North West Premier Lazurus Mokgosi and Cooperative Governance MEC Gaoage Molapisi have been called upon to step in and clarify who may lawfully speak for Mantserre village near Rustenburg, in a developing mining consent dispute involving Samancor Chrome’s Varkensvlei 403 KQ project.
The call is contained in two letters dated May 25 from Kgoro Ya Moatshe NPC, which has asked the provincial government to state the official position on the authority of people and structures named in the mining process.
The letters were sent to Mokgosi at the Office of the Premier and to Molapisi at the Department of Cooperative Governance, Human Settlements and Traditional Affairs in Mmabatho.
They were also copied to the Presidency, the Department of Land Reform and Rural Development, the Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources, Samancor Chrome Limited, the Baphalane Ba Mantserre (Schilpadnest) Beneficiaries Association and other affected parties.
The letters do not amount to findings against Samancor, the provincial government, Ramokoka Paul Ramokoka, the Baphalane Ba Mantserre Community Development Trust, M Civils or any other party.
They are a formal request for the premier and MEC to clarify whether disputed letters and structures may be relied upon as proof of community consent, traditional authority or land-right holder mandate.
Actual mining resumption
Kgoro Ya Moatshe NPC, through its director Obakeng Moatshe, says the matter has become urgent because the dispute has moved from imminent mining implementation to what it describes as actual mining resumption.
The dispute concerns Varkensvlei 403 KQ in North West, where Samancor Chrome holds a mining right, and two letters dated May 7.
The first letter is on a letterhead styled “Baphalane Ba Mantserre Traditional Council”, and it bears the signature of Ramokoka Paul Ramokoka.
It says the “Traditional Council” consulted with the trust and relevant community structures during meetings held on March 24 and May 4.
It further says the council accepted an explanation from Samancor and mandated the trust to confirm the decision on behalf of the Baphalane Ba Mantserre community.
The second letter is from the Baphalane Ba Mantserre Community Development Trust.
It purports to confirm M Civils as the sole appointed technical partner after engagements linked to Samancor.
KYM has asked Mokgosi and Molapisi to clarify whether these May 7 letters can safely be relied upon before they are used to justify land access, contractor appointment, mining implementation or community consent.
In the letter to the premier, KYM asks whether the Office of the Premier issued any certificate of recognition, gazette notice, acting appointment, regency confirmation or official instrument recognising Paul Ramokoka as headman, acting headman, regent, kgosana or lawful traditional authority for Mantserre.
Clarity sought
The organisation wants this clarified for the period before April 7, between April 7 and May 7, and after May 7.
KYM also asks Mokgosi to confirm who is presently recognised by the Office of the Premier as the lawful headman, acting headman, regent or kgosana for Mantserre.
It further asks whether any entity called the Baphalane Ba Mantserre Traditional Council has ever been recognised and gazetted as a lawful traditional council.
The organisation also wants the Premier to clarify whether a purported kgosana can lawfully bind the Kgotla, the community, the recognised traditional council or affected land-right holders without a resolution from the Kgosi, the Baphalane Royal Family, the gazetted Baphalane Traditional Council or the ten digosana tsa dikgoro tsa Mantserre.
Authority to represent Mantsere
In the separate letter to Molapisi, KYM widens the question beyond traditional leadership.
It asks whether the structures allegedly relied upon by Samancor have any electoral, municipal, traditional or Section 81 authority to govern, represent, bind or speak for Mantserre.
The MEC is asked to confirm whether BBMCDT has any authority under municipal governance law, traditional leadership law or any Provincial Gazette notice to govern, represent or bind Mantserre.
Molapisi is also asked whether the purported Baphalane Ba Mantserre Traditional Council has ever been identified, recognised or gazetted as a traditional authority, traditional council or Section 81 participant.
KYM further asks whether Paul Ramokoka has ever been identified by the MEC under Section 81(2) or recognised by the Premier as a traditional leader entitled to participate in municipal council proceedings or represent Mantserre.
The organisation wants Molapisi to advise Samancor, DMPR, DLRRD and other state organs that no reliance should be placed on the May 7 letters as proof that the named structures act on behalf of the Mantserre community or the Varkensvlei land-right holder constituency, pending official confirmation.
KYM says the provincial government must first clarify recognition, gazetting, traditional leadership status, municipal authority and land-right holder mandate before disputed documents are treated as proof of consent.
