|
Click here to access the script for this video.
|
Mineral Rights
In South Africa, mining cannot legally take place without the government giving certain rights to a mining company.[1] There are different types of rights that allow different types of mining activities, such as prospecting and mining rights as well as mining permits. As a group, these rights are termed ‘mineral rights.’ The mining company does not need to be the owner of the land in order to undertake mining operations on that land. It only needs to hold a mineral right to undertake the mining operation contemplated by that right in respect of the land in question.
What Are Mineral Right Holders Allowed To Do?
A prospecting right allows mining companies to search for minerals on the property for which the mining right is given. A prospecting right only allows the mining company to remove a small amount of land and minerals – only enough necessary for the company to test and analyse the land and minerals.[2] A prospecting right may be held for a maximum of five years[3] but may be renewed for a maximum of three more years.[4] The holder of the prospecting right has the exclusive right to apply for a mining right in respect of the same property and minerals for which the prospecting right is held.[5] A mining right allows for more extensive activities to take place. Under a mining right, there is no limit on the amount of land and minerals which may be removed by the mining company. A mining right can be held for a maximum of thirty years,[6] but can be renewed for a maximum of thirty more years.[7]
A mining company that holds either of these rights may carry out any activity, additional to prospecting or mining, which is required for the completion of the prospecting or mining operation in question.[8] This may include freely entering the land for which the mineral right was granted, relocating owners or occupiers of the land, building anything required for prospecting or mining, or using water located on the land subject to any other authorisations required.[9]
A mining permit is for small-scale mining operations. It allows a holder of such a permit to mine a piece of land that is maximum five hectares.[10] The permit may be held for a maximum of two years but the permit may be renewed three times for maximum one year, each time.[11] A company cannot be granted a mining permit if it holds a mining permit on the same or adjacent land.[12] A holder of a mining permit may enter the land, build any infrastructure on the land that is required for the purposes of mining and use water located on the land. [13]
How Do Mining Companies Get These Rights?
A mining company seeking to obtain a prospecting right, mining right or mining permit must submit an application to the Regional Manager of the Department of Mineral Resources (the Regional Manager). The mining company must also apply for environmental authorization at this time.[14] If the application is for a mining right, the company must also submit a social and labour plan at this time.[15] The Regional manager must dismiss the application if another company has already submitted an application or holds a mineral right for the same mineral on the same piece of land. If no other person has made an application for or holds a prospecting or mining right for the property and mineral in question, the Regional Manager continues with the process and notifies the mining company that it must consult with the landowner, lawful occupier(s) and any interested and affected party.[16] ‘Affected party’ means any person whose socio-economic conditions might be directly affected by the mining operations.[17]
Normally, once a prospecting or mining right application is accepted for consideration (but not yet granted) by the Regional Manager, no other prospecting or mining right applications will be accepted for consideration.[18] However, section 104 of the MPRDA gives communities a preferential right to be granted a prospecting or mining right over property that they occupy. A local community may choose to make their own application even if another company has submitted an application for a prospecting or mining right. As long as no application has yet been granted over the property the local community has a preferential right to be granted the right.
The Regional Manager must also give notice to interested and affected parties to submit their comments regarding the application within 30 days after the notice was given.[19] Such notice “must be placed on a notice board at the office of the Regional Manager or designated agency, as the case may be, that is accessible to the public.”[20] The Regional Manager must also publish such notice in the Provincial Gazette, at the Magistrate’s Court of the area and by advertising in a local or national newspaper.[21] The mining company must then submit a report on the consultation process and outcome, as well as an environmental authorisation application to the Regional Manager,[22] who sends the full application to the Minister of Mineral Resources. The Minister then considers the applications,[23] although he or she normally delegates this role to an official in the Department of Mineral Resources (DMR).
Objections to the granting of a prospecting right, mining right or permit can be made to the Regional Manager, who must then refer the objection to the Regional Mining Development and Environmental Committee. This Committee will then consider the objections and advise the Minister on the content of the objections.[24]
The Minister can choose to grant or refuse the rights applied for. He or she can also choose to grant the rights subject to terms and conditions.[25] “If the application relates to land occupied by a community, the Minister may impose such conditions as are necessary to promote the rights and interests of the community, including conditions requiring the participation of the community.”[26] A prospecting right, mining right or mining permit can be suspended or cancelled by the minister if the mining company disobeys any important condition of the right or permit, disobeys the provisions of the MPRDA or does not uphold a condition in the environmental authorization.
