We consider that the history of the races, especially having regard to South African History, shows that the co-mingling of black and white is undesirable. The native should only be allowed to enter urban areas, which are essentially the white man's creation, when he is willing to enter and to minister to thet needs of the white man, and should depart therefrom when he ceases to so minister.
Current land ownership and development patterns in South Africa are the legacy of the apartheid era. During that era, a number of racially-based land policies, underpinned by legislative schemes, were the cause of the removal, often by force, of non-white South Africans from designated areas. The official statistics of removals are in themselves quite staggering: over three and a half million people were removed from their homes and resettled in inferior areas, sometimes with little or no housing. This figure, stark as it is, does nothing to convey the suffering and loss of human dignity which accompanied these removals. Official removals policy initially focused on the segregation of Black Africans, but was soon extended to include all non-whites: for example those designated coloured, Indian, Malay, or Chinese.2
In 1994, South Africa began the long and difficult process of restitution. In a country in transition, such as South Africa, the acknowledgment of past suffering, and attempts at reparations, are crucial. Land reform generally, and restitution of land in particular, is seen as central to the African National Congress’ programme for reconstruction and development in South Africa. Post-apartheid, a fundamental redistribution of land is required and such a redistribution must be state driven, rather than market based.
In this article, I consider one aspect of the land reform programme, that of restitution of land. In particular, this article focuses on the restitution of urban land. Although the restitution of land process has been in existence for three and a half years, at this stage only eight claims have been finalised and none have involved individual urban claims. Many fundamental questions still await determination by the Land Claims Court, and the final parameters of the process are still unclear. For example, issues relating to proof of dispossession and quantum of compensation remain undecided. Further, the extent to which the slowly changing political climate and the escalating cost of the process will affect outcomes is destined to remain unknown for some time.
The area known as District Six in Cape Town provides a fascinating insight into the problems and prospects for urban restitution. District Six is at the foot of Devil's Peak, adjacent to Table Mountain, in Cape Town. Under the Group Areas Act,'between 1966 and 1983 around fifty thousand of its occupants were dispossessed, often forcibly, of their homes. Most were relocated to a distant area known as the Cape Flats. Almost the entire suburb was razed to the ground, and approximately 49 per cent of the area is now covered by the Cape Technikon, an educational institution which was established for white students on the ruins of District Six. Much of the rest remains vacant, despite the fact that it is prime residential land. In many ways, District Six is not a typical example of urban restitution. The physical alteration of the area since the 1960s, and the extent of the dispossession which occurred, set District Six apart from other urban areas. However, precisely because of its somewhat atypical nature, District Six throws many of the issues of urban restitution into relief.
This article considers the process of urban restitution from the perspective of District Six. In doing so, I hope not only to explain the legal process involved, but also to convey something of the nature of the dispossession and suffering that occurred, as well as prospects for the future. The following Part considers the policy background to the restitution process in general terms. Part III briefly considers why restitution is the appropriate process for South Africa, rather than the doctrine of aboriginal title utilised in many other former British colonies. Part IV outlines the apartheid land laws under which the residents of District Six lost their homes and community. Part V provides a picture of District Six, and presents some of the stories of the former residents. Part VI explains the legal process of restitution with reference to District Six, and considers the problems of effecting restitution in an urban context.
II. SOUTH AFRICAN LAND POLICY AND THE
RESTITUTION OF LAND RIGHTS ACT
In 1991, following the exertion of considerable political pressure, limited land reform was introduced by the De Klerk Government.4 The central policy of land reform was the abolition of racially based legislation relating to land. The Abolition of Racially Based Land Measures Act 1991 was passed, which repealed many of the statutes which underpinned territorial segregation in South Africa. Although it was initially against the return of land to those who had been dispossessed,5 in 1991 the government also introduced a limited procedure for land restitution. Chapter VI of the above Act provided for the establishment of an Advisory Commission on Land Allocation with powers to recommend the return of undeveloped, state-owned land. This process was clearly too narrow, and despite the amending of the Act in 1993 to widen its ambit, these parts of the Act were repealed by s 4(1) of the Restitution of Land Rights Act 1994.6
The Interim Constitution of South Africa mandated the establishment of a process for the restitution of land.? Sections 121-3 provided for the enactment of legislation for the restitution of land rights, for the establishment of a Commission on Restitution of Land Rights and for a court of law to hear such claims. These sections were outside of the Bill of Rights, and separated from the property clause (s 28). In the final version of the Constitution,8 the sections relating to land restitution fall within the Bill of Rights and the property clause. Section 25(7) provides that:
A person or community dispossessed of property after 19 June 1913 as the result of past racially discriminatory laws or practices is entitled, to the extent provided by an Act of Parliament, either to restitution of that property or to equitable redress.
