. Because of the close knit sense of community in what
is essentially a cattle economy, individuals from the amaDiba homesteads can generally rely
on a reciprocal relationship with neighbouring homesteads to satisfy not only their basic
subsistence needs, but their non-material needs such as affection, participation,
understanding, creation, identity, protection, and idleness which is as fundamental to a
healthy quality of life as subsistence. People do not live by bread alone. However a
community can be considered to be ‘poor’ in a collective sense if they are poorly serviced
with roads, energy, health services, and other amenities6. In that respect the amaDiba
Community is decidedly impoverished. But they do not want a mining enterprise to solve
their communal poverty, because they believe it will in fact impoverish them as individuals
by undermining their traditional way of life, shredding the social fabric and, to quote human
rights attorney, Richard Spoor, “turn their daughters into prostitutes and their sons into
criminals” by over materialising their needs.
What does BEE really mean?
Establishing the Xolobeni Empowerment Company (Pty.) Ltd. as a private company (in order
to hold the 26% shareholding obliged by the Mining Charter) may have been done in 2002 by
Mr Maxwell Boqwana and Mr Zamile Qunya with genuine intent to ensure that benefits
would accrue to local residents via five (now apparently nine) “Community Trusts”.
However, from the start there was a total lack of transparency from either of the two founders
in explaining their vision and intent. Distrust and suspicion inevitably took root and flowered
into bitter fruits.
It was only after an application was made in June 2007 under the Promotion of Access to
Information Act, to
enable me to peruse
the
Shareholders
Agreement between
TEM, MRC and
Xolco that a fourth
partner known as
SGF
Secretaries
(Pty.) Ltd., was
discovered as a
controlling partner
in the Shareholding
Agreement.
The Shareholders
Agreement revealed
that
SGF
Secretaries
held
6
My forthcoming book deals comprehensively with the meaning of ‘poverty’ using Manfred Max-Neef’s reconceptualisation in his books Human Scale Development and Economics Unmasked,
34
preferential shares in Xolco, as a contingency for lending Xolco the capital it required in
order to purchase the 26% shareholding that legislation obliged. However, none of this was
ever explained to the community.
Upon examining the financial statements of MRC Ltd. and the offer made to Xolco as part of
the Shareholding Agreement, two further extremely alarming facts emerged.
Firstly, the total assets of MRC were valued in March 2007 at AUS $19 Million, whereas the
capital amount that Xolco was supposed to pay for its 26% share was set at $18 Million.
Xolco’s payment of the $18 Million equity would be financed from dividends accruing once
the mine became operational.
Secondly, the financial projections of the original mining plan showed that by the most
optimistic projections the mine operation would only start to yield significant positive cash
earnings after some five years of production.
In August 2007 I was invited by some directors of Xolco who had been co-opted by Zamile
Qunya and Maxwell Boqwana to give respectability to the company, to meet with them to
share with them information I had obtained.
I offered the following points of explanation and elaboration.

I explained that if they were able to find an alternative source of financing for their
shareholding, they could in fact purchase MRC in its entirety for $19 million and
thereby obtain a full 100% of the mining rights instead of a mere 26%. However, I
cautioned that any financier would need good answers to some tough questions before
they would put their investment at risk.
 I explained that I had been in touch with other shareholders of MRC and there was
substantial concern from institutional investors about the risk profile of the project.
 I explained that it would take many years before the loan repayment and interest to
SGF Secretaries had been paid off and that Xolco’s shareholders’ dividends would
only become available for distribution through the various charitable trusts (that had
been apparently established to channel benefits to the community) several years into
the future. Under such circumstance I advised that they may find themselves having to
contend with a very uncomfortable crisis of unfulfilled expectations.
 Finally, I urged them not to rely on my advice alone and to consult other experts,
including an attorney besides Mr Boqwana, to obtain a second opinion on their legal
obligations and financial prospects.
In a follow up letter I offered this analysis
“Xolco’s structure of accountability is forcing community leaders to ride two horses at the
same time. If it is possible with some skill, it is nevertheless a dangerous task, and requires at
the very least that both horses are running in the same direction.
Using this analogy the current conflict can therefore be seen as between the Xolco ‘horse’ and
the Amadiba Crisis Committee ‘horse’. The Xolco ‘horse’ is in fact a commercial business
enterprise, representing shareholders with an interest in making money from a mining
enterprise. That is a perfectly legitimate aspiration. The role of a business entrepreneur is to
create wealth, and Xolco has an entirely legitimate right to acquire shares in any mining
enterprise and channel dividends to charitable trusts (or keep them for themselves if they so
wish).
