Chapter 5 The lead-up to relocation: The farm dwellers and the
5.3 Analysis of the process
What was perhaps most striking about the uncertainty surrounding this case was the lack of information from the DLA. The fact that the Department did not keep proper records of the case is a problem. During a workshop with the land-based NGO AFRA, workers from AFRA explained that their work is made more difficult than necessary (23.10.2009). Lack of access to information limits the working space of the organisation and inhibits their efficient participation on behalf of the farm dwellers. The result is that they constantly have to ‘re- invent the wheel’ which again results in waste of time and resources. In the Thaka Zulu case, as in other similar cases, AFRA have not been able to assist farm dwellers in the best possible way. As the farm dwellers themselves are often uninformed, it is absolutely critical that the relevant state channels facilitate the accessibility of records (Interview Lisa del Grande, 23.10.2009).43
One of the major issues that influenced the outcome of this case was the farm dwellers’ lack of insight and knowledge of the process. The majority of the farm dwellers could not read, and thus they did not have the opportunity to read up on their rights. In other words they were dependent on support mechanisms to aid them. One of these mechanisms should have been their lawyer, but as it turned out their lawyer was not dedicated to providing them with information. According to a letter from the North West Land Facilitation Services sent
43 It should be noted that Lisa del Grande worked at DLA at the start of this process, then later moved to AFRA.
The 2009 interview with her was conducted when she was Director of AFRA.
to the DLA in Vryheid, their lawyer Mr Zondi did not provide the necessary information to his clients44.
The DLA facilitated a meeting between the farm dwellers and their lawyer45. The reason for the meeting was that the DLA believed that the two parties did not maintain an informative relationship. The department officials realized that the farm dwellers needed to obtain more information regarding their situation, and that their lawyer had not informed them sufficiently. Thus the DLA intended to aid the farm dwellers and Mr Zondi to establish a more constructive partnership. The stated objectives of the meeting were:
To facilitate consultation between Mr Zondi and his clients;
To communicate and discuss problems that tenants are experiencing with Adriaan;
To help people come up with a concrete resolution on options available for them in preparation for the meeting with Adriaan and his lawyer which will have to be organised thereafter46.
It seems however that the DLA was unsuccessful in achieving these objectives. First of all they did not have a strategy as to how they would reach all of the involved farm dwellers.
Most of the farm dwellers that were interviewed for this thesis had never heard of this meeting. While the DLA may have informed a few of the dwellers on the case, the majority did not benefit from this information. During the meeting a disagreement arose between the officials from the DLA and Mr Zondi47. Mr Zondi wanted the DLA to provide him with the names of all the farm dwellers who lived on Adriaan's farms. The DLA however argued that as their lawyer, he should already have acquired this information himself. Mr Zondi complained about the slow progress of the case and blamed this on the DLA. Moreover, Mr Zondi spent time questioning his clients about what the DLA had said about him. The result was that a meeting with the aim of informing the farm dwellers about their case ended in bickering between their lawyer and the DLA. The farm dwellers did not trust their lawyer,
44 Letter from the North West Land Facilitation Services to the DLA (Vryheid), 24.03.1998 45 Letter from the North West Land Facilitation Services to the DLA (Vryheid), 24.03.1998 46 Letter from the North West Land Facilitation Services to the DLA (Vryheid), 24.03.1998 47 Letter from the North West Land Facilitation Services to the DLA (Vryheid), 24.03.1998
their lawyer did not trust the DLA, and the DLA was insecure as how to tackle it all. In the end, the farm dwellers lost out on an important opportunity to gain information.
In an internal letter the DLA reflected on the fact that they now had to play the lawyer’s role to Mr Zondi's clients48. While the DLA is responsible for the implementation of ESTA, they only assist with the administration of ESTA when this is requested by the parties involved in the cases (AFRA, 2004). In the Thaka Zulu case they were called upon to mediate between the parties, but there did not seem to be a clear understanding as who were responsible to educate the farm dwellers about their case. During the interviews the farm dwellers expressed their frustration regarding the lack of information they received as well as the unavailability of personnel who could help fill in the information gap. First of all they did not know who to turn to. Second, they tried to contact the DLA, the Commissioner and the Human Rights Commission among others but were not able to organise any constructive meetings (Respondents A+B 04.06.2009, respondent E+F 15.01.2010). The lack of an inclusive consultation process affected the farm dwellers negatively. The relationship that existed between the farm owner and the farm dwellers also had a negative effect on the process. As their relationship deteriorated the negotiations were increasingly taking place without the affected parties present. As the lawyers were gradually taking over the negotiations, the farm dwellers did not develop a good understanding of the case.