The MPRDA came into force in April 2004 and changed the mineral right authorisation regime fundamentally. In order to avoid undue prejudice holders of rights under the old regime, it allowed for the transitional continuation of old-order rights and for the conversion of old-order rights into mineral rights under the MPRDA. Prospecting rights held by mining companies continued for two years after the MPRDA came into force. During those two years, the holder of an old-order prospecting right could apply for the conversion of the right into a current prospecting right. If the holder did not do so, the right would lapse.[27] The same contingency plan was made for mining rights, but the period of continuation and application was for five years, in that case. Along with a number of extensive supporting documents, an approved Environmental Management Plan was required for both of these rights. A social and labour plan was required for the conversion of old-order mining rights.[28] Unused old order rights would remain in force for a total of one year, during which time the holder would have to apply for a prospecting or mining right, as the case may be, in terms of the above MPRDA processes. The holder had the exclusive right to apply for such rights during for that period of one year.[29]
[1] MPRDA, section 5A(b)
[2] MPRDA, section 20(1)
[3] MPRDA, section 17(6)
[4] MPRDA, section 18(4)
[5] MPRDA, section 19(1)(b)
[6] MPRDA, section 23(6)
[7] MPRDA, section 24(5)
[8] MPRDA, section 5(3)
[9] MPRDA, section 5(b-d)
[10] MPRDA, section 27(1)(b)
[11] MPRDA, section 27(8)(a)
[12] MPRDA, section 27(3)(c)
[13] MPRDA, sections 27(7)(a)-(b)
[14] MPRDA, sections 16(1); 22(1); 27(2)(a)
[15] MPRDR, regulation 10(1)(f)
[16] MPRDA, sections 16(2)-(4); 22(2)-(4); 10(1)(a)
[17] SA Soutwerke v Saamwerk Soutwerke 2011 (4) ALL SA 168 (SCA)
[18] MPRDA, sections 16(2)(c); sections 22(2)(c)
[19] MPRDA, section 10(1)(b)
[20] MPRDR, regulation 3(2)
[21] MPRDR, regulation 3(3)
[22] MPRDA, sections 16(4)(b); 22(4)(b); 27(5)
[23] MPRDA, section 16(5); 22(5); 27(6)
[24] MPRDA, section 10(2)
[25] MPRDA, section 17(1)-(3)
[26] MPRDA, section 17(4A)
[27] MPRDA, schedule II, section 6
[28] MPRDA, schedule II, section 7
[29] MPRDA, schedule II, section 8
What Are Mineral Right Holders Allowed To Do?
A prospecting right allows mining companies to search for minerals on the property for which the mining right is given. A prospecting right only allows the mining company to remove a small amount of land and minerals – only enough necessary for the company to test and analyse the land and minerals.[2] A prospecting right may be held for a maximum of five years[3] but may be renewed for a maximum of three more years.[4] The holder of the prospecting right has the exclusive right to apply for a mining right in respect of the same property and minerals for which the prospecting right is held.[5] A mining right allows for more extensive activities to take place. Under a mining right, there is no limit on the amount of land and minerals which may be removed by the mining company. A mining right can be held for a maximum of thirty years,[6] but can be renewed for a maximum of thirty more years.[7]
A mining company that holds either of these rights may carry out any activity, additional to prospecting or mining, which is required for the completion of the prospecting or mining operation in question.[8] This may include freely entering the land for which the mineral right was granted, relocating owners or occupiers of the land, building anything required for prospecting or mining, or using water located on the land subject to any other authorisations required.[9]
A mining permit is for small-scale mining operations. It allows a holder of such a permit to mine a piece of land that is maximum five hectares.[10] The permit may be held for a maximum of two years but the permit may be renewed three times for maximum one year, each time.[11] A company cannot be granted a mining permit if it holds a mining permit on the same or adjacent land.[12] A holder of a mining permit may enter the land, build any infrastructure on the land that is required for the purposes of mining and use water located on the land. [13]
How Do Mining Companies Get These Rights?