The second ‘horse’ is the Amadiba Crisis Committee, which, as I understand it, is a committee
representing approximately 100 householders who have stated their objection to one or more
of the following three issues; the prospect of mining as a desirable and appropriate land use
option; the process of community consultation and cooption that the mining company has
followed over the past number of years, and: the violation of human rights by the mining
35
company staff and supporters.
The sub-group of directors apparently took my advice and sought the counsel of an
attorney with apparently considerable experience in mining rights issues. He substantially
confirmed the overall validity of my assessment. When they raised their concerns, I am told
that Mr Qunya accused them of having fallen under the influence of, “one of John Clarke’s
lawyer friends”. I am in fact still looking forward to meeting the lawyer in question but I
don’t even know his name.
Following this and their growing suspicion of Mr Qunya’s real intentions, the three directors
resigned, and refused to have anything more to do with Xolco. Mr Nkululeko Msabane, a
highly respected local high school principal was one of the three, and after it came to light
that Mr Qunya and Mr Boqwana had submitted the above mentioned list of fraudulently
obtained names, he agreed to be interviewed on camera to explain how he had been persuaded
to serve as a director, and why he came to the conclusion that the mining venture was a
‘corrupt enterprise that would leave the people in an even worse state of poverty than they
experienced at present.”
He said that he became involved as a civic duty hoping that resources would flow to uplift the
community, but that when he was told that the distribution of profits from dividends would be
made at the discretion of the directors to the various charitable trusts, there was nothing to
prevent them from helping themselves to a generous share of the profits first. With respect to
the job creation prospects, he came to the conclusion that the proposed smelter in East
London would generate most jobs and that the most likely scenario was that “some local
residents would be employed
as night watchmen to look
after the machines”.
The pitiful saga of the
illegitimate
birth,
toxic
nurturing and inevitable death
of Xolco provides a concrete
illustration of Mr Moletsi
Mbeki’s penetrating critique
of the internal contradictions
of BEE7 as it is practiced in
South Africa.
At one Public Participation
Meeting a local community Figure 14: Nkululeko Msabane explains why he resigned from Xolco
activist described BEE as “not
Black Economic Empowerment’, but Black Elite Enrichment”.
Such slogans, however, obscure the fact that the Shareholding Agreement suggests that it is
mainly ‘white’ foreign mining interests who stand to be further enriched, and that the BEE
faces in Xolco are simply a mask of convenience - a front for the nameless shareholders of
SGF Secretaries (Pty.) Ltd.
7
Architects of Poverty: Why African Capitalism needs changing. Picador. 2008
36
The Way forward: Upholding the Rule of Law
The Wild Coast is not the Wild West. The Constitution applies equally to all.
Echoing the insight of Ben Okri, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, as head the Truth and
Reconciliation Commission, repeatedly urged “unless we exorcise the ghosts of the past, they
would return to haunt us in the future”. This applies equally for individuals, families,
communities, and nations.
Will the final chapter of this narrative of Co-option, Subversion and Offensive Exploitation
be one of South Africa having to suffer the consequences of more lies and deceit? Or will it
be one of truth telling - “the blossoms of future flowerings” as Ben Okri writes?
That all depends on how the Cabinet responds to this report. Only a legitimate and credible
impartial authority can determine the greater truth and exorcise the ‘ghosts’. What ‘ghosts’
must they face?
Alleged theft of soil for prospecting purposes
Mr Mark Caruso has himself stated that (as quoted above) “As part of the 2001 drilling
program TEM collected a 60 tonne bulk sample from the Kwanyana Block” and told us what
happened to it.
Figure 15: Drilling for core samples in Kwanyana Block in 2001
Section 39(1) of the Transkei Decree 9 (Environmental Conservation) of 1992 creates a one
kilometre wide coastal conservation area for the entire length of the Wild Coast between the
Kei and Umthamvuna Rivers and lists a number of prohibited activities “except under permit”
including, “the clearance of land or the removal of sand, soil, stone or vegetation”.
The only valid permit issued by the Eastern Cape Department of Economic Development and
Environmental Affairs was issued on 23 April 2002, some months after a member of the
public had noticed the prospecting activity and reported it to the Eastern Cape Department of
37
Economic Development and Environmental Affairs. The official who eventually processed
the retrospective application said that only permit applied for an granted was to allow TEM to
“travel within coastal conservation area for purpose of prospecting only” (appendix 10). He
was shocked to hear that in fact the bulk soil samples had already been collected, smelted and
shipped to Australia long before the only permit applied for had been issued.
