Browsing by Author "Ntsanwisi, Fezeka"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Open Access
    Consent and consultation under IPILRA and the MPRDA concerning ancestral land of customary communities: incorporating the free, prior, and informed consent principle into South African National Legislation
    (2025) Maponya, Randy; Mostert, Hanri; Richard Cramer, Richard; Ntsanwisi, Fezeka
    The Mineral and Petroleum Resources and Development Act 28 of 2002 (MPRDA) requires an applicant for a right to a mineral or a mining permit to consult with the landowner, lawful occupier, or any interested and affected parties. The MPRDA does not require the applicant for a right to a mineral or a mining permit to obtain consent, it only requires that the applicant consults with the landowner, lawful occupier, or any interested and affected parties. The Interim Protection of Informal Land Rights Act 31 of 1996 (IPILRA), requires the informal land rights holders consent to any deprivation of their informal rights to land. The court in Baleni v Minister of Mineral Resources (Baleni 1) considered the level of engagement that must be achieved before a right to a mineral or mining permit may be granted by the Minister in terms of the MPRDA. The court in Baleni confirmed that an informal land right holder must consent to any deprivation of their informal land right. The court held that the MPRDA and IPILRA must be read together. The court in Baleni 1 considered customary law and international law as prescribed in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa of 1996 (Constitution). The court recognised international instruments under international and regional law that deal with the Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) principle. Basson J held that requiring community consent as opposed to consultation is in line with the FPIC principle recognised under international law. This dissertation aims to examine whether the Baleni 1 judgment paves the way for the incorporation of the FPIC principle into South African national legislation. It investigates the challenges and benefits of incorporating the FPIC principle into national legislation and the implementation of the FPIC principle in practice. Further, the role of the legislature in adopting the FPIC principle into national legislation as opposed to adopting the requirement of consent. This dissertation argues that the Baleni 1 judgment paves the way for the FPIC principle to be incorporated into South African national legislation. The dissertation unpacks the FPIC principle as outlined in international law and how it can be applied in domestic law. This dissertation seeks to illustrate how the FPIC principle can be incorporated into national South African legislation for the protection of customary communities on ancestral land affected by prospecting and mining operations.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Open Access
    Consultation and consent under the MPRDA and the IPILRA: a legal analysis of the decision-making practices of customary communities in South Africa
    (2021) Ntsanwisi, Fezeka; Mostert, Hanri; Cramer Richard Henry
    Under the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002 (MPRDA), the State, as custodian of mineral resources, has the authority to grant rights to minerals and permits in favour of applicants that satisfy the requirements of the prescribed application procedures. Applicants for rights to minerals and permits must consult meaningfully with landowners and lawful occupiers, although the MPRDA itself does not require the latter's prior consent. The Interim Protection of Informal Land Rights Act 31 of 1996 (IPILRA), by contrast, requires prior consent when persons are deprived of their informal rights to land. In South Africa, communities that occupy land under customary land tenure are recognised as lawful occupiers that have informal rights to land. The occupation of land by customary communities and the applicant's interest to exploit mineral resources creates competing rights and interests between these two parties, namely: a right to consultation and a right of access to land. This minor dissertation aims to analyse the impact that the current statutory formulation of the requirements of consultation and consent has on the informal rights to land held by customary communities. This aim translates into two sub-inquiries: How do the statutorily required processes of consultation and consent embodied in the MPRDA and the IPILRA protect the informal rights to land held by customary communities? Furthermore, do the statutorily required processes of consultation and consent meaningfully engage with the existing decision-making practices of customary communities? These issues are considered in light of the elevated status that customary law enjoys under South African law and the Constitution's aspiration to reform racially discriminatory landholding systems. The dissertation argues that the statutorily required processes of consultation and consent inadequately engage with the existing decision-making practices of customary communities. It offers insight on how engagement with the existing decision-making practices, and with the Free, Prior and Informed Consent principle, can better accommodate and protect the rights and interests of customary communities that are affected by prospecting and mining operations.