Deep divisions have emerged over a land claim lodged by the family of the late AmaNdebele chief of Vezibuhle in Mpumalanga, Moses Mahlangu.
Sunday World understands that while some family members demand financial compensation, others advocate for the establishment of a heritage site to honour their great-grandfather and freedom fighter, King Nyabela Mahlangu, who occupied the land in the late 1800s.
The land in question is Doornpoort 295 JR in Pretoria and is regarded by the family, represented by Sello Mahlangu, as holding significant historical and cultural value.
This land allegedly goes through National Asphalt Mine, Go-bid and Zenzele, which continue to run businesses where some family members are allegedly buried.
Sello told Sunday World that he continued the fight for the land after the passing of Moses Mahlangu, who had been leading the case with the Commission on Restitution of Land Rights alongside his half-brother Johannes Mahlangu.
He said the family had signed power of attorney, a document prepared by the commission, and appointing him as their representative.
“Moses Mahlangu was unequivocally viewed as a threat to the land claim, which prompted the Commission on Land Claims to marginalise him in research activities. As the last elder with comprehensive knowledge of the land, he stood firm in his disagreement with the government researchers about its history and demarcation.
“He clearly stated that the government was attempting to hand the land over to white people, a claim rooted in the fact that the commission ignored the invaluable oral knowledge he provided,” said Sello.
He said after several meetings, the commission granted the family four options to resolve the land issue. The family then decided on land restoration where there is no development and monetary compensation where the land cannot be
restored. However, according to Sello, this option was later removed as the commission only offered monetary compensation for 149 hectares of land.
He disputed that this is all the family deserved, highlighting that Mahlangu would show them how far the land extends, which he says he cannot calculate due to a lack of knowledge on measuring land.
“Even the commissioner, Cindy Benyame, told us that we will not get the land we want, telling us that we can only take the money. They are confident because they have been working in silos with an old man, Johannes Mahlangu, since Moses Mahlangu died. Mind you, Johannes is an old man who is always tricked into agreeing with whatever they propose,” said Sello.
Zanele Mahlangu, daughter of Johannes Mahlangu, said the land claim matter had caused chaos within the family.
Speaking for her 96-year-old father, she said the land would no longer be beneficial to the family considering that they came from a grandfather who had married three wives, making it a family too big to share the land. He said the rightful heirs were too old to discuss the future of the land and felt that accepting monetary compensation would be beneficial to family members.
“My father cannot say much but he always told us that it was better to accept money than land. Sello should not say anything in relation to the land because he knows nothing but he is further dividing the family,” said Zanele.
Sibusiso Lubisi, Gauteng regional land claim commissioner (RLCC) spokesperson, said the RLCC received a land claim from Johannes before the December 31, 1998 deadline.
He said the claim was for a piece of land called Portion 0 of the Doornpoort 295 JR farm, which he said is the remaining extent and is about 149.95 hectares in size. He highlighted that there was no claim by Sello.
“The above-mentioned land claim lodged by Mr Johannes Mosweswe Mahlangu is still at the options stage. An option workshop was conducted with the beneficiaries and at the moment, there are split options. The majority have opted for financial compensation. One household is not participating.”
The claim was approved under Section 2 of the Restitution of Land Rights Act 22 of 1994. The office also confirmed that there are 60 beneficiaries from the Mahlangu family.
“The land is privately owned, and the landowner is disputing the merits of the claim. The dispute will have to be deposed off first and depending on the outcome, the question of restoration will be addressed,” said Lubisi.
“The commission does not offer financial compensation nor land restoration, but the claimants select their preferred restitution option.”
