Land claimants not letting go

GEORGE NEWS - A group of land claimants for Hansmoeskraal outside Pacaltsdorp allege that documentary evidence of their claim filed in 1997 is being wilfully kept from them so as not to embarrass Regional Land Claims Commission officials, who have seemingly muddled up the claim.

According to Hayley Jacobsen, a spokesperson for the claimants, they are seeking compensation and land, being descendants of families who were farmers in the Hansmoeskraal area.

Their claim was apparently first submitted in 1997 by Freddie Arries, in life a prominent figure in Pacaltsdorp and chairman of the Pacaltsdorp Kleinboerevereniging.

In subsequent years, conflicting information regarding the validity of the application was provided to the claimants by commission officials, who initially indicated (in writing) that the claim had been received and was to be investigated further, but later denied that a claim had ever been submitted.

Jacobsen says they managed to obtain a copy of the front page of the original claim form, which explicitly stated that the land in question was 'Pacaltsdorp Landelike (rural)', which in their opinion implies the Hansmoeskraal area.

The claim reference number was A769, the same number used for another Pacaltsdorp claim for the Pacaltsdorp Commonage (erf 325 - today Rosedale), also submitted by Arries.

The George Herald is in possession of a written statement (dated 30 June 2011) of a former commission official saying that it was decided to lodge one claim for Pacaltsdorp Commonage, which included the farm Hansmoeskraal, after two separate claims were initially lodged.

According to the official, Hansmoeskraal had been bought by the London Missionary Society in order to extend the Pacaltsdorp Commonage and was administrated as such by the municipality and Society until it was sold during the 1920s. The Pacaltsdorp area was declared 'coloured' during apartheid days.

The official stated that on the closing date for claims lodgment, Arries decided to submit a second claim form to ensure "the safety of the claim", as the claimant group were expressing different wishes regarding the various areas of the commonage claimed for, and should the group not wish to continue as a uniform group.

The claim was then split up and some claimants took the land redistribution option. "Regardless of whether the first claim form is on file or not, this claim form was intended to cover all Pacaltsdorp Commonage claimants who did not wish to join the redistribution group.

As the post-lodgment administrative process proceeded, the commission made a decision to geographically 'group' as many claims as possible in order to speed the process up, in terms of research time and settlement negotiations.

This was when the two claims were combined and proceeded as one, under one claim number." The official said that it was the opinion of the commission's administrative staff members that Pacaltsdorp Commonage included Hansmoeskraal, "which was verified during the historical investigation period".

Public Protector 'failing' claimants
Jacobsen and the other Hansmoeskraal claimants were advised by the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform to submit a new claim, but they refused.

"Our claim was found to be compliant by the commissioner, in view of all the documentary evidence provided, so why would we want to lodge a claim afresh? It would mean throwing away all the documentary evidence provided and one cannot revert back to it."

When the claimants' attempts to have the matter resolved failed, they approached the Public Protector's office more than five years ago, but, says Jacobsen, "We are experiencing the same bureaucratic oppression by the hands of the Public Protector's office."

They have provided all the documentary evidence relating to the Pacaltsdorp Landelike land claim to the Public Protector's office, but to no avail. She wants to know, "Is it a question of the Public Protector not wanting to embarrass the commission and the department?"

The spokesperson for the Public Protector, Cleopatra Mosana, took days to reply to the George Herald's enquiry and eventually responded with, "My apologies for not responding to you on time but the investigator dealing on the matter has not been in office." Further efforts to corresponded with her proved fruitless.

Jacobsen says the claimants' requests for the following documents that are crucial to their matter have been ignored:

A copy of the original Pacaltsdorp Landelike land claim form Ref A769 of Nov 1997 as approved on 8 May 1998;

A copy of the affidavit of Mr AA Arries;

A copy of a certain Land Claims Commission official's research and exit report on Hans Moes Kraal

A copy of this same official's affidavit regarding her knowledge of the two claims lodged at the George satellite office and of her handling of the claims as indicated by the regional Public Protector, Adv Gideon Landman, in an e-mail dated 19 February 2014;

A copy of the RLCC review report dated 27 February 2014;

Minutes of the meeting held on 13 June 2016 between the claimants and Adv Landman and one of his officials;

The research and exit reports for Farms 203 and 204.

Click here to read another supporting document.

See more of the supporting documents of the land claimants' application for Hansmoeskraal below.