Download logo
The Select Committee on Agriculture Land Reform and Mineral Resources said Sogima Mining has complied with the Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources’ requirements. However, Sogima remains unable to resume its mining activities.
The committee expressed this view during the last day of its oversight visit. It met with Sogima Mining, the Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources (DMPR), the North West Department of Human Settlements, the Housing Development Agency and Madibeng Local Municipality.
Committee Chairperson Mr Mpho Modise said when the committee adjourned its meeting the previous day, there was an agreement that the DMPR and Sogima Mining would meet and report back with a possible solution and way forward to bring the matter to finality.
“To be honest when we concluded yesterday’s meeting, I felt that we had made significant progress. In my assessment, we had addressed approximately 60% of the issues and were moving steadily towards a resolution. Today, however, having heard the report presented to us, I feel that we have moved backwards rather than forward.”
The committee noted with concern the DMPR’s proposal for another meeting with the 46 community members who objected to Sogima Mining’s activities. The proposed meeting would include relevant stakeholders and record the reasons for the objections and concerns about relocation. Members questioned whether another meeting would help resolve a matter that has been outstanding for several years.
Members were concerned that relocation issues continue to dominate discussions and delay economic development and job opportunities in the area. The committee said the government cannot allow economic development, job creation and poverty alleviation to be blocked before a mining company can operate. Government must take responsibility for matters that fall within its mandate.
Members questioned why the company continues to go through repeated processes after meeting previous requirements. The committee heard that Sogima Mining had held consultations, redesigned its blasting method, repaired damage caused by earlier blasting and prepared legal agreements, as requested by the department. The company said it had spent substantial amounts over the years to meet these requirements.
The committee expressed concern that the DMPR appeared to move the company from one process to another without finalising the matter. Members said each time a requirement was met another one appeared to follow.
During the discussions, members raised the difference between consultation and agreement. The committee said the law requires consultation and not unanimous agreement. It warned that a mining project should not be delayed indefinitely when lawful consultation has taken place.
Members asked how the DMPR has dealt with similar cases in other mining communities where there are different views. They also asked whether the approach in the Sogima Mining matter is consistent with approaches used elsewhere in the mining sector.
The committee questioned the need for another meeting with community members who object to blasting when extensive consultations had already taken place. Members advised that repeating consultation could reopen issues that had already been addressed and delay the matter further.
The committee was told that Sogima Mining had consulted 106 households in the affected area. Of these, 46 objected and said relocation should take place first. Members questioned the difference between these figures and earlier presentations, which indicated that more than 200 households could be affected by relocation.
The committee said failures in planning and coordination by government should not result in one mining company carrying the burden of past decisions made by different authorities. Members said Sogima Mining should not carry the full financial burden of relocating a community from an area where settlement should not have been allowed.
The Chairperson expressed disappointment that several reports requested by the committee during the March oversight visit had still not been submitted. Mr Modise said only Sogima Mining had submitted the requested information. Reports from other government departments still remain outstanding.
In its final deliberations, the committee resolved that the DMPR, Sogima Mining and relevant stakeholders should proceed with the scheduled meeting on 18 August 2026. The committee said it expects the meeting to finalise all outstanding issues so that the company can find a way to resume mining operations. The committee requested that a report on the outcome of the meeting be submitted immediately after the engagement.
Mr Modise said the committee will meet after receiving the report to assess the outcome and decide on the next steps. If satisfactory progress is not made, the committee will consider other avenues to bring the matter to a conclusion with the assistance of Parliament’s legal department.
Distributed by APO Group on behalf of Republic of South Africa: The Parliament.
South Africa: Select Committee Land Reform Concludes Oversight Visit on Sogima Impasse
Related Posts
NewsTrendsKE
A News Blog For Readers Who Want More