A mining company seeking to obtain a prospecting right, mining right or mining permit must submit an application to the Regional Manager of the Department of Mineral Resources (the Regional Manager). The mining company must also apply for environmental authorization at this time.[14] If the application is for a mining right, the company must also submit a social and labour plan at this time.[15] The Regional manager must dismiss the application if another company has already submitted an application or holds a mineral right for the same mineral on the same piece of land. If no other person has made an application for or holds a prospecting or mining right for the property and mineral in question, the Regional Manager continues with the process and notifies the mining company that it must consult with the landowner, lawful occupier(s) and any interested and affected party.[16] ‘Affected party’ means any person whose socio-economic conditions might be directly affected by the mining operations.[17]
Normally, once a prospecting or mining right application is accepted for consideration (but not yet granted) by the Regional Manager, no other prospecting or mining right applications will be accepted for consideration.[18] However, section 104 of the MPRDA gives communities a preferential right to be granted a prospecting or mining right over property that they occupy. A local community may choose to make their own application even if another company has submitted an application for a prospecting or mining right. As long as no application has yet been granted over the property the local community has a preferential right to be granted the right.
The Regional Manager must also give notice to interested and affected parties to submit their comments regarding the application within 30 days after the notice was given.[19] Such notice “must be placed on a notice board at the office of the Regional Manager or designated agency, as the case may be, that is accessible to the public.”[20] The Regional Manager must also publish such notice in the Provincial Gazette, at the Magistrate’s Court of the area and by advertising in a local or national newspaper.[21] The mining company must then submit a report on the consultation process and outcome, as well as an environmental authorisation application to the Regional Manager,[22] who sends the full application to the Minister of Mineral Resources. The Minister then considers the applications,[23] although he or she normally delegates this role to an official in the Department of Mineral Resources (DMR).
Objections to the granting of a prospecting right, mining right or permit can be made to the Regional Manager, who must then refer the objection to the Regional Mining Development and Environmental Committee. This Committee will then consider the objections and advise the Minister on the content of the objections.[24]
The Minister can choose to grant or refuse the rights applied for. He or she can also choose to grant the rights subject to terms and conditions.[25] “If the application relates to land occupied by a community, the Minister may impose such conditions as are necessary to promote the rights and interests of the community, including conditions requiring the participation of the community.”[26] A prospecting right, mining right or mining permit can be suspended or cancelled by the minister if the mining company disobeys any important condition of the right or permit, disobeys the provisions of the MPRDA or does not uphold a condition in the environmental authorization.
The MPRDA came into force in April 2004 and changed the mineral right authorisation regime fundamentally. In order to avoid undue prejudice holders of rights under the old regime, it allowed for the transitional continuation of old-order rights and for the conversion of old-order rights into mineral rights under the MPRDA. Prospecting rights held by mining companies continued for two years after the MPRDA came into force. During those two years, the holder of an old-order prospecting right could apply for the conversion of the right into a current prospecting right. If the holder did not do so, the right would lapse.[27] The same contingency plan was made for mining rights, but the period of continuation and application was for five years, in that case. Along with a number of extensive supporting documents, an approved Environmental Management Plan was required for both of these rights. A social and labour plan was required for the conversion of old-order mining rights.[28] Unused old order rights would remain in force for a total of one year, during which time the holder would have to apply for a prospecting or mining right, as the case may be, in terms of the above MPRDA processes. The holder had the exclusive right to apply for such rights during for that period of one year.[29]
[1] MPRDA, section 5A(b)
[2] MPRDA, section 20(1)
[3] MPRDA, section 17(6)
[4] MPRDA, section 18(4)
[5] MPRDA, section 19(1)(b)
[6] MPRDA, section 23(6)
[7] MPRDA, section 24(5)
[8] MPRDA, section 5(3)
[9] MPRDA, section 5(b-d)
[10] MPRDA, section 27(1)(b)
[11] MPRDA, section 27(8)(a)
[12] MPRDA, section 27(3)(c)
[13] MPRDA, sections 27(7)(a)-(b)
[14] MPRDA, sections 16(1); 22(1); 27(2)(a)
[15] MPRDR, regulation 10(1)(f)
[16] MPRDA, sections 16(2)-(4); 22(2)-(4); 10(1)(a)
[17] SA Soutwerke v Saamwerk Soutwerke 2011 (4) ALL SA 168 (SCA)
[18] MPRDA, sections 16(2)(c); sections 22(2)(c)
[19] MPRDA, section 10(1)(b)
[20] MPRDR, regulation 3(2)
[21] MPRDR, regulation 3(3)
[22] MPRDA, sections 16(4)(b); 22(4)(b); 27(5)
[23] MPRDA, section 16(5); 22(5); 27(6)
[24] MPRDA, section 10(2)
[25] MPRDA, section 17(1)-(3)
[26] MPRDA, section 17(4A)
[27] MPRDA, schedule II, section 6
[28] MPRDA, schedule II, section 7
[29] MPRDA, schedule II, section 8
Consultation or Consent?