Mfulwane’s signature
One of the annexures relied on by KYM is a response from Obed P Mfulwane, chairperson of the Baphalane Ba Mantserre (Schilpadnest) Beneficiaries Association.
Mfulwane’s signature appears on an earlier resolution dated December 4, 2024, but he disputes that the signature amounted to lawful or informed consent.
“I confirm that the signature appearing on that document is my signature,” Mfulwane states.
“However, I deny that the document constitutes lawful, informed, or valid consent by me, the Beneficiaries Association, or the affected rights-holder constituency.”
Mfulwane says there was no prior consultation with him or the beneficiaries’ association concerning an IPILRA process.
He also says the content, legal effect and consequences of the document were not properly explained to him in English or Setswana before he signed it.
According to Mfulwane, he did not understand himself to be waiving rights, consenting to the alienation or leasing of land, or authorising any person or structure to sign a lease agreement on behalf of the association.
“Since the meeting of 4 December 2024, no lease agreement has ever been presented to me for signature,” he states.
“I have not signed any lease agreement, nor have I authorised any person to sign such agreement on behalf of the Beneficiaries Association.”
Mfulwane also disputes any suggestion that the trust had a mandate from affected rights holders to confirm MCivils as the sole appointed technical partner.
“The community has never given such consent, whether during the 2023 Mafikeng Samancor/Trust interdict proceedings or at any later stage to date,” he states.
He further says the May 7 letter appears to have been generated privately, allegedly in Rustenburg, without an open community meeting, transparent consultation or mandate from the beneficiaries’ association.
Mfulwane also questions the authority behind the May 7 letter signed by Paul Ramokoka.
He says the Kgotla last sat on March 9, and since then no properly constituted Kgotla meeting has been held, to his knowledge.
He says members present at the March 9 meeting identified Pheto Petrus Ramokoka, not Paul Ramokoka, as the chairperson and person authorised to sign on Kgotla matters.
“It is therefore unclear when any resolution could have been lawfully taken after 9 March 2026, where no Kgotla meeting has since been held to form a quorum,” Mfulwane states.
“It is also unclear in what capacity Mr Paul Ramokoka purported to sign and what authority empowered him to do so.”
KYM relies on this and other annexures to argue that the May 7 letters should not be relied upon until the provincial government has confirmed the official position.
Parties with no electoral mandate
The organisation says the Electoral Commission of South Africa has confirmed that BBMCDT, the Baphalane Ba Mantserre Business Trust and the purported Baphalane Ba Mantserre Traditional Council are not registered political parties and have no electoral mandate to govern Mantserre.
KYM also records that the IEC indicated that questions concerning traditional leadership, community representation and governance authority fall to the relevant organs of state responsible for traditional affairs and local government, or to the courts.
The organisation further says the Baphalane Royal Family and the gazetted Baphalane Traditional Council have placed on record that there is one recognised Baphalane Royal Family, one Kgosi and one gazetted Baphalane Traditional Council.
According to KYM, they have also placed on record that the so-called Baphalane Ba Mantserre Traditional Council has no legal standing, that Mantserre does not have the status and powers of a sub-traditional council, and that no person is recognised and gazetted as headman or headwoman for Mantserre by the North West provincial government.
Those positions are part of the correspondence and annexures now placed before Mogosi and Molapisi.
They have not been determined in this developing dispute by the Premier, the MEC or a court.
KYM wants response within two days
KYM has asked for a written response within 48 hours.
It also wants at least an interim response confirming whether the Office of the Premier has any current recognition record for Paul Ramokoka or the purported Baphalane Ba Mantserre Traditional Council.
The organisation has reserved its rights to place the letters before DLRRD, DMPR, Samancor and a competent court.
The dispute now leaves the Premier and MEC with a direct question.
They must clarify whether the May 7 letters can be treated as proof of community authority or whether they should remain disputed correspondence until recognition, gazetting and land-right holder consent are officially settled.
- This is a developing story.
- North West Premier Lazurus Mogosi and MEC Gaoage Molapisi have been asked by Kgoro Ya Moatshe NPC to clarify the lawful authority and representation for Mantserre in a mining dispute involving Samancor Chrome's Varkensvlei project.
- The dispute centers on two conflicting May 7 letters from the Baphalane Ba Mantserre Traditional Council and Community Development Trust, whose legitimacy and authority to grant mining consent are questioned.
- Kgoro Ya Moatshe seeks confirmation from provincial authorities on whether these entities and their representatives, including Paul Ramokoka, have official recognition, gazetting, and mandate to speak for the Mantserre community or land-right holders.