By the time the final form of the Constitution had been determined, the Restitution of Land Rights Act had already been passed, and the bodies envisaged under the Interim Constitution had been established. Subsequent amendments to the Act have brought it into line with the final wording of s 25.
In April 1997, the South African Department of Land Affairs published the White Paper on South African Land Policy.9The White Paper is the culmination of a two and a half year process of policy development, which included two draft policies and a Green Paper. The restitution of land process is one part of the overall South African land reform programme. This programme has three major elements:10
Redistribution of land, which is designed to provide the disadvantaged and poor with access to land for residential and productive purposes. According to the White Paper, its scope includes the urban and rural very poor, labour tenants, farm workers and new entrants to agriculture;
Land Restitution, which provides for a process of restitution with respect to cases of forced removals which took place after 1913 under racially discriminatory land laws and practices; and
Land Tenure Reform, which is designed to improve the tenure security of all South Africans, and to provide for diverse forms of land tenure, including types of communal tenure."
The goal of the land restitution policy is to restore land and provide other restitutionary remedies to people dispossessed by racially discriminatory laws or practices. This must be done in "such a way as to provide support to the process of reconciliation, reconstruction and development".12 The policy explicitly acknowledges the injustices of previous land policies and acknowledges the need to make restitution for forced dispossessions.13 This linkage between reconciliation and land, and the notion of restitution for dispossession, can be sharply contrasted with the Australian situation. The Howard government has expressly refused to acknowledge that land rights and reconciliation go hand in hand, while the native title process remains one whereby the claimants must show that, against all odds, they managed to remain on their land, rather than one whereby the injustices of dispossession are acknowledged and an attempt is made to reconnect claimants with their country.
According to the White Paper, the government has set itself the following three targets with respect to restitution:
a three year period for the lodgment of all claims, from 1 May 1995;
a five year period for the Commission and the Court to finalise all claims; and
a ten year period for the implementation of all court orders.14
These targets were clearly overly optimistic. The deadline for claims has already been extended twice: at the time of writing (September 1998), the deadline for lodgement of claims is 31 December 1998. For a number of reasons, it is also already clear that the five year target period for the finalisation of claims will not be met. First, the number of claims made has been far higher than expected. At the time of writing, over 27 000 claims have been lodged, and it is expected that this number will increase, possibly significantly, closer to the 31 December cut-off. Secondly, the type of claims made has not been as originally envisaged. Originally, the restitution process was designed for the benefit of rural communities, and the Act was drafted accordingly. In fact, five years later, the majority of claims are individual and urban. As will become more apparent in the discussion of the actual restitution process later in this article, the Restitution of Land Rights Act is not suited to this context. Further, as each claim must be separately researched by the Conunission, this places considerable strains on a process which appears inadequately funded to deal with the high number of claims. Finally, it seems that in South Africa, as almost everywhere else, bureaucracy and politics inevitably play a large part in the process.
Prior to considering the particular case of District Six, it is helpful to consider the criteria for making a claim under the Restitution of Land Rights Act. The process will be discussed in the particular context of District Six. The criteria for claiming are established by s 25 of the Constitution (see ss 28, 121-3 of the Interim Constitution) and s 2 of the Restitution of Land Rights Act. In order to make a claim, a person or community must have been dispossessed of a right in land after 19 June 1913 as the result of past racially discriminatory laws or practices, or be the direct descendant of such a person.15 Further, no person or community will be entitled to restoration if just and equitable compensation was paid at the time of dispossession.16
The cut-off date for claims of 19 June 1913 was chosen to reflect the date of enactment of the Native Administration Act 1913, a racially discriminatory law which ushered in the formal adoption of territorial segregation as the leading principle of post-Union land policy." This Act divided the land area of South Africa into white and black areas. Initially, an area of only 7.3 per cent of the total land area of South Africa was set aside for the exclusive occupation of Africans, with the possibility of another 6.7 per cent as "released areas" in which Africans would be able to buy land. In the end, 13 per cent of South Africa was set aside as "Native Reserves". The Act also prohibited Africans from purchasing or leasing cultivatable land in the remaining 87 per cent.18 This Act, of course, formed the basis of the eventual `homelands' or `Bantustans'.19 The Secretary for Native Affairs stated that the Act was:
a first step in the direction of territorial segregation of black and white, Parliament having decided that an effort should be made to put a stop to the many social and other 9 'ils which result from too much close contact between European and native.
