Race, land, and the new paper trail - Terence Corrigan - Biznews

Terence Corrigan
Some years ago, I remember paging through a magazine appealing to, shall we say, our less refined impulses. Among the adverts for performance enhancers and pheromone deodorant, a mail-order outfit was selling books with such memorable titles as Stoned at the Greengrocer. 

Supposedly, readers of this collection could learn the intricate arts of replicating marijuana and LSD with the contents of the spice rack and cleaning closet, or how to jerry-rig listening devices from bits and pieces of old transistors. Lest anyone think that the authors were advocating anything untoward – getting zoned by taking an origanum-thyme concoction, for example, or listening in to your neighbour’s domestic tiffs – the advert was unambiguous: “These books are for informational purposes only.” 

Now, I never got hold of a copy of Stoned at the Greengrocer, so I have no idea whether its information was accurate or not. But I’m pretty sure that no one who sent off money orders of $2.99 (plus postage) – remember money orders? remember a functional post office? – would have done so for the theoretical phytochemistry, or the linguistic dexterity of the author. I think it’s a safe bet that its readers would be looking for practical applications. 

I was reminded of this while looking at the amended regulations regarding the registration of title deeds. Technically, this is Chief Registrar’s Circular No. 3 of 2025. Specifically: “Regulation 18 is amended by the addition of sub-regulations (4) and (5) to provide for a form to be completed for purposes of the collection of personal information relating to the race, gender, citizenship and nationality of land owners in South Africa. This information is required for statistical and land audit purposes only.”

This has received very little media coverage. One piece in the Daily Maverick dealt with it. In a way, that’s understandable, as the arcana of property transfers is hardly something that would capture public interest.

Still, according to the circular, Form LLL “must be lodged with all deeds/documents pertaining to land/mortgage- and notarial bond registration transactions.” (It must also be “stapled to the inside of the lodgement cover and returned to the attorney/conveyancer/notary public/statutory officer after capturing thereof.”) 

Form LLL is a simple enough document, one page in length, and  harking back to the great South African tradition of breaking people down into the four Apartheid-prescribed categories (Black African, Coloured, Indian and White, along with “Other”, which presumably is where Chinese, Samoans or Kuwaitis would go). It also asks about gender (male and female, along with a concession to latter-day diversity by allowing for “Other” here too) and also asks whether the applicant is a South African or not. These details are also apparently required for juristic persons, stating: “Specific [sic] relating to race, gender and nationality must relate to the majority shareholding / beneficiaries / members /other when not completed by a natural person.” 

“Used only for …”
This is, the circular informs us, a for-information-only affair. “Information contained in Form LLL that does not relate to a name, identity number, date of birth or registered number, as the case may be, must not be disclosed in any deed or document lodged for registration or execution and must be captured and used only for statistical and land audit purposes relating to land ownership in South Africa.” 

The Daily Maverick piece helpfully clarifies why this is important. This matters, it says in a big, bold text block, because: 

The department has emphasised that the intent is to provide the government with a clearer picture of land ownership demographics in South Africa – especially in the context of ongoing transformation policies, foreign ownership assessments and land reform initiatives.
Proponents might see the regulation as a step towards better-informed policy making. Critics, however, might raise questions about the classification of race in official systems or about whether the regulation achieves its intended redress outcomes in the absence of accompanying legislative reforms.
The integration of demographic data collection into the deeds registration process – albeit for non-public statistical use – marks a notable shift in how South Africa monitors and records land ownership patterns.  

So, understand what this is about. It’s about ascribing a racial identity to land and property ownership.

Readers of this column will know that I have repeatedly complained about the constant misrepresentation of what is known about land ownership – typically the claim that whites own 72% of the land in South Africa and Africans 4%. (Tediously, I repeat that this refers only to land owned by private individuals, which form of ownership accounts for about a third of the country – and that’s surface area, not potential or value. Blah-blah-blah.)

In this sense, there is a sort of (“for information only”) logic to establishing the extent of landholding for different groups. Perhaps in isolation, the concerns it would raise are philosophical and conceptual ones: should a state founded on non-racism and without – at least for now – an official system of racial classification be collating this information?  And this being a bureaucrat’s tool, it’s blunt-edged and without nuance. Is a “biracial” person regarded as an “Other”? (Call this the property pencil test, perhaps?) And are firms transferring land supposed to keep a running tally on the race of their shareholders to ensure that they tick the correct box representing the “majority”? Is that majority by numbers or majority by shares? What happens when shareholdings are held by a spread of people of different races, and no race has a majority? (Call this consociational ownership?) Must this form be updated as the shareholding changes to ensure that, say, Black African land doesn’t remain so described when it becomes Indian?   

Policy drive
The point, though, is that this is not merely a matter of collating statistics, but is part of a policy drive that has been manifested in numerous other policies: driving for so-called demographic representivity.

This is the belief that there is a natural state in which everything is divided in proportion to the racial and gender breakdown of a society. Most obviously, this logic has been pushed relentlessly in respect of employment trends. If a firm’s staff profile – at all levels – failed to reflect the “demographics” of the country (or the region in some cases, though this was unacceptable to some, what with the “oversupply” of coloureds in the Western Cape), that was a priori evidence of racism or something equally unsound, and requiring an intrusive state response. Because intrusive state responses always make things better in South Africa.

