Afasa says land reform failures leave black farmers vulnerable and facing eviction

The African Farmers’ Association of South Africa (Afasa) says failures in the land restitution process are undermining newly restored black farmers by leaving them without title deeds, government support and protection from eviction, the association told media.

Who Afasa says is being set up to fail

Afasa told reporters that many beneficiaries who received farms through restitution programmes have not been given the title deeds they were promised, which prevents them from using the land as surety for bank loans and, the group says, sets them up for failure.

Afasa also said a number of black farmers have already been evicted from farms they were given, a process carried out without their knowledge or consent, and that in some cases the land has been leased to others.

Disputed leasing and a withdrawn advert

The association highlighted a recent incident involving Zandfontein Farm in Moqhaka local municipality in the Free State, where it said a lease advert placed by the Department of Land Reform and Rural Development was withdrawn after Afasa released a statement saying it intended to approach the court to stop leasing out farms without proper process.

Afasa’s land reform committee head Piet Mothepu said the association was ready to work with government and stakeholders to find solutions, and warned of a longstanding tendency by the department to advertise farms to attract investors and later evict owners.

“We are talking about the owners who claimed their land and are using it to create jobs and make a living,”

Legal action and where cases are focused

The association said its Free State and Eastern Cape land reform committees intend approaching the courts on an urgent basis to seek an interdict preventing the department from advertising, reallocating or otherwise disposing of farms allocated to, occupied by or legitimately claimed by Afasa members without proper steps.

“Farmers can no longer be expected to operate in fear while their cases remain unresolved and the farms on which their livelihoods depend are allegedly targeted, advertised or reallocated without adequate consultation,” Mothepu said.

Leases, mentors and funding disputes

Afasa said the majority of affected farmers are on 30-year leases. In some instances, once a lease expired, land holders were offered the option to purchase the land, the association said.

The group described a situation where a government-appointed mentor who was running a farm later “took everything and left the land occupiers with nothing, but still owing R8 million to creditors.” Mothepu asked:

“How do we give rural vulnerable farmers land without any support?”

The department has alleged that some beneficiaries breached tenancy agreements by sub-letting farms, a claim Afasa denied. Afasa said that in at least one case beneficiaries entered a bona fide joint venture with a partner recommended by a department official and were surprised the arrangement was later characterised as unauthorised subletting.

On disputes over repossession, the department alleged a farm had been abandoned after recipients absconded. Afasa countered that the farm remained operational, with more than 400 hectares under production through the joint-venture partner, and that harvesting activities were taking place. Afasa also noted there are no residential houses on that farm and that promised RDP houses have not been provided, saying:

“Their inability to reside permanently on the farm cannot reasonably be interpreted as abandonment when agricultural production is continuing.”

The department additionally alleged beneficiaries had failed to account for Recapitalisation and Development Programme (RADP) funding. Afasa said the RADP funding did not form part of the beneficiaries’ lease agreement and that mentors appointed by the department exercised full control over the funding, including bank accounts, procurement of production inputs and management of expenditure.

What Afasa says it wants

Afasa is seeking urgent court action to prevent what it describes as the advertising, reallocation or disposal of farms allocated to its members without proper process and consultation, and says it is ready to engage with government and stakeholders to find solutions.