The only conclusion that can be drawn from the known facts is that the 60 tonnes of bulk soil
samples collected in 2001 was done so illegally. TEM have consistently maintained that they
simply complied with what the Department of Mineral Resources expected of them. If they
were not aware of this requirement it begs the question of the Director General of Mineral
Resources as to why the Eastern Cape Government environmental authorities were bypassed
and ignored, a clear breach of cooperative government.
Underlying this incident is a fuller truth that is yet to be told about the negotiations between
Mark Caruso of MRC and the Department of Minerals and Trade and Industries respectively
between 1996 and 2002, and what role Dr Alistair Ruiters (former DG of DTI) and Advocate
Sandile Nogxina played. Dr Ruiters left Government in 2005 and formed Ehlobo Heavy
Minerals, with the intent to partner with MRC as the BEE equity shareholder to develop the
Xolobeni Mineral Sands Project. The partnership was abandoned in February 2007 after the
human rights violations by their junior partner Xolco were revealed. Dr Ruiters declined to
elaborate on his reasons beyond his assurance to me that the talks with MRC were exploratory
and that my reports would be taken into account before his company decided whether or not
to proceed.
A thorough police investigation against Advocate Nogxina and prosecution by the NPA will
pave the way for restorative justice and a restoration of trust between the Government and the
amadiba. The 60 tonnes of soil cannot be returned as the material has been processed and
smelted. The precipitated heavy minerals are presumably somewhere and as a gesture of
reparation and goodwill, they could be returned and placed on display with other heritage
artefacts. The Xolobeni dunes have numerous stone age artefacts within them, dating back to
the Sangoan Era, which Dr Kathleen Kuman has studied extensively. It would be a welcome
boost to her vision to have a heritage centre at Xolobeni to add another string to the tourism
bow – heritage and eco tourism. The ‘stolen’ heavy minerals would make a very interesting
display in the heritage centre.
Theft of names to claim consent
Likewise this issue will haunt the reconciliation process for as long as Zamile Qunya is not
called to account for having orchestrated the fraudulent listing of local residents and
questioned about his involvement in the alleged plot to subvert the Traditional Authority.
Again, the evidence is plainly obvious in the attached samples of bogus letters from ‘chiefs’
and forged signatures and names of residents.
Mr Msabane toils day and night to help his learners do well and over the past three years has
managed to consistently raise the Matric pass rate from 34 % to 46% to 56%. His biggest
challenge is to help learners who live greater distance from the school to get back for special
lessons and coaching in the evenings, weekends and during school holidays. A senior
students school accommodation facility is high on his list of priorities. Restorative justice
could be served by having those responsible for the fraud prosecuted but given a noncustodial sentence to help build the accommodation facility which would be named the
“Nokwanda Mazeka Centre for educational enrichment”.
Dr Madge Jobson, a commissioner from The Commission for the Promotion and Protection of
Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities has offered to assist in addressing
this matter.
38
Sabotage of Amadiba Adventures
More seriously Zamile Qunya his younger brother Basheen Qunya and Christopher Ngwele
need to be questioned about their role in allegedly deliberately orchestrating the demise of
Amadiba Adventures.
The Amadiba Community have been advised to institute proceedings against TEM and Xolco
for losses incurred due to the alleged sabotage of their eco-tourism employment creation
efforts. However, to do so would perpetuate adversarialism, hostility and distrust, and my
inclination would to rather seek a restorative justice outcome. Nevertheless for as long as the
perpetrators are allowed to roam free in the community without having made a full disclosure
of their involvement in the rumour mongering and dirty tricks perpetrated by the mining
lobby, eco-tourism will be hampered by them.
The Minister of Tourism
needs
to
re-prioritise
support to restore the status
quo ante because resources
dedicated
by
the
Department
of
Environmental Affairs and
Tourism (as it was) and the
European Union have been
squandered. The climate
has now changed to make it
possible
to
institute
forensic investigations to
recover the money and
equipment, and send a
strong signal that any
misappropriation of funds
Figure 16: From left to right, Zamile Qunya, Max Boqwana and Patrick
Caruso. Taken from MRC's 2005 annual report to shareholders which
and exploitation will not be
claimed “the Amadiba community continues to actively support the
tolerated.
Company and Xolco in their efforts to secure the mining rights”.