Consultation is required at the following instances:
Also, a mining company must give the landowners or lawful occupiers at least 21 days written notice that the company intends to begin such operations before starting prospecting, mining or related operations (essentially, before moving onto the land).[5]
The current practice of the DMR allows mining companies to mine on community land without local communities’ permission and in terms of the MPRDA, NEMA, NWA and related regulations, there is no explicit requirement of consent. This is in spite of the Interim Protection of Informal Land Rights Act 31 of 1996 (IPILRA), which states that “no person may be deprived of any informal right to land without his or her consent.”[6] The granting of mineral rights and the physical act of prospecting or mining on land that is occupied by a community are certainly deprivations of that community’s rights. Occupiers are deprived of the right to occupy and use the land to its full extent. Such land rights may be contained in customary law.[7] Regarding prospecting and mining rights, the MPRDA holds that those rights are subject to “any other relevant law.”[8] IPILRA and customary law are relevant to the deprivation of customary communities’ rights. However, the DMR and mining companies do not take IPILRA into account in the granting and operation of prospecting and mining rights.
There may be a number of reasons that cause the DMR and mining companies to believe that they do not need the consent of communities to grant mining rights and mine, respectively. First, section 4(2) of the MPRDA explicitly states: “In so far as the common law is inconsistent with this Act, this Act prevails.” However, IPILRA is statutory law, not common law. Thus, the DMR and mining companies should not use this provision to justify the opinion that the MPRDA trumps IPILRA and the latter’s requirement of community consent. Secondly, IPILRA community consent is not required if another law providing for the expropriation of land or land rights applies to the situation.[9] However, the granting of mineral rights under the MPRDA does not constitute expropriation of land or land rights. Expropriation entails that the rights impacted are acquired by the government. The MPRDA does not do this.[10] The granting of mineral rights is not expropriation but, rather, a deprivation of rights. Thus, the need for community consent is still required.
The need for community consent is supported by the fact that there are four international treaties that South Africa has signed which require community consent before their rights may be deprived.[11] There are also a number of sources of ‘soft environmental laws’ which require community consent and involvement in developments affecting them.[12] This includes a number of best-practice guidelines.[13] It is clear that international law requires community consent before mining can occur.
This is important for two reasons. First, section 233 of the Constitution requires that, when there are multiple interpretations of legislation available, the interpretation that is consistent with international law must be preferred. Second, as stated above, the 2010 Mining Charter requires that stakeholders must be “consistent with international best practices in terms of rules of engagement.” International law and international best practice requires community consent and, thus, compliance with the Constitution and with the Mining Charter require a mining company to seek community consent before it undertakes prospecting or mining on community’s land.
At the time of writing, there was a pending court case regarding whether consent or mere consultation is required before a mining right can be granted.[14] Until this court case is finalised, the DMR and mining companies will continue to operate as if community consent is not required, only adequate consultation.
The DMR has published Consultation Guidelines[15] in which it states that mining companies undertaking consultation must meet with the affected community. Such meetings must include information on what the prospecting or mining operation will entail, consulting with “a view to reach an agreement to the satisfaction of both parties.” In Bengwenyama Minerals (Pty) Ltd and Others v Genorah Resources (Pty) Ltd and Others,[16] the Constitutional Court emphasized the importance of “good faith” consultations attempting to reach an accommodation and “full information” when notifying surface owners and occupiers of the consequences of mining on their land. The SAHRC has found that the DMR “has not been sufficiently involved in community consultation processes and there is insufficient time given to communities to undertake decision making processes as required by their customary law.”[17]
Often, the strategy of mining companies to secure rights to mine in the former homeland areas has involved their incorporation of “chiefs as junior partners” which has enabled them to “join the ranks of the BEE elite.”[18] Some chiefs have been co-opted by mining companies and there is a prevailing belief amongst mining companies and the DMR that consulting with chiefs is sufficient for complying with consultation requirements in the legislation. This can be seen by the emphasis on consultation with traditional leaders in the DMR’s consultation guidelines and lack of focus on consulting with broader community structures or individual members.[19] The DMR’s stance was confirmed by the Chamber of Mines’ submission to the High Level Panel, where it stated that the DMR to transact with traditional authorities, rather than with individuals or other representative structures.[20] However, traditional leaders do not have the “sole authority to represent rural people in negotiations with mining houses”[21] and bilateral agreements with mining companies, without broader community consultation, are not valid.