According to the White Paper, the choice of 1913 as a cut-off date recognises that systematic dispossession occurred prior to the beginning of the "grand apartheid era" in 1948.21 However, it is also well known that extensive dispossession occurred prior to 1913, particularly during the nineteenth century colonial period.22 Despite this, it was determined by the government that to provide for the possibility of restitution for acts prior to 1913 would lead to massive upheavals in the stability of land ownership in South Africa. In order to ameliorate the possible hardships caused to those dispossessed just prior to 1913,
the Department of Land Affairs has stated that those affected will be given priority status in other land reform programmes.23
Claimants must also have been dispossessed of a “right in land”. The definition, contained in s 1 of the Restitution of Land Rights Act, is extremely broad:
any right in land whether registered or unregistered, and may include the interest of a labour tenant and sharecropper, a customary law interest, the interest of a beneficiary under a trust arrangement and beneficial occupation for a continuous period of not less than 10 years prior to the dispossession in question.
As can be seen, this definition allows claims not only by those who had registered interests in land, but also by those who were owners under customary laws, as well as those who occupied the land without the benefit of any formal arrangement for more than 10 years. The Department of Land Affairs hopes to limit the breadth of this provision by preferring that certain categories of potential claimants receive redress through alternative programmes of land redistribution and tenure reform.24 In addition, it should be noted that dispossession need not be physical. In the decision of Dulabh,25the applicants' grandparents owned and operated a shop in King William's Town. They were forced to sell the property to the Community Development Board in 1973, but the family continued to live and trade on the premises as tenants. In 1994, they repurchased the property. The Land Claims Court considered the question of whether there had in fact been a dispossession, and concluded that the loss of the grandmother's right to inherit the property as part of her husband's estate was a right in land of which she had been dispossessed.26
Finally, the dispossession must be the result of past racially discriminatory laws or practices. Racially discriminatory laws might include any of a number of acts passed since 1913. Examples include the Black Resettlement Act 1954 or the Group Areas Act 1957/66, which are discussed in some detail below. Notably, however, the Act also allows for claims as a result of racially discriminatory practices. Thus, dispossession under supposedly racially neutral laws, such as the Slums Act 1979 or the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act 1951, may entitle a person to claim, as may dispossession by non-state parties.27 The criterion that dispossession must be the result of past racially discriminatory laws or practices was recently considered by the Land Claims Court in Minister of Land Affairs v Slamdien.28Mr Slamdien and his father applied for restitution with respect to a property formerly owned by them in an area called Surrey Estate, in Cape Town. In 1960, Surrey Estate was declared a group area for the "coloured group". In 1970, the state purchased a number of properties in Surrey Estate, including that of the respondents, in order to erect a coloured primary school. The Land Claims Court held that the Slamdiens had failed to show that the dispossession was "as the result of a racially discriminatory law. While the Court agreed that the Group Areas Act was a racially discriminatory law, the words "as a result of' required a direct causal link between the dispossession and the Group Areas Act. Adopting a purposive approach, the Court determined that the purpose of the Restitution of Land Rights Act was to allow persons to bring claims if they were dispossessed of a right in land as the result of racially discriminatory laws which created and enforced separate racial areas (`racial zoning') in South Africa. Therefore, to recognise a causal link between the dispossession and the building of the school would be to allow restitution in circumstances which fall outside of the purposes of the Act. The dispossession was as the result of the need to build a coloured school, not as the result of a law designed to create or enforce racial zoning.
Essentially, the Court accepted a `floodgates' argument made by the Department of Land Affairs, which pointed to the fact that almost every aspect of pre-1994 South Africa was regulated on a racial basis and to allow persons in the position of the respondents to claim was to admit a large number of potential restitution claimants to the process. There were, after all, separate institutions for any number of activities. On similar reasoning, there had also been no racially discriminatory practice. Obviously, this determination has the potential to reduce the number of persons who can apply for restitution of urban land.