Cape Town - The Ad Hoc Committee on Section 25 on Thursday sent packing two departments that were meant to make presentations on amending the Constitution to allow for expropriation without compensation.
This was despite the invitation to the departments asking them to make presentations on the drafting of the eighteenth constitutional amendment bill.
However, the committee had expected the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development as well as Public Works and Infrastructure to present on challenges related to land reform and how they planned tackling them.
Co-chairperson Mathole Motshekga said serious issues were raised about land reform in the high-level panel report that was chaired by former president Kgalema Motlanthe, during the public hearings and oral hearings.
“Yesterday, we also heard the minister concede to the public works portfolio committee that the department has no capacity to discharge its responsibilities,” Motshekga said.
He also said there had been claims of corruption in the land reform programme, and that traditional leaders wanted restituted land to be given to them, while some felt expropriated land should be in the hands of the state.
“We expect to be addressed on challenges that have been raised in the public hearings, oral submissions and written submissions,” Motshekga said.
When it was the turn for the Department of Public Works and Infrastructure to make its presentation, EFF MPs took issue over the fact that the department had sought legal opinion from a private legal representative.
They said the committee could not be seen to be approving an indirect submission from lawyers masquerading as a department presentation.
ANC MPs wanted an assurance that the department associated itself with a presentation from advocate UK Naidoo, and stated that other advocates had made oral presentations to the committee during the week.
The department’s acting director-general, Imtiaz Fazel, said they would incorporate the challenges during their presentation.
During Naidoo’s oral presentation it turned out that his focus was on the drafting of the bill, and touched on suggestions to amend the bill and suggesting language, among other things.
Motshekga stopped Naidoo from making further presentation, saying it was usurping the role of the ad hoc committee. He also raised an issue with the department forging ahead with amending the Expropriation Act of 1975, while the process to amend the Constitution was under way.
Motshekga ruled that the department be released and continue with their meeting. “We can’t waste our time listening to something that is irrelevant,” he said.
When it was the turn of the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development, the entity’s advocate was asked about the presentation he was due to make.
He explained that the invitation was to comment on the amendment bill and the director-general was the person who could speak better on challenges and other matters related to the department’s programmes.
Motshekga said the high-level panel was critical of processes of land reform in the department, and that accusations of incompetence had been made against the department during the public hearings.
“We expected your department to deal with challenges you are facing, and also remedies you are adopting to deal with this matter; not to duplicate the work of the committee on the draft bill,” he said.
Motshekga said the two departments would be invited again to make comprehensive presentations as part of a consultative process as required by parliamentary rules.
Political Bureau