The following incident
ought to convince him to
do so.
In 2001 and 2002 Amadiba Adventures was flourishing as a community based eco-tourism
enterprise. Zamile Qunya, Chris Ngcwele and Zeka Mnyamana were all passionately involved
in the remarkable venture, with Qunya and Ngcwele managing the business side and
controlling the finances. As is now known TEM was already secretly engaged in prospecting
activities, collecting core samples for analysis, and infiltrating local community structures in
an attempt to create a favourable disposition toward the mining.
In 2003 Qunya and Max Boqwana formed Xolco, with Patrick Caruso from MRC supporting
them. It wasn’t long before they had been fully enrolled in furthering the mining venture,
which was still in the early prospecting stage. Qunya, however, still maintained that his first
loyalty was toward the eco-tourism and would only entertain the possibility of mining if it
could be proved that it posed no threat to Amadiba Adventures.
39
However, things started going seriously wrong with Amadiba Adventures. A large sum of
money was stolen by an employee with a compulsive gambling addiction, and squandered in
the Wild Coast Sun Casino. Recriminations between funders, NGO partners and local tribal
authority structures poisoned relationships and goodwill evaporated.
In February 2008, after Scorpion Dimane’s death, but before the incident of the apparent
suppression of the DEAT report occurred, Carte Blanche approached me with a request to
assist them in producing a report for broadcast on M Net.
To avoid alerting Zamile Qunya of our intentions, we booked and paid for a weekend stay at
the Mntentu Hutted Camp,
which was still nominally
operating
under
the
management of Amadiba
Adventures,
of
which
Qunya and Ngwele were
directors. I did so in the
name of a third party so that
Mr Qunya would not
suspect
anything.
The
twenty-minute program is
revealing in itself but what
it doesn’t show is what
happened behind the scenes.
Despite having paid for our
board and lodging at the
camp several days in
advance the catering staff
were never supplied with
any provisions to feed us.
Nevertheless, they showed
exceptional warmth and
hospitality and went to great
lengths to cater for our
every need by scrounging
provisions
from
local
homesteads.
When it became apparent
that the management of
Amadiba Adventures had
effectively stranded them, I
suspected that this had been
a deliberate strategy to leave
Figure 17: Mzamba Craft Village, where Amadiba Adventures operated the party of tourists with an
unfavourable impression of
from, was destroyed by fire in July 2007.
the service.
For vulnerable and disadvantaged rural women to be treated with such callous indifference
left me so outraged that I still don’t know how to describe my feelings. However, rather than
reacting angrily, after counselling with my clients, I decided to write to Mr Qunya and Mr
Ngcwele to give them an opportunity to redeem themselves. My letter is attached as appendix
11.
40
I received no response from them and sent the letter to Mr Caruso and his South African
representative, Mr Barnes, so that they had on record this evidence of the cynical efforts of
their BEE partners to sabotage and undermine the eco-tourism efforts of local residents. They
turned a blind eye to the incident.
In view of the above I hope it is obvious why I find it so outrageous that the same applicants
should be submitting another mining rights application, without making any offer of
reparation and without any attempt to clear up the lingering doubts and suspicions.
Sanral CEO’s alleged abuse of power and manipulation of SANRAL board
The Public Protector has said that she cannot investigate my complaint against Mr Nazir Alli,
for his alleged abuse his power and manipulation of his board and staff into accepting his
decisions with respect the N2 Wild Coast Toll Road in 2000, that may have been contrary to
government transport policy. The matter allegedly cannot be investigated because the issues
are more than two years old, and it is already before another court.
Following the High Court ruling to suspend Sanral’s e-tolling scheme, a newspaper article of
mine was published as the lead article in The Sunday Times Review section on 6th May 2012.
The article argued that the e-tolling debacle may never have arisen had Mr Alli been held
more accountable by the Minister of Transport and the Sanral Board when he was busy
forging a Public Private Partnership agreement with the N2 Wild Coast Consortium, to build
operate and transfer a short cut route along the Pondoland Wild Coast.
In response to the article a former senior employee of Sanral contacted me to share profound
misgivings about Mr Alli’s apparent manipulation of the Sanral Board to commit Treasury
funds to bring the N2 Wild Coast Consortium’s proposal within commercial reach. His
management and leadership conduct left the person with considerable concern that Mr Alli
was exposing Sanral to serious fiduciary risk but that he prevented other board members and
senior staff from contributing their concerns for open deliberation.
