ADVERTISEMENT:

 
 

Generic image

“Everything was done according to the book” - Ravele CPA

 

The Ravele Communal Property Association (CPA) responded to criticism and a pending court case, saying that all was well with the CPA and that the track record of the company spoke for itself. The CPA described the action of the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform (DRDLR) to file for a motion in the Gauteng North High Court as inappropriate and also suggested that personal vendettas might be the underlying reason for the action.

The Ravele CPA reacted via their lawyer, Mr Shonisani Ravele, on Tuesday. In a lengthy letter, the background to the dispute with the Ravele “Concerned Group” and the DRDLR is set out. The CPA also presents documentation meant to support the claim that the association conducts its business in a transparent and legally responsible manner.

History of Ravele CPA

The Ravele CPA was established in March 2004 in terms of the Communal Property Association Act. “It was established for the purpose of holding land restored to the Ravele Community,” explains Ravele. The Ravele community were removed from land in what is currently known as Levubu in 1938.

A land claim was filed and in 2006, five farms were handed to the communal property association. According to documents filed in court, the Ravele CPA had 807 beneficiaries listed at that stage. The farms are situated on very fertile land and previously produced, among others, macadamia nuts and bananas.

According to Mr Ravele, the government department overseeing the transfer of the land appointed South African Farm Management as a “strategic partner” to help run the five farms. “An amount of R8 million was transferred to the SAFM without the knowledge of the CPA,” he said. Ravele further claims that the strategic partner left the Ravele CPA in 2008, still owing it R5 million and with a further R8 million in accumulated debts.

The Ravele CPA embarked on a turnaround strategy, seemingly with a lot of success. A new strategic partner was appointed and farming activities continued on the farms. “Since 2011/2012 to date, the CPA operating company has realised profits,” says Ravele.

Success story?

The claims of success are supported in an article that appears on the website of the DRDLR. According to the article, the company managing the farms, Mauluma Farming Enterprise, made a profit of R3,59 million in 2013 and in 2014 this jumped to almost R5,2 million. For this year, the Ravele CPA expects a profit of between R7 and R9 million. The company apparently employs 187 workers, 122 of whom are employed on a permanent basis.

According to Shonisani Ravele, the Ravele CPA has received a long list of accolades since 2011. These include being nominated in 2012 by the Limpopo Department of Agriculture as the best land reform project in terms of profitability. In 2015, the CPA received a certificate from Productivity SA for being the best land reform project in the corporate sector. “All the above-mentioned milestones were achieved … without government financial assistance,” says Ravele.

Criticism from within

The Ravele CPA has, however, been the subject of some criticism the past two years. A group calling themselves the Concerned Group voiced their dissatisfaction about the manner in which the CPA is being run. The group comprises 15 beneficiaries who have apparently been excluded from activities of the CPA. Four members, including their spokesperson, Mr Aifheli Bvumbi, have been suspended from participating in any of the activities of the Ravele CPA or Mauluma Farming Enterprise.

The Concerned Group claims that most of the farms belonging to the CPA are currently being neglected. They also argue that most of the CPA beneficiaries have not benefited from the alleged profits made and that the Ravele CPA is run almost as if it is an extension of the Ravele royal family. The Concerned Group argues that this is unconstitutional and not in line with legislation.

The latest court action also seems to be the result of the Concerned Group's complaining to the Department of Rural Development and Land Affairs. This department had to investigate complaints of irregularities, a lack of transparency and the alleged failure to provide audited financial statements.

DRDLR takes matter to court

The apparent frustration by officials from the DRDLR in trying to get an acceptable response from the Ravele CPA caused the department to file for a motion in the Gauteng North High Court.  In the affidavits filed in court, it is stated that the department had been asking for audited financial statements, minutes of meetings and resolutions for almost two years, with limited or no success. “It has become apparent that the respondents have taken a decision not to co-operate with my office,” states Mr Petrus Shabane on behalf of the department.

In December last year, the Ravele CPA held their annual general meeting, to which all beneficiaries were to be invited. The AGM was also advertised in newspapers and members were invited to contact the CPA secretary or chairperson.

In the court documents, the department claims that at least 65 beneficiaries were not informed about the meeting. The department also claims that the Ravele CPA’s executive committee had deliberately excluded the members who had voiced their dissatisfaction with the way things are being managed.

