Official allegedly got R81m from MalaMala deal (Dr.Mabunda)

[Richprins]

Mala Mala land deal: Forensic audit initiated – Ken Robertson
Ken Robertson |
14 June 2018
DA MP says this was SA's most expensive land deal to date, costing taxpayers R1.1bn

Mala Mala land deal: Portfolio Committee finally agrees to initiate forensic audit following DA’s proposal

14 June 2018

The DA welcomes the multi-party Rural Development and Land Reform Portfolio Committee’s decision to initiate a forensic investigation into the Mala Mala land deal.

Mala Mala is South Africa's most expensive land deal to date and has cost taxpayers R 1.1 billion. It was finalised and restored to the Nwandlamharhi Communal Property Association (CPA) in 2013/2014.

Both the Land Claims Court and High court ruled that the price envisioned for Mala Mala was excessive and not in the best interests of South Africans. However, the deal went through before the case reached the Constitutional Court and this needs to be investigated.

After the DA pushed for the Portfolio Committee to discuss the Mala Mala claim, a multi-party committee heard a presentation by the Land Claims Commission and the committee adopted the DA’s proposal to initiate proceedings for a forensic investigation by the Special Investigative Units.

The report presented to the committee detailed how the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform handled the Mala Mala deal and further detailed possible corruption currently within the CPA, but could not explain why the state originally opposed the proposed amount of R751 737 million but finally settled on the increased amount outside of the courts.

The High-level Panel report chaired by former President, Kgalema Motlanthe, specifically stated that the Mala Mala claim is part the issue of inconsistent prioritisation of land claims, with other older claims being held back.

Additionally the panel found that “the community, recently formed for the purpose of lodging the land claim, was also not in fact eligible for restitution, but this fact was ignored by the Mpumalanga Land Claims Commission, despite the findings of a historical research report that was paid for by the Commission.”

Minister Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, through the Executive, must ensure that a forensic audit into Mala Mala is instituted so that any past or current corruption can be exposed.

The DA stands at the forefront of fighting corruption and ensuring that land claim beneficiaries actually benefit from progressive Land reform decisions.

Issued by Ken Robertson, DA Shadow Deputy Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform, 14 June 2018

http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politics/m ... tiated--da

[Lisbeth]

Not much has changed from page one.....well, not quite true, because at least they have started the investigation which was already asked for in 2014

[Richprins]

There is a new boss!

[Lisbeth]

Would be nice if this is the new way of running the business

[Lisbeth]

NOTES FROM THE HOUSE: ANALYSIS

MalaMala: An example of how land restitution can go very wrong
By Moira Levy• 2 July 2018


Amid all the talk of land restitution, without compensation or not, and as Parliament’s joint constitutional review committee traverses the country scanning public opinion on whether it’s necessary to meddle with the Constitution to achieve this, or not, the ongoing disquiet over the decade-long MalaMala land deal provides a salutary lesson on the need to tread with caution.

Ten years after the first tentative offer was made on a land redistribution deal that has the distinction of being the most pricey of its kind ever conducted in South Africa, Parliament’s portfolio committee on rural development and land reform is calling for a forensic audit and declaring that it is time that the committee stepped into a clear governance breach.

The obvious question – ie, where has Parliament been all this time was swiftly set aside as MPs took turns denouncing the deal in its current form as “bordering on criminal conduct” and asking one another why criminal charges had not yet been laid, although it remains unclear if the committee itself actually intends laying charges.

There has been talk for some time of disgruntled beneficiaries taking the battle to the North Gauteng High Court and serious tension is known to exist within the governing Nwandlamharhi Communal Property Association, but committee members appeared quite unaware of this, or were keeping silent.

The committee had gathered for a reportback on the much-delayed Restitution of Land Rights Amendment Bill; Communal Property Associations (CPAs) without title deeds; and, last on the agenda, the MalaMala land claim settlement.

Apologies were duly noted from Land Minister Maite Nkoana-Mashabane and Deputy Ministers Mcebisi Skwatsha and Candith Mashego-Dlamini who were attending a Cabinet meeting and it was agreed that there was no need to call on former minister Gugile Nkwinti who oversaw the MalaMala deal.

