One of the reasons for the violence around mining is insecure tenure for people living in the former bantustans. Despite decades of promises there has been no substantive reform. What little has been achieved has been achieved through the courts. dailymaverick.co.za/article/2020-0…
The Courts have spelled out the rights of communal land owning communities and processes that should be followed in the alienation of communal land. This has resulted in some key victories for well organised communities, but elsewhere the impact has been small.
Local chiefs and headmen, and in the case of KZN the Ngonyama Trust, still enjoy unconstrained power of over land paying scant regard to the guidance provided by the courts. Absent a strong and organised community they are free to allocate community land to cronies as they will.
The result of this lawless and corrupt dispossession of people’s land invariably leads to violence by both the dispossessors and the dispossessed. Troublesome people need to be dealt with through threats and violence and sometimes they fight back.
In a situation where there is secure tenure, land is leased or sold by formal written agreement between nominally equal parties. Violence and duress are rare exceptions. It’s the absence of a coherent legal framework and access to peaceful remedies that leads to violence.
The State, hostage as it is to the political support of the rural elites who exercise such disproportionate power over the land of others, has failed to take the legislative measures required to reign these elites in and to secure peace and good order for the benefit of the poor.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Well, that was a very impressive and dignified response by Israel. The confidence we had coming out of yesterday’s hearing has pretty much evaporated. It does appear that SA’s case was light on hard evidence.
The evidence of genocidal intent in the form of statements by leaders is much less impactful when placed in context and countered with other statements, orders and directives requiring the Israeli military to respect the rules of war. We missed Israel’s humanitarian initiatives.
Our reliance on evidence of massive civilian casualties and damage to property and infrastructure, to prove intent, is not that telling in circumstances where we are unable to show that the harm and damage would have been any less, if Israel had complied with the rule of law.
Let’s clear up some of the common misunderstandings about what South Africa’s complaint is about. 1. Israel’s contention that Hamas is an antisemitic terrorist organisation with a genocidal intent, is not in issue. 2. The scale and nature of the Oct 7 atrocity is not in issue.
3. Israel’s right to self defense and its right to wage war against Hamas in order to destroy for good, its capacity to attack Israel and its people and to free the hostages is not in issue.
What is in issue is the manner in and intention with which Israel is conducting that war.
South Africa contends that based on the utterances of senior Israeli political and military leaders and the conduct of its military forces in Gaza that it is clear that Israel’s strategy to destroy Hamas is to target the civilian population of Gaza and to punish them.
Consulted with a client today. His experience is representative of how SOE’s work.
Telkom is rolling out fibre in some townships in Gauteng. It appointed a main contractor but because the contractor lacks local influence, it insists on the use of a local subcontractor.
The main contractor does the buying and pays the subcontractor. The main contractor gets 30% of the contract value, the subcontractor gets 70%. The work goes well till other local political players decide to muscle in. They start destroying the installed fibre infrastructure.
The Telkom contract manager tells the main contractor he must split the subcontracting work between all those demanding a share of the subcontracting work. My client, the subcontractor refuses to agree to the splitting of his sub contract.
Got a letter today from SASOL’s attorneys, the estimable firm of Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr. My client is a farmer with a farm downstream from one of SASOL’s waste water dams, known as Dam F. Dam F was built in the 80’s to accommodate toxic waste water from the coal mines.
Dam F was designed to leak waste water. The clay was carefully removed to build the dam wall exposing the weathered dolorite, that constitutes the floor of the dam, which leaks like a seive. It’s a cunning way to leach polluted waste water into the ground water.
This is much cheaper than treating the water or evaporating it. From Dam F the waste water flows into the ground water and eventually surfaces in the dams in the stream flowing through my clients property. His animals drink the waste water and get sick and die.
My client is a natural scientist. A specialist in fresh water invertebrates, he wrote a book on the subject. He was called in to assess the damage done to the aquatic ecology of the Olifants River by a toxic mine spill. He sampled the millions of dead fish in the river and dams.
He scooped up the dead fish with a net in order to identify the types of fish that were poisoned and then kept some dead fish as samples to be sent to Onderstepoort for pathology, to establish just what kind of poison killed them.
Now the Mpumalanga Parks and Tourism Agency #MTPA has charged him with the crime of fishing without a licence. He is due to appear in the Middelburg Magistrates Court shortly.
Twenty one young people, many under eighteen, die in a packed drinking spot under mysterious circumstances. It’s a tragedy, and the grieving parents and th public want answers. What happened? How did the die?
A quick guide on how to botch the investigation.
1. Express shock and anger. 2. Promise that no stone will be left unturned to find to ensure that those responsible will be held to account. 3. Call for a national debate debate on the legal drinking age and town planning laws.
4. Stoke the fires of xenophobia, by suggesting that the owners are foreigners. 5. Announce that a stampede and a crush have been excluded as a possible cause of the deaths because the bodies show no sign of external injury.