Adv. Wim Trengove, appearing for the Legal Resources Centre (LRC) on behalf of four rural com-munities, said the Communal Land Rights Act was essentially an extension of the Black Administration Act of 1927 and the Black Authorities Act of 1951.

These laws gave the colonial and apartheid government draconian powers through pliant proxy chiefs over millions of dispossessed blacks dumped in so-called native reserves held in trust by the state, he said.

"In many cases the traditional authorities were foisted on communities against their will," he said. "This law will entrench authorities that are often the product of racist manipulation."

Deputy Chief Justice Dikgang Moseneke said yesterday that there was a "crying need for land reform" in SA, but "to use the Black Authorities Act of 1951 as a platform for reform after 1994 is simply incredible".

The Constitutional Court was considering an application by Webber Wentzel and the LRC on behalf of four communities to declare the Communal Land Rights Act unconstitutional.

Charlotte Mokgosi of the Makgobistad community, near Mafikeng told Business Day the act would enforce "the apartheid practice of taking away our land by force and doing with it what they please".

Phahiela Magakula, representing the Makuleke community, concurred: "We are very worried this government is just like the apartheid government and not respecting our human rights."

Last year the North Gauteng High Court declared several sections of the Communal Land Rights Act unconstitutional, rendering it largely inoperable.

The LRC wants the Constitutional Court to uphold this decision. It also applied to have the entire act declared unconstitutional on procedural grounds.

Their case received a boost last month when Rural Development and Land Reform Minister Gugile Nkwinti submitted papers saying his department conceded that the law did not reflect government policy, was unworkable and would probably be scrapped.

The law affects half of SA's population and seeks to convert millions of hectares of communal land to freehold tenure to unlock its economic potential.

But its critics, including the LRC, say it is too costly and cornplex to implement, and would entrench the land allocation powers of unelected traditional leaders who could impose decisions undermining land rights rather than securing them to reverse the effect of racist land laws, as required by the constitution.

Judgment was reserved.

Stephan Hofstatter
Contributing Editor