- Obed P. Mfulwane, chair of the Beneficiaries Association, disputes the validity of consent given in prior correspondence, claiming no proper consultation or authorization was made for mining agreements or partnerships.
- The Electoral Commission confirms none of the involved bodies hold electoral or governance mandates, prompting a demand for a swift official response within 48 hours before further reliance on the disputed documents.
Kgoro Ya
It says the “Traditional Council” consulted with the trust and relevant community structures during meetings held on March 24 and May 4.
It further says the council accepted an explanation from Samancor and mandated the trust to confirm the decision on behalf of the Baphalane Ba Mantserre community.
It purports to confirm M Civils as the sole appointed technical partner after engagements linked to Samancor.
KYM has asked Mokgosi and Molapisi to clarify whether these May 7 letters can safely be relied upon before they are used to justify land access, contractor appointment, mining implementation or community consent.
In the letter to the premier, KYM asks whether the Office of the Premier issued any certificate of recognition, gazette notice, acting appointment, regency confirmation or official instrument recognising Paul Ramokoka as headman, acting headman, regent, kgosana or lawful traditional authority for Mantserre.
KYM also asks Mokgosi to confirm who is presently recognised by the Office of the Premier as the lawful headman, acting headman, regent or kgosana for Mantserre.
It further asks whether any entity called the Baphalane Ba Mantserre Traditional Council has ever been recognised and gazetted as a lawful traditional council.
In the separate letter to Molapisi, KYM widens the question beyond traditional leadership.
It asks whether the structures allegedly relied upon by Samancor have any electoral, municipal, traditional or Section 81 authority to govern, represent, bind or speak for Mantserre.
Molapisi is also asked whether the purported Baphalane Ba Mantserre Traditional Council has ever been identified, recognised or gazetted as a traditional authority, traditional council or Section 81 participant.
KYM further asks whether Paul Ramokoka has ever been identified by the MEC under Section 81(2) or recognised by the Premier as a traditional leader entitled to participate in municipal council proceedings or represent Mantserre.
KYM says the provincial government must first clarify recognition, gazetting, traditional leadership status, municipal authority and land-right holder mandate before disputed documents are treated as proof of consent.
One of the annexures relied on by KYM is a response from Obed P Mfulwane, chairperson of the Baphalane Ba Mantserre (Schilpadnest) Beneficiaries Association.
Mfulwane’s signature appears on an earlier resolution dated
“I confirm that the signature appearing on that document is my signature,” Mfulwane states.
“However, I deny that the document constitutes lawful, informed, or valid consent by me, the Beneficiaries Association, or the affected rights-holder constituency.”
Mfulwane says there was no prior consultation with him or the beneficiaries' association concerning an IPILRA process.
He also says the content, legal effect and consequences of the document were not properly explained to him in
“Since the meeting of 4
“I have not signed any lease agreement, nor have I authorised any person to sign such agreement on behalf of the Beneficiaries Association.”
Mfulwane also disputes any suggestion that the trust had a mandate from affected rights holders to confirm MCivils as the sole appointed technical partner.
“
He further says the May 7 letter appears to have been generated privately, allegedly in Rustenburg, without an open community meeting, transparent consultation or mandate from the beneficiaries' association.
Mfulwane also questions the authority behind the May 7 letter signed by Paul Ramokoka.
He says the Kgotla last sat on March 9, and since then no properly constituted Kgotla meeting has been held, to his knowledge.
He says members present at the March 9 meeting identified Pheto Petrus Ramokoka, not Paul Ramokoka, as the chairperson and person authorised to sign on Kgotla matters.
“It is therefore unclear when any resolution could have been lawfully taken after 9 March 2026, where no Kgotla meeting has since been held to form a quorum,” Mfulwane states.
“It is also unclear in what capacity Mr Paul Ramokoka purported to sign and what authority empowered him to do so.”
KYM relies on this and other annexures to argue that the May 7 letters should not be relied upon until the provincial government has confirmed the official position.
KYM also records that the IEC indicated that questions concerning traditional leadership, community representation and governance authority fall to the relevant organs of state responsible for traditional affairs and local government, or to the courts.
KYM has asked for a written response within 48 hours.
It also wants at least an interim response confirming whether the Office of the Premier has any current recognition record for Paul Ramokoka or the purported Baphalane Ba Mantserre Traditional Council.
This is a developing story.