“Ravele CPA is transparent”

The allegation that the Ravele CPA is not conducting its business in a transparent manner is vehemently denied by Shonisani Ravele. “The CPA holds four quarterly general meetings and annual general meetings to present reports regarding developments on the farms as well as audited financial statements,” he says. According to him, the DRDLR officials are invited to attend all such meetings and are furnished with the reports and statements.

Ravele argues that much of the discontent of certain DRDLR officials stems from the suspension of a former vice-chairperson of the CPA in June 2013. Shortly after this incident, the office of the director-general of the DRDLR requested numerous documents from the CPA. “The Ravele CPA responded that the decision of the Director-General is unlawful and stands to be set aside as it violates the Ravele CPA’s rights to just administrative action,” he says.

According to Ravele, the director-general, in cases where a dispute arises, must hold an enquiry or appoint a conciliator to try and resolve the dispute. “It is quite clear that the Director-General did not approach the process requesting documents in the spirit demanded by the CPA Act,” he said.

CPA “represents community”

The question of whom the land belongs to and who has the ultimate authority to make decisions seems to be central to the dispute. The Concerned Group seems to be upset about what they refer to as “fronting practices”. They argue that the Ravele royal family gets preferential treatment and that there is a political drive to transfer land distributed under the land-reform programme to unelected tribal authorities.

Shonisani Ravele, however, describes the CPA Act as a “visionary piece of legislation” passed to restore the dignity of the traditional communities. “The purpose of the CPA Act is to enable communities to form Communal Property Association(s) through which they may acquire and possess land that belongs indivisibly to the entire community,” he says.

“The Act also serves the purpose of transforming customary law practice. The Act extends the fruit of democracy to traditional communities that are subject to customary law,” he says. According to him, the customary practices will remain in force as long as they are not inconsistent with the SA Constitution. In the case of the Ravele CPA, he says, this means that the Ravele Chief will be the executive chairperson of the CPA.

Membership limited

One of the points raised by the Concerned Group is the membership policy of the CPA. They insist that all members of the association be treated equally, especially when requests for financial assistance are made.

In the court documents the DRDLR questions the list of beneficiaries and expresses concern that the list is not being updated. It is also mentioned as one of the reasons that the DRDLR requested that no elections be held during the December 16 2014 annual general meeting.

Mr Shonisani Ravele says that, in terms of the constitution of the Ravele CPA, a person may, from time to time, be admitted as a member upon application, provided that he or she qualifies for membership of the CPA. He states that the spokesperson for the Concerned Group, Aifheli Bvumbi, was not formally admitted as member of the CPA, even though he is a direct descendant of a person who was dispossessed of land at the old Mauluma. “Thus, he is not eligible to participate in the affairs of the Ravele CPA,” he says.

This statement is in slight contradiction of a letter sent to Mr Bvumbi in April this year when four members of the Concerned Group, Bvumbi, Jimmy Ndou, Mulutanyi Joseph Ravele and NN Nemauluma, were informed of their suspension (from the CPA). The letter, signed by the chairperson of the CPA, Mr NN Netshisahulu, orders them to refrain from participating in the activities of the Ravele CPA and Mauluma Farming Enterprise.

No date for court case

As far as could be established, no date has been set for the court hearing and the case may not even make it to court. According to Shonisani Ravele, the Ravele CPA will ask for the dismissal of the application, based on, among others, the fact that there has been a delay in the prosecution of the application by the government. “The application has been rendered moot, as a new committee has since been elected,” he says.

As further proof that the Ravele CPA acted in a legally correct way when conducting its annual general meeting, the Ravele CPA made the auditor’s report available. In the report, compiled by Ramabulana Management Services, they evaluate the procedures followed in terms of the CPA’s constitution.

The auditors are seemingly satisfied that the necessary requirements for the meeting have been met. They are also satisfied that members were informed timeously and that no objections were raised when a list of new members was circulated.

During the meeting, a new executive committee was elected. “Nominated candidates were unopposed, so the election process ended at nomination,” states Mr Masala Ramabulana in the report.

 

Date:18 September 2015

By: Anton van Zyl

Anton van Zyl has been with the Zoutpansberger and Limpopo Mirror since 1990. He graduated from the Rand Afrikaans University (now University of Johannesburg) and obtained a BA Communications degree. He is a founder member of the Association of Independent Publishers.

Read: 2685

 

ADVERTISEMENT

 

ADVERTISEMENT:

ADVERTISEMENT:

 

Recent Articles

ADVERTISEMENT

 

Popular Articles