[1] MPRDA, sections 10(1)(b);16(4)(b); 22(4)(b); 27(5)(b)
[2] EIA Regulations, regulation 42
[3] NHRA, section 36
[4] DMR Revised Social and Labour Guidelines of October 2010, Section 3
[5] MPRDA, section 5A(c)
[6] IPILRA, section 2(1)
[7] IPILRA, section 1(1)(a)(i)
[8] MPRDA, sections 17(6); 23(6)
[9] IPILRA, section 2(4)
[10] Agri South Africa v Minister for Minerals and Energy 2013 (4) SA 1 (CC), para 72
[11] The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD); The International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR); The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR); The African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (African Charter)
[12] United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP); Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Indigenous People E/CN.4/2003/90; The International Labour Organisation Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, Convention 169, 1989
[13] Such as World Bank Environmental and Social Framework (2017),
[14] Duduzile Baleni & 128 Others v Minister – Department of Mineral Resources & 6 Others (High Court, Pretoria) - Case Number: 73678/2016
[15] Department of Mineral Resources: Guideline for Consultation with Communities and Interested and Affected Parties, 2008
[16] 2011 (4) SA 113 (CC)
[17] SAHRC. 2017. National Hearing on the Underlying Socio-economic Challenges of Mining-affected Communities in South Africa, p.9
[18] CAPPS, G. 2015. Labour in the time of platinum. Review of African Political Economy, 42, p.504
[19] Department of Mineral Resources: Guideline for Consultation with Communities and Interested and Affected Parties, 2008
[20] Report Of The High Level Panel On The Assessment Of Key Legislation And The Acceleration Of Fundamental Change. 2017, pp.490
[21] Ibid., p.264
- When applying for a mineral right [1]
- When compiling a scoping report, EIA or EMP [2]
- When applying for a grave relocation permit [3]
- Consultation may be required in planning a SLP [4]
Also, a mining company must give the landowners or lawful occupiers at least 21 days written notice that the company intends to begin such operations before starting prospecting, mining or related operations (essentially, before moving onto the land).[5]
The current practice of the DMR allows mining companies to mine on community land without local communities’ permission and in terms of the MPRDA, NEMA, NWA and related regulations, there is no explicit requirement of consent. This is in spite of the Interim Protection of Informal Land Rights Act 31 of 1996 (IPILRA), which states that “no person may be deprived of any informal right to land without his or her consent.”[6] The granting of mineral rights and the physical act of prospecting or mining on land that is occupied by a community are certainly deprivations of that community’s rights. Occupiers are deprived of the right to occupy and use the land to its full extent. Such land rights may be contained in customary law.[7] Regarding prospecting and mining rights, the MPRDA holds that those rights are subject to “any other relevant law.”[8] IPILRA and customary law are relevant to the deprivation of customary communities’ rights. However, the DMR and mining companies do not take IPILRA into account in the granting and operation of prospecting and mining rights.
There may be a number of reasons that cause the DMR and mining companies to believe that they do not need the consent of communities to grant mining rights and mine, respectively. First, section 4(2) of the MPRDA explicitly states: “In so far as the common law is inconsistent with this Act, this Act prevails.” However, IPILRA is statutory law, not common law. Thus, the DMR and mining companies should not use this provision to justify the opinion that the MPRDA trumps IPILRA and the latter’s requirement of community consent. Secondly, IPILRA community consent is not required if another law providing for the expropriation of land or land rights applies to the situation.[9] However, the granting of mineral rights under the MPRDA does not constitute expropriation of land or land rights. Expropriation entails that the rights impacted are acquired by the government. The MPRDA does not do this.[10] The granting of mineral rights is not expropriation but, rather, a deprivation of rights. Thus, the need for community consent is still required.