There was some muttering from the opposition about questions that could not be answered in their absence, but assurance came from the chair that the acting director-general and the Commission on Restitution of Land Rights (CRLR) would take care of anything that came up and any further questions could be tabled at the next meeting or asked in the House or in writing.

The afternoon session got off to a pleasant enough start with Nomfundo Ntloko-Gobodo, Chief Land Claims Commissioner, presenting the MalaMala Report on behalf of the Commission on Restitution of Land Rights. But by the end the committee was outraged to learn that a group of the initial claimants in the MalaMala land restitution of 2014 was not benefiting at all from the record-breaking R1 billion settlement paid out by the government.

A proposal was made for a forensic audit to be conducted as a matter of urgency and committee members described this as “bordering on criminal conduct”.

The committee was told the claim had been lodged in the joint name of the Mafuraga and Mhlanganisweni communities who together formed a single Community Property Association (CPA), but that the Mafuraga have since been inexplicably sidelined and excluded from the deal.

Ken Roberston from the DA said in the light of indications of money possibly going missing “that we introduce a forensic audit on MalaMala” and said if the land commission cannot do this, the matter should be taken up by the Special Investigating Unit.

After hearing the report from the Commission on Restitution of Land Rights, the ANC’s Andrew Madella said of the MalaMala deal, “this doesn’t speak of empowerment at all” and warned there was a need to be cautious of people who come into a community that is “vulnerable” and “[forced] them into signing deals that will actually cause poverty. Unscrupulous people will become instant multimillionaires at the expense of the people,” he said.

His colleague Mamagase Nchabeleng said it was important that such issues be brought out into the open. “People who are supposed to be beneficiaries from this process are not getting value for the land they are given and their conditions are worse than they were before the MalaMala deal was signed. There are beneficiaries who are excluded from enjoying the benefits of their own sweat and tears.”

He concluded that “the duty of this committee should be to expose corruption and action must be taken”.

This is the latest twist in a convoluted decade-long land restitution deal that almost reached the Constitutional Court. In dispute was R989-million agreed to by the seller in 2008 for the more than 13,000 hectares claimed as ancestral land by the local communities.

Then the land minister rejected the deal, saying it was exorbitant and unaffordable for the state, and the Land Claims Court and Supreme Court of Appeal in turn agreed. Set down to be heard by the ConCourt in 2013, the minister, in an unexpected about-turn, had the case suddenly removed from the court roll, and an out-of-court settlement was reached. Except by then the total cost had increased to R1 bn.

The land in Mpumalanga, on the border of the Kruger National Park, is in the seven-star MalaMala game reserve, the preserve of only the very wealthy.

The agreed R1 billion included R77-million for “improvements” and another R7-million for movable assets, but also offered a co-operative management deal which included use of the MalaMala brand at no extra cost. Someone was going to benefit hugely, but it turned out that was not to be the intended beneficiaries.

That was made clear by the co-management deal between the MalaMala Ranch (Pty) Ltd, Manco as the management company, a Community Equity Trust, the CPA and a community company, Monzo Community Investment (Pty) Ltd. According to the co-management proposal, the shareholders in Manco would be MalaMala Ranch (Pty) Ltd and the community.

If the final aim was to be black community empowerment, this was a protracted route to it. The MalaMala Ranch (Pty) Ltd stake will diminish over time until the community holds the majority share, in 25 years.

It was proposed that the dilution takes place on the following basis: during the first five years MalaMala Ranch (Pty) Ltd would hold 70% of the shareholding and the community 30%. From five to 10 years, MalaMala Ranch would have 60% of shares and the community 40%, and from years 11 to 20 both parties will hold 50% each. It doesn’t specify at what point the community would take over the land altogther.

Like so much promised in the name of transformation, this could have been a restitution deal that changed lives. Except it all went horribly wrong, as have so many opportunities that are granted by our new dispensation but executed by those who recognise a deal brimming with self-serving potential and have no compunction about taking full advantage of it.

