LHDA, mining company in land impasse

By Neo Kolane

Parliament says the department of mining erroneously allocated a piece of reserved state land to a local mining company a decade ago before the lease was cancelled a year later to pave way for Phase II of the Lesotho Highlands Water Project (LHWP-II).

Parliament’s natural resources, tourism and land portfolio committee last week noted that the LHDA had in 2012 set aside the land for public purposes according to Land Act 2010 (49).

It said the department of mining had however, failed to inform Refela Holdings that the area had been declared a Selected Development Area (SDA) and now under the LHDA water treaty between Lesotho and South Africa.

The committee also heard that the company was issued a lease to mine quarry at Polihali in Mokhotlong district 2014 on the 4000-heactare piece of land. The mining lease period is 10 years and is due for expiry next year.

But a year later, the area was annexed by LHDA for the implementation of the LHWP-II, which includes construction of major works consisting of Polihali Dam, water transfer tunnel and the associated access roads, bridges and other infrastructures.

Not satisfied with this lease cancellation, Refela Holdings is now demanding compensation from the government.

It argues that it had been legally given the land after meeting all requirements set by the ministry of natural resources, under which the department of mining falls.

The chief executive officer of LHDA, Tente Tente, told the committee that Refela Holdings’ lawyers and the authority’s legal representatives had met in November 2023 in a bid to resolve the dispute.

Tente indicated that the next engagement scheduled for a few days later did not go ahead as the lawyer for Refela Holdings had other commitments.

“The company told us they would let us know when the lawyer is available, so we could continue with deliberations.

“Unfortunately, before they could get back to us, we were summoned by this committee to answer questions on the same matter. The committee requested documentation pertaining to the case, and we duly obliged.

“Since then, there has not been any progress in resolving the matter between us and Refela Holdings,” Tente said.

He also told the committee the documents that LHDA submitted included a map which showed the land in question, and how it related to the land referred to as ‘SDA’.

“It is worth noting that when we arrived, we established that the land in question was communal land.

“We submitted a document that contained a list of people who would be affected by our developing the land, and the extent to which they would be affected,” Tente explained.

In an interview with theReporter on the side lines of the portfolio committee sitting, the chief executive officer of Refela Holdings, Mohapi Khofu, said the bone of contention is the timeframes around the declaration of the area.

The declaration was made in 2012 and only implemented in 2015. He acquired his license in 2014, which was reversed a year later, he said.

“I am still trying to bet my head around all these developments, learning on what is happening, but there are laws in place that guide us and eventually give us clarity.

“I acquired the mining lease because I followed due processes. All I want from LHDA and the government is compensation because I was given rights to this particular land, only for the rights to be revoked,” Khofu said, without revealing how much he wants in compensation.

At an earlier committee sitting, the chief legal officer in the ministry of natural resources, Advocate Mathalea Lerotholi, said when the SDA came into force in 2015, Refela had already been issued with a mining lease.

Lerotholi noted that smallholder miners who had already been mining diamonds in the area were awarded prospecting licenses between 2012 and 2015. 

“Since the gazette on SDA was published in 2015, there has not been any mining lease issued.

“When a person wants to mine alluvial diamonds in rivers around the area, we inform them that the area now belongs to LHDA and that they must ask LHDA whether their mining activities will interfere with the project,” she pointed out.

She further told the committee that she issues licenses and mining leases in line with Mines and Mineral Act No4 of 2005, emphasizing that even if an area has been reserved for a certain purpose, that does not stop the mining of minerals found in that area.

“In 2012, when the area was being declared as a development area, it restricted us from issuing mining leases, but we give mining rights as long as the minerals are still there.

“However, under the new order, we are now expected to consult LHDA,” Lerotholi told the committee last week.

When Refela and LHDA met with the portfolio committee in November last year, Lerotholi said the ministry was aware that Refela Holdings was not operating as its demarcated area had been allocated to the LHDA which had since commenced the LHWP Phase II project.

It was at this meeting that the natural resources committee’s chairperson, Moeketsi Motšoane, directed both parties – LHDA and Refela Holdings – to go back to the negotiation table and find an amicable and mutually beneficial solution to their impasse.

He also intimated to LHDA that it would have to compensate the complainant (Refela).

Although Tente conceded that they had intruded on Refela’s territory, he was quick to point out that it was not their fault, further suggesting that “the buck stops at local government that had issued the SDA on the already allocated piece of land”.