11 Feb 2018

Kanye Administrative Authority (KAA) sub council chairperson, Mr Tlhomamo Dibeela says JN16 farm is reserved as communal grazing land for the Lorolwane community.

Mr Dibeela called the meeting after the Lorolwane community appealed against the decision of the Phitshane Molopo sub-land board’s decision to allocate some boreholes in the area for individuals.

Addressing a kgotla meeting recently in Lorolwane, Mr Dibeela said investigations have revealed that the area had been zoned communal grazing as per the Southern District Integrated Land Use Plan of 2005 after realising that there was little communal grazing in the area.

He said JN16 was excluded from the plots which were allocated as ranches in the area.

He said they were further advised that as per the allocation policies, communal grazing could not be fenced, adding that if fenced then it would be considered as a commercial entity.

He said JN16 was de-zoned hence it could not be fenced as the Lorolwane community wanted to.

He said if there were any intentions to paddock within the JN16, the land board should be involved.

On the allocation of water points, Ngwaketse Land Board allocation policy indicates that water points in communal grazing areas shall be allocated a distance of 6km from each other.

He said if indeed the  Moepapula syndicate has rights to any water point within JN16 area, then it would not be proper to encompass their rights within the fence, adding that the fencing of JN16 would result in it being treated as a commercial entity.

However, the Lorolwane community was advised to route their complaints through council as their representative body.

The clients indicated that Lorolwane was surrounded by ranches hence the decision to make JN16 a communal grazing for the benefit of local farmers.

Lorolwane community appealed the decision of the sub-land board on grounds that the fencing of Moepapula syndicate (area encompassing JN16) was a government pilot project contained in the District Development Plan Six aimed to protect communal grazing areas.

They contended that fencing of the area was lawful as it was a government plan contained in DDP6.

Community elders had indicated that the land was de-zoned as communal grazing and reserved for the Lorolwane community.

Mr Dibeela noted that the sub-council had resolved that a study was needed to be conducted to find the best possible way to protect the grazing land for the Lorolwane community given the competing demand on the same piece of land from all Batswana. Ends