The need for community consent is supported by the fact that there are four international treaties that South Africa has signed which require community consent before their rights may be deprived.[11] There are also a number of sources of ‘soft environmental laws’ which require community consent and involvement in developments affecting them.[12] This includes a number of best-practice guidelines.[13] It is clear that international law requires community consent before mining can occur.
This is important for two reasons. First, section 233 of the Constitution requires that, when there are multiple interpretations of legislation available, the interpretation that is consistent with international law must be preferred. Second, as stated above, the 2010 Mining Charter requires that stakeholders must be “consistent with international best practices in terms of rules of engagement.” International law and international best practice requires community consent and, thus, compliance with the Constitution and with the Mining Charter require a mining company to seek community consent before it undertakes prospecting or mining on community’s land.
At the time of writing, there was a pending court case regarding whether consent or mere consultation is required before a mining right can be granted.[14] Until this court case is finalised, the DMR and mining companies will continue to operate as if community consent is not required, only adequate consultation.
The DMR has published Consultation Guidelines[15] in which it states that mining companies undertaking consultation must meet with the affected community. Such meetings must include information on what the prospecting or mining operation will entail, consulting with “a view to reach an agreement to the satisfaction of both parties.” In Bengwenyama Minerals (Pty) Ltd and Others v Genorah Resources (Pty) Ltd and Others,[16] the Constitutional Court emphasized the importance of “good faith” consultations attempting to reach an accommodation and “full information” when notifying surface owners and occupiers of the consequences of mining on their land. The SAHRC has found that the DMR “has not been sufficiently involved in community consultation processes and there is insufficient time given to communities to undertake decision making processes as required by their customary law.”[17]
Often, the strategy of mining companies to secure rights to mine in the former homeland areas has involved their incorporation of “chiefs as junior partners” which has enabled them to “join the ranks of the BEE elite.”[18] Some chiefs have been co-opted by mining companies and there is a prevailing belief amongst mining companies and the DMR that consulting with chiefs is sufficient for complying with consultation requirements in the legislation. This can be seen by the emphasis on consultation with traditional leaders in the DMR’s consultation guidelines and lack of focus on consulting with broader community structures or individual members.[19] The DMR’s stance was confirmed by the Chamber of Mines’ submission to the High Level Panel, where it stated that the DMR to transact with traditional authorities, rather than with individuals or other representative structures.[20] However, traditional leaders do not have the “sole authority to represent rural people in negotiations with mining houses”[21] and bilateral agreements with mining companies, without broader community consultation, are not valid.
[1] MPRDA, sections 10(1)(b);16(4)(b); 22(4)(b); 27(5)(b)
[2] EIA Regulations, regulation 42
[3] NHRA, section 36
[4] DMR Revised Social and Labour Guidelines of October 2010, Section 3
[5] MPRDA, section 5A(c)
[6] IPILRA, section 2(1)
[7] IPILRA, section 1(1)(a)(i)
[8] MPRDA, sections 17(6); 23(6)
[9] IPILRA, section 2(4)
[10] Agri South Africa v Minister for Minerals and Energy 2013 (4) SA 1 (CC), para 72
[11] The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD); The International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR); The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR); The African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (African Charter)
[12] United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP); Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Indigenous People E/CN.4/2003/90; The International Labour Organisation Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, Convention 169, 1989
[13] Such as World Bank Environmental and Social Framework (2017),
[14] Duduzile Baleni & 128 Others v Minister – Department of Mineral Resources & 6 Others (High Court, Pretoria) - Case Number: 73678/2016
[15] Department of Mineral Resources: Guideline for Consultation with Communities and Interested and Affected Parties, 2008
[16] 2011 (4) SA 113 (CC)
[17] SAHRC. 2017. National Hearing on the Underlying Socio-economic Challenges of Mining-affected Communities in South Africa, p.9
[18] CAPPS, G. 2015. Labour in the time of platinum. Review of African Political Economy, 42, p.504
[19] Department of Mineral Resources: Guideline for Consultation with Communities and Interested and Affected Parties, 2008
[20] Report Of The High Level Panel On The Assessment Of Key Legislation And The Acceleration Of Fundamental Change. 2017, pp.490
[21] Ibid., p.264