What has been achieved so far? In its first year of inception, the MalaMala joint venture paid a dividend of R40-million, equivalent to 83% of the 2017 financial year’s after tax profit. R12-million of this constitutes the 30% due to the community and was paid to the company, Monzo.

Monzo paid R6-million of the R12-million to the CPA. Over and above that, 84 community members are permanently employed at MalaMala and 15 community learners have been enrolled at various education and training institutions through bursaries which are funded by a “community levy” that is paid by each guest. From November 2014 to date, R5.5-million has been raised by the community tourism levy.

During the three-hour-long discussion, the name came up of former land minister Nkwinti, who bought the land from MalaMala Ranch (Pty) Ltd, apparently on behalf of 960 families. In so doing the minister effectively spent almost the entire annual land restitution budget in one go. And it emerged at the meeting that only 250 families have benefitted.

Also mentioned was ex-chief executive of South African National Parks, David Mabunda, who was said to have pocketed more than R80-million from the deal through share-holdings in this land, before moving on to KZN SanParks and finally disappearing from SanParks altogether.

A name that kept coming up was “Derick”. This turned out to be a Derick Mthabile who had served as the lead negotiator representing the claimants in the run-up to the final settlement; the Mafuraga and Mhlanganisweni communities acting as a single entity in the joint claim. Despite all that was said at the committee meeting about him, it was never made clear how it came about that by the end of the negotiations he represented only the Mhlanganisweni, and still does.

Ntloko-Gobodo, who is Chief Land Claims Commissioner of the Commission on Restitution of Land Rights, confirmed:

“When the settlement agreements were signed, and when the verification was done it included both parties. The list incorporated both Mhlanganisweni and Mafuraga. There was no point where they [were] not seen as one. It was only after the settlement was done and it was time for the money to come in that it suddenly arose that they are two separate groups and not together as one.” 1

The result – a lot of impoverished people are still living in the area surrounding this island of excessive wealth, without access to it or any of the benefits listed in the deal.

What was being done about this, the committee asked? Ntloko-Gobodo’s reply, in short, was “the commission has undertaken to review the process and deal with whatever issues arise on verification to resolve the entire impasse”. DM

[Richprins]

This process is vitally important as it draws a line in the sand, so to speak, and sets a precedent for future investigations into taxpayer-money projects, notably those of SANParks.

And yes, information supplied by Africa Wild has played a role here.

[Lisbeth]

Are you sure or only guessing/hoping?

[Lisbeth]

Forensic investigation to unearth MalaMala skeletons
25.07.2018 - by Oxpeckers Reporters

SA’s Parliament decides to initiate a forensic investigation into the controversial R1.1-billion MalaMala deal, the country’s most expensive land settlement. Tholakele Nene reports


Lap of luxury: The private game reserve adjoining the Kruger National Park was valued at R750-million, but an out-of-court settlement was made for more than R1-billion. Photo: MalaMala Game Reserve

Parliament’s portfolio committee on rural development and land reform has accepted a proposal for a forensic investigation to be undertaken into the MalaMala deal, according to a statement by the Democratic Alliance (DA).

As part of Transparency International’s Land and Corruption in Africa project, Oxpeckers probed what happened in the settlement of the MalaMala land claim in South Africa — the most expensive in the history of land claim deals, and one which set a precedent for future land claims in the country.

Ken Robertson, the DA’s shadow deputy minister of rural development and land reform, said the forensic investigation will look at how the R1.1-billion settlement deal was finalised in 2013/4.

The luxury game reserve adjoining the Kruger National Park was valued at R750-million, but the Land Claims Court refused to pay this amount and claimants lodged an appeal to the Constitutional Court. Before the case could start, however, an out-of-court settlement was made for more than R1-billion.

“Both the Land Claims Court and High Court ruled that the price envisioned for MalaMala was excessive and not in the best interests of South Africans. However, the deal went through before the case reached the Constitutional Court and this needs to be investigated,” Robertson said.