The information I received reliably indicates that the allegations contained in my complaint to
the Public Protector are true. However, although my assessment is made with due
professional diligence, my role in the matter is not that of an impartial authority but as a
social worker who must challenge social injustice, in the interest of my clients – the
vulnerable and disadvantaged rural residents of the amadiba area. It is not fair to Mr Alli for
my assessment to be the last word on the matter. He needs to be given a chance to respond
and cross-examine me, and likewise I would like to cross-examine him.
Further, Mr Alli has called on me to go public with my sources of information, while he
refuses to let me have a copy of the Development Agreement he struck with the Wild Coast
Consortium to “protect their commercial interests”.
The question arises, what is ultimately more important in life? Protecting the commercial
interests of large corporate entities? Or protecting vulnerable individuals who have been
subjected to Mr Alli’s alleged abuse of his power and who have been prevented from doing
their jobs according to the dictates of their professional training?
I am not prepared to disclose my sources via the media, for this would be a violation of my
professional code of ethics.
However the one source I have disclosed is the CEO of the Mining company, Mr Mark
Caruso, who personally told me (and I have it on tape) that he had first visited the Xolobeni
area in 1996, a year before the N2 Wild Coast Toll Road scheme was conceived. Mr Alli
may not have known that, but it is factually correct, but Mr Alli still refuses to acknowledge
that there is any connection between the N2 Toll Road and the Xolobeni Mining.
41
It is also factually correct that the Xolobeni mineral sands project can never be viable without
the new road.
I have since issued a media statement which argues that there are at least five similarities
between the N2 Wild Coast Toll Road deal and the GFIP E-tolling scheme:
1. Covert deals struck with private sector commercial interests to use public assets for
commercial gain.
2. Well connected politicians (incl. former cabinet ministers) and senior govt. officials
turn up as beneficiaries of the scheme, at the expense of cash strapped road users.
3. Manipulation of media to market the schemes rather than transparent public
consultation processes that engage stakeholders in participatory learning and solution
generation.
4. Sidelining of senior Sanral executives who question the dominant line of the CEO
(further evidence of another unhappy departure of a senior Sanral executive has since
come to light).
5. Recourse to adversarialism through the courts when opposition and discontent
inevitably surface (which compounds the burden to tax payers who fund the state legal
teams, while the applicants have to raise their own costs. Costs orders hardly ever
recompense the full outlay).
I reported the above concerns to the former Minster of Transport Mr Ndebele, asking him to
facilitate an intervention so that Mr Alli and I can ‘face off’ on this matter before my
forthcoming book is finished, in the hope that at least some closure will be achieved with
respect to the long running N2 Wild Coast Toll road saga.
Minister Benedict Martins does not need the Wild Coast Toll Road ‘albatross’ hanging
around his neck in taking office, and I hope that his first act of political leadership will be to
now do what Mr Ndebele is now unable to do, and mediate a meeting between Mr Alli,
Bishop Geoff Davies, and myself so that we can present the evidence and call witnesses to
testify to the evidence we have that Mr Alli abused his powers in his handling of the N2 Wild
Coast scheme.
Again as an advocate of restorative justice I would welcome Mr Alli’s engineering ability to
find solutions to enable learners from the Baleni Senior Secondary School to cross swollen
rivers to get to school. In 2009 one of the most promising grade 12 learners, Kaya Lupulwana
was drowned in the Mnyameni River while trying to cross it when it was in flood so that he
could get to write his end of year exams. Last year five learners were killed in separate
incidents while walking along the R 61 to get to Plangeni JSS. There are no sidewalks on the
stretch of main road between Port Edward and Mbizana that over 500 learners need to use to
get to and from school.
In development big problems are never solved by big solutions. Big problems are solved by
an abundant variety of small solutions, crafted on a human scale with intelligent, creative and
participatory engagement. Not by ‘bulldozing’ and certainly not by the withholding of
information to protect commercial interests when the real interests of learners like the late
Kaya Lupulwana and the five learners from Plangeni JSS are what really matter.
42
Conclusion
Co-option, Subversion and Offensive Exploitation: Strong words for a social worker’s report.
Co-option?
The mining rights applicants co-opted local residents into their scheme under the auspices of
their BEE partner, Xolco, which stole the names of 3087 local residents to claim their free
and informed consent. They have submitted false, misleading, and inaccurate information,
which the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act defines as grounds for the
immediate cancellation of mining rights. Yet the Minister of Mineral Resources, in revoking
the mining rights in 2011 said that this was only because “environmental concerns had not
been addressed” and that “consultation process had been satisfactory under the
circumstances.”