In any event, the same logic is at work in respect of land. The Report of the Presidential Advisory Panel on Land Reform and Agriculture was unambiguous in that it “advocates for clarity of vision and outcomes and a future where land ownership must approximate the demographic of the country.”

Note that this is not about settling land claims, or ensuring that aspirant farmers are able to access land to till, or that land is made available for urban housing. No, this is about proposing an ideological outcome, and then retrofitting policy onto it. 

“Only for statistical and land audit purposes” is likely to morph into something altogether less benign. We’ve seen how public sector “transformation” dispensed with expertise and experience as criteria, how employment equity has steadily moved towards quotas and how the government has been resistant to the idea that black shareholders might willingly sell out their stakes – you know, as businesspeople may choose to do – because that will dilute “Black” equity. We’ve also seen moves to link water licences to demographic criteria. 

So down the line, I’d be concerned that we’re looking at ever greater demands on landowners to conform to the state’s views on who should own what, or at least in what proportions. “For information only” has, I think, a very particular application.

State’s latitude 
All of this comes on the back of renewed focus on “the land question” after President Ramaphosa announced that he had signed the new Expropriation Act. His party has trumpeted this as the key to fast-track land reform, because it expands the state’s latitude to take property. Most business and agricultural bodies have put a brave face on the situation, shuffling along with a “nothing (or at least not too much) to see here”.  Still, as far as land matters go, there is a kernel of truth. The Expropriation Bill is not a land reform measure. It is applicable to a great deal more. BUT, the powers that be have made it clear that they see it as intrinsic to land reform – in fact, this seems to be as far as they understand land reform – mostly because they seem to view land reform largely as a matter of taking land away from its current owners; and on this the Expropriation Act is very useful indeed.

Another piece carried by Daily Maverick towards the beginning of the month was worth reading on the latter score. Tembeka Ngcukaitobi, something of a celebrity in land reform circles, commented: “You can implement the Act fully, but it will not give you land. You need another act to make this thing work, you need a redistribution act. The Expropriation Act is about state ownership, not distributing land to individuals. That addresses the supply side, it’s not addressing the demand side. People are concerned about the demand side.”

Indeed, and as I’ve pointed out above, the government has a particular view of how both the supply and demand sides need to be arranged. Getting there demands proactive state intervention – the intention to use expropriation to do this has been widely announced, even if many interest groups refuse to believe this – and also careful and hands-on state management of who becomes a beneficiary. The end goal of all this a suitable demographic division of land ownership.

The problem of course is that reality doesn’t mirror ideology quite so neatly. There simply isn’t the scale of demand for land that is likely to drive the sort of wholesale changes that a demographic apportionment would imply – not for agricultural land, and certainly not in the expansive, low productivity areas that contribute a great deal to making the current breakdown (as far as we can determine it) what it is. Farming is a hard business, and not the first choice of an aspirant, urbanising population. Sure, there are plenty of emerging farmers (can we please acknowledge that not all black people in farming are “emerging”?) who would like to upscale. This is doable, even if it may not always be simple. But don’t conflate the expansion of commercial agriculture operations with the sort of social engineering that ideologues demand. 

Hostility to private ownership 
Still, the prevailing policy environment has been marked by hostility to private ownership. Think back to 2018, when the whole Expropriation without Compensation agenda was seriously kicked off. Gugile Nkwinti, who was at that time minister of Rural Development and Land Reform, made it clear that ownership for beneficiaries was not on the table. The demand side would ultimately reflect the government’s demand. 

So, how does all this play out? Well, if the goal is to divvy up the country by demographics, I don’t think it’s a stretch to imagine that we’ll start to see “transformation” demands tacked onto property transactions. Probably not your house or apartment, but maybe BEE conditions on the transfer or acquisition of farms or industrial properties. We’ve seen the equivalent on investment into South Africa, and some forms of licencing, including recently on water usage.

The land reform law which Ngcukaitobi refers to – mooted by others too – would codify this.

Or perhaps such a law could simply short-circuit the whole thing, and decide that all land, or maybe all agricultural land, will come under the custodianship of the state. This would be along the lines of minerals or water. The state could then start using the licencing demands to ensure demographically acceptable access. Remember that the Expropriation Act defines expropriation so as to enable such a mass taking at no cost to the state. The information assembled “only for statistical and land audit purposes” could be put to practical use. 

At least that would be the thinking. Rather like (I suspect) mixing your own dope from herbs and spices and desiccated coconut, it wouldn’t work. South Africa’s state, for all the bluster and flatulence about its developmental mandate, hasn’t the capacity to manage much of anything, and nothing of this magnitude. Look at the state of our mining industry or water resources if you need convincing. 

That doesn’t mean that that the state we have wouldn’t try. I’ve said it before: ideology and incompetence are a bad mix. Sadly, it’s a combination that also distracts from real and serious issues confronting the country, its farming economy and its human settlements. You probably can’t get stoned at the greengrocer and you certainly can’t deal with historical injustices and present-day challenges by relying on bad ideas or the broken thinking that has produced them.

Of course, the changes to the Deeds Register are a small nudge down that road. I fear it may cost us more than $2.99 (plus postage).

Terence Corrigan is the Project Manager at the Institute, where he specialises in work on property rights, as well as land and mining policy

https://www.biznews.com/rational-perspective/race-land-new-paper-trail-corrigan

This article was first published on the Daily Friend.