The forensic investigation will also look into the verification process used to determine who the original beneficiaries of the deal were. According to a report by a high-level panel headed by former president Kgalema Motlanthe in 2016, some 900 households were supposed to benefit from the deal but in reality only 250 households benefited.

“This means more than two-thirds of beneficiaries did not benefit from rentals valued at between R600,000 to R1-million a month,” said Robertson.

He said the investigation needs to probe what the current state of affairs is at MalaMala, whether its operators are paying the holding fund headed by the Nwandlamharhi Communal Property Association which has the title deed to the farm and if the money is trickling back down to the community as per the settlement agreement.

“After the DA pushed for the portfolio committee to discuss the MalaMala claim, a multi-party committee heard a presentation by the Land Claims Commission and the committee adopted our proposal to initiate proceedings for a forensic investigation by the special investigative units,” Robertson said.

The forensic investigation would come at a time of heated debate about land expropriation without compensation. National public hearings are being held by the land reform department on the proposed revision of Section 25 of the Constitution and related legislation to accommodate expropriation without compensation.

Robertson said the money paid in the MalaMala deal “is money taken away from the land restitution programme. The settlement took us a step back” in finalising other cases, he said.


Rough road: In addition to probing how the settlement was reached, the forensic investigation will look at how the money is being used to improve the lives of claimant communities. Photo: Michelle Nel

Probing the secret millions

The 2015 Oxpeckers MalaMala Files dossier probed issues of land disposition, the roles of the various stakeholders, the criteria followed in the determining the settlement fee and how the MalaMala’s secret millions would be divided among local communities.

What has happened since then?

In June 2018 the Commission on Restitution of Land Rights — whose role is to receive land claims and take “reasonable” steps to ensure that claimants are assisted in the preparation and submission of claims, update claimants on claims and investigate the merit of claims — presented a feedback report on the MalaMala settlement to the parliamentary portfolio committee on rural development and land reform.

The report included the following updates:

- Employment:
The report noted 84 local community members were being employed at MalaMala. The estimated population of claimants, collectively known as the Mhlanganisweni community, was 2,000 in 2015.

- Ownership:
According to the report, in the original negotiations around the land claim it was agreed between the parties involved that the first phase of the deal look at the acquisition of land and improvements. In the second phase the parties negotiated co-management of MalaMala Ranch between the current landowners and the claimants represented by the CPA.

MalaMala Ranch is now co-owned and managed by the community, represented by the N’wandlamharhi CPA, and previous ranch owner Michael Rattray and his partner Stephen Saad. As part of a smooth and gradual inclusion of the community into the business, said the report, the CPA owns 40% of shares for five to 10 years while the original owners own a 60% share.

The CPA will own a 50% share in 11 to 20 years following mentorship in running the business. This, Robertson said, is reasonable because the process of hand over and learning the ropes should not be rushed.

He said this is why a large percentage of farm restitution cases fail the beneficiaries, because understanding and maintaining a sustainable business needs time. “The community needs to be mentored. Land reform is suppose to be upskilling” so that communities can create sustainable businesses/livelihoods for themselves, he said.

Other portfolio committee members believed this was too long a timeframe. Robertson said the timeframes could be revised, but what was important is that the community gets appropriate mentoring.

- Rentals and dividends:
During the report back, the commission said the co-management arrangement between the parties was “successful”, noting that “the business had already made a profit through its three income streams: rental of land, annual dividends and a tourism levy”.

The business had made a profit of “R46-million after tax deductions and declared a dividend of 79%. The community will receive R10-million, in addition to R12-million received for rentals in 2017/18. The report did not explain how this money was distributed to the community.

- Tourism levy:
The community levy paid by each guest had collected R5,7-million since March 2016, which had helped fund students to attend various institutions. It did not indicate the number of students who were admitted, what the bursaries obtained entailed, what kind of skills they would contribute back to the community, nor what was being done to expose them to work opportunities. There were also no details on what else the tourism levy was used for besides bursaries.

The Oxpeckers MalaMala Files investigations were sponsored by the Transparency International Secretariat

[Richprins]

[Lisbeth]

At least something is moving