The DLA officials found it difficult to balance their roles as mediators and information sources as well as to take on the role as a lawyer to the farm dwellers. During one telephone conversation with a DLA official, Adriaan accused the DLA of sabotaging the whole process49. He argued that the DLA were agitating the farm dwellers against him, and that this was the main reason for the slow progress of the case. This accusation was made in 1998, when the case had been going on for two years. Ironically it would take an additional four years until the farm dwellers had relocated and Adriaan could commence on his game farming ambitions. It could be that Adriaan noticed that the DLA was trying to make up for Mr Zondi's lack of dedication to his clients. When Adriaan saw that the DLA officials were giving
48 Letter from Lisa Del Grande to staff members of the DLA, DLA (Vryheid), 24.03.1998 49 Letter from Lisa Del Grande to staff members of the DLA, DLA (Vryheid), 24.03.1998
advice to the farm dwellers, he perceived them to favour the farm dwellers at the cost of himself.
In their response, the DLA denied that they were responsible for the slow progress of the case. Rather, they blamed it on Mr Zondi, and claimed that he was ‘stirring’ behind the scenes. Mr Zondi on the other hand claimed that he was ‘not happy with the manner in which this matter is being handled by the Department’50. Again the farm dwellers, arguably the weakest party, were at the losing end of this dispute. Reading through the various documents that the DLA kept on the case, arguments between the parties dominate the records. This may be a contributing factor to the slow progress of the case. The fact that it took them five years to reach an agreement on this matter should be a cause of concern.
What of the settlement itself? The farm dwellers were eventually relocated under the provisions of the Extension of Tenure Security Act (ESTA) – a piece of legislation which is intended to empower farm dwellers and provide them with legal rights to the land on which they had lived for generations. In reality, in this case ESTA proved to be a means to take away their right to this land. The farm dwellers were all illiterate or semi-literate and had to put their trust in other people to fight for their rights. In their view, the land belonged to them. Most of them had lived on Adriaan’s farms their whole life, and their parents before them. Not surprisingly, they have now lost all faith in the system and feel that ‘land reform’
has failed them.
The DLA did not manage to come up with an option to which all parties could agree. The result is that the farm dwellers are bitter over the outcome of the conflict with the farmer Adriaan (All respondents). While the DLA made an effort to reach the farm dwellers and inform them of their rights and options, they did not talk to enough of them. The majority of the people I spoke to did not know of the existence of a court order and did not realise the different options that were available to them. In fact, the community that were relocated to land owned by Chief Zondo have now been in contact with a new lawyer with the intention of contesting the outcome of this case.
50 Letter from the farm dweller's lawyer to the DLA, 16.03.1998
From the records collected at the DLA in Vryheid it is difficult to evaluate who was at fault for the outcome of the case. It is however clear that there was a lack of effective information pertaining to the rights entitlements of the farm dwellers. This deprived them of the opportunity to participate in the realisation of their constitutional rights as farm dwellers.
The mediation facilitated by the DLA was hijacked by disputes between the very people who were supposed to provide the farm dwellers with the best possible outcome. It is difficult to know exactly why the DLA failed to reach the farm dwellers with the information that they needed. One possible theory is that the office was understaffed. As Lisa del Grande, at the time a DLA official involved with the case, stated in a letter that ‘people’s diaries are full I know and finding time to meet is difficult’51. However, this is not an adequate explanation for the less than satisfactory outcome of this case. The winner in this case is the landowner Adriaan – who was able to go ahead and establish his game reserve – and possibly the municipality who will benefit from the increase in tourism. The losers however are the farm dwellers. They do not receive any benefits from the reserve, rather they lost their home as a consequence of it.