If only for the sake of history this simply cannot be left as the last word on the matter. If her
reputation is to ever be salvaged Minister Shabangu must at least prosecute the perpetrators of
the fraud, if not disqualify the applicants from ever lodging a mining rights application in the
future.
Subversion?
The applicants have attempted to subvert the Traditional Authority, but have so far not
succeeded. However, is it a mere coincidence that the Senior Chief of the Amadiba, Nkosi
Lunga Baleni, faces a challenge to his position?
Moreover, is it a mere co-incidence that King Mpondombini Sigcau suddenly faced a claim
on his Kingship by a nephew, Zanozuko Sigcau, in 2005 soon after his wife Queen
Masobhuza Sigcau went public about the Royal Families concerns about the N2 Toll Road
and Mining proposal? Unfortunately for his own ambitions the pretender Zanozuko has
declared himself to be a strong supporter of both schemes. Minster Richard Boloyi has an
enviable task to overcome the damage done to the credibility of the Commission for
Traditional Leadership Disputes and Claims.
Offensive Exploitation?
In 2008 after MRC’s mining rights were suspended, Mark Caruso called me, furious about
certain allegedly defamatory statements I had made in the media about the conduct of his
younger brother Patrick Caruso. He calmed down after I explained to him that although
communicating with him through the media was not my preferred method, it seemed to be the
only way I could get any response from him. The fact that he had called me proved my point.
He warned me that a threatening letter from his lawyers would arrive in the post (it did, but as
expected they backed off very quickly when faced with the evidence I had to substantiate my
alleged defamatory statements). In a last desperate attempt to try to impress upon him the
seriousness of the situation I recommended a book for him to read: Diamonds, Gold and War:
The Making of South Africa, by Martin Meredith.
I explained that my social work with mining-affected rural communities was simply to try to
avoid a situation whereby Meredith might find the appropriate title for his sequel,“Titanium,
Platinum and more War: The Unmaking of South Africa.”
It is now up to those Cabinet members to whom this report is addressed to ensure such an
ominous scenario never comes to pass. They have power in their hands to be used
constructively by telling the truth, “blossoms of future flowerings”.
In 1936, Prime Minister Jan Smuts wrote in a preface to Monica Hunter Wilson’s classic,
Reaction to Conquest, an anthropological study of the amaMpondo.
43
“The Pondos are a native tribe living between the provinces of the Cape and Natal, and are
generally considered somewhat backward in comparison with other native tribes in the Union
of South Africa. They were the last to be annexed by the British and they have retained their
ancient tribal domains, and have not an acute land question such as obtains among other
native tribes.”
In 1960, the apartheid regime changed that. The “land question” came into sharp focus when
they attempted to rationalize land use in terms of the Tomlinson Commission
recommendations and the imposition of the Bantu Authorities Act. The Apartheid state did
not understand the subsidiarity principle that is deeply entrenched in Pondo customary law
and provoked a rebellion from unarmed Pondo tribesmen that was ruthlessly crushed. Eleven
people were killed by police. Over 4700 were arrested and 30 people tried and 22 executed.
Fifty years have passed and South Africa has been welcomed into the community of nations,
admired for having thrown off the grave clothes of the past. But for the Amadiba, the
discovery of the “tenth largest deposit of titanium reserves in the world” lying in the Xolobeni
Mineral Sands, the Pondoland “land question” has now become a whole lot more acute.
Samson Gampe is a veteran of the Pondo Revolt, having survived by hiding in the forested
gorges by night and dressing up in his wife’s clothing by day and working in the fields,
pretending to be a woman. He has survived to inspire the present generation of amaMpondo
to continue the solemn tradition of cherishing their ancestral lands as a sacred trust, and
confront those bringing ‘unwelcome cows’ to respect those for whom the “land question” is a
matter of human identity rather than simply a material resource.
If Samson Gampe he had to fight again he would, despite his age. I have confidently
reassured him that the freedom he fought for is irrevocable and entrenched in the Constitution
in Chapter 2 of the Bill of Rights, and that the armed struggle is over: that his Government is
obliged by Chapter 3 of the same Supreme Law to ensure that all departments and tiers
cooperate, especially to ensure people like him may live out their lives in freedom, so that
when the time comes for them to join their ancestors, they will indeed rest in peace.
Now that peace has been disturbed, again.
What message must I carry when I see Samson Gampe again?
John GI Clarke
44