The Constitutional Court is grappling with whether there was adequate public consultation by the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) and provincial legislatures before passing a law that could affect thousands of land claims.
Three land rights groups and three communal property associations on Tuesday brought a direct challenge to the court questioning the constitutionality of the Restitution of Land Rights Amendment Act of 2014.
They claim the NCOP and provincial legislatures have failed to facilitate adequate public hearings before the Amendment Bill was signed into law.
The organisations launched their land claims in terms of the Restitution of Land Rights Act that was passed in 1994. The aim of the legislation was to address forced removals and racially based dispossession of land since 1913. The act allowed affected people to claim either restoration of the land or equitable redress‚ and provided that all claims must be lodged by December 31‚ 1998. At the 1998 cut-off date‚ 86 000 claims had been lodged.
The amendment act‚ which reopened the restitution process for another five years‚ is expected to lead to 400000 new claims being lodged before the new window period closes on June 30‚ 2019.
The organisations said there were about 8257 claims lodged before May 1998 that had not been settled and they fear that the massive influx of new claims would delay them. There was also an additional 17512 claims that had been approved but restitution had not taken place.
Geoff Budlender SC‚ for the organisations and associations‚ said the process of passing the amendment act was fatally flawed.
He said although the NCOP had decided that its members would attend public hearings on the amendment bill in the provinces‚ they attended in only two of the nine provinces.
“For people who attended the public hearings‚ they might not have bothered because their views were not heard by the NCOP.”
However‚ Denzil Potgieter SC‚ counsel for the speaker of the National Assembly‚ chairperson of the NCOP and provincial legislatures‚ said the process which was followed satisfied the duty of the NCOP and the provincial legislatures to facilitate public involvement in the passage of the act.
Potgieter said although hearings were held‚ the court could give guidance on the NCOP’s constitutional duty to facilitate public involvement in its legislative process.
Potgieter said should the court uphold the challenge by the organisations‚ his clients supported the suspension of invalidity of the act for 18 months to enable the NCOP to remedy the defects.
The court reserved judgment.
ConCourt to decide constitutionality of amendments to land restitution law
Three land rights groups and three communal property associations on Tuesday brought a direct challenge to the court questioning the constitutionality of the Restitution of Land Rights Amendment Act of 2014.
They claim the NCOP and provincial legislatures have failed to facilitate adequate public hearings before the Amendment Bill was signed into law.
The organisations launched their land claims in terms of the Restitution of Land Rights Act that was passed in 1994. The aim of the legislation was to address forced removals and racially based dispossession of land since 1913. The act allowed affected people to claim either restoration of the land or equitable redress‚ and provided that all claims must be lodged by December 31‚ 1998. At the 1998 cut-off date‚ 86 000 claims had been lodged.
The amendment act‚ which reopened the restitution process for another five years‚ is expected to lead to 400000 new claims being lodged before the new window period closes on June 30‚ 2019.
The organisations said there were about 8257 claims lodged before May 1998 that had not been settled and they fear that the massive influx of new claims would delay them. There was also an additional 17512 claims that had been approved but restitution had not taken place.
Geoff Budlender SC‚ for the organisations and associations‚ said the process of passing the amendment act was fatally flawed.
He said although the NCOP had decided that its members would attend public hearings on the amendment bill in the provinces‚ they attended in only two of the nine provinces.
“For people who attended the public hearings‚ they might not have bothered because their views were not heard by the NCOP.”
However‚ Denzil Potgieter SC‚ counsel for the speaker of the National Assembly‚ chairperson of the NCOP and provincial legislatures‚ said the process which was followed satisfied the duty of the NCOP and the provincial legislatures to facilitate public involvement in the passage of the act.
Potgieter said although hearings were held‚ the court could give guidance on the NCOP’s constitutional duty to facilitate public involvement in its legislative process.
Potgieter said should the court uphold the challenge by the organisations‚ his clients supported the suspension of invalidity of the act for 18 months to enable the NCOP to remedy the defects.
The court reserved judgment.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Trending Now
Latest Videos