By Wallace Amos Mgoqi
It's often worthwhile to ask how indigenous communities should relate to capital investments in their ancestral lands.
Capital, by its inherent nature, is a hunter in search of environments where it can grow to achieve maximum profits for its shareholders.
In the search, it can be robust in its rough edges and contours – and needs some taming.
More often than not, capital’s interests may not be in sync with those of communities it finds on the land it intends to invest in.
But this does not mean that indigenous communities that lack economic resources must throw out the baby with the bathwater, as it were.
Indigenous communities need an injection of capital for development to take place where they are, while capital needs land and any resources that might be in the land, such as mineral resources.
For progress to take place, there has to be some negotiation based on values of integrity. The process must take place between the parties involved in order to come up with a win-win outcome for both sides.
Even processes such as mediation must be embarked upon as an alternative form of dispute resolution, centring the interests of both parties, until they reach an accord, that will be a permanent guide to their relationship.
In Africa, there is a deluge of cases where indigenous communities were treated and continue to be treated with disdain by prospective investors.
They are often bulldozed to give consent to the companies, aided and abetted by corrupt politicians and other agents. In the exploitation of nature and the environment, indigenous communities are exploited, oppressed and left high and dry.
Indigenous communities have to be on the lookout for advisers who are armchair critics. Those who, from comfortable positions in their lounges and on their couches, seek to formulate ideological positions.
If they go along with them, they close themselves out of real development opportunities.
You will invariably find that they do not put forward alternative forms of investment assistance. Some will approach the same investors, and present their proposals for funding of their NGOs.
There is an English expression: “Running with the hares and hunting with the hounds.”
Investors get to be seen to be militant on the one hand and derive a benefit from what they advise others to reject.
It is incumbent upon the leadership of indigenous communities to be shrewd and discerning about what is in the long-term interests of their communities vis-à-vis capital investments.
It is also incumbent upon governments to create and establish and nurture a framework with investment criteria – especially when it comes to the lands of indigenous communities.
There need to be legislative and policy frameworks that guide prospective investors.
A tribunal I once served on, known as the Southern Africa Permanent People’s Tribunal on the Role of Transnational Corporations in Southern Africa, looked into the conduct of capital in relation to indigenous communities and the exploitation and oppression of indigenous communities in southern Africa.
Held in Johannesburg in November 2018, it articulated the context in which extractive activities took place namely:
The collusion and aiding and abetting between public and private interests and actors which characterise the strategies of multinational corporations, including the structural impact on the role of states.
● The obligation of international accountability of mining corporations.
● The qualification of living wages as a fundamental human right and not a pure contract dependent on economic variables.
The constitutionally and internationally
● binding right of communities to say: “No”.
The tribunal’s findings were limited to:
● There were numerous cases demonstrating a mode of operation that allows no dialogue with communities, often seeking to avoid consultation, foster divisions and also manipulate traditional authorities.
● Wide dislocation of populations whose land has been disposed of for large scale operations of transnational corporations which result not only in the loss of land but also the loss of livelihood – for land is life, history and identity.
Evidence of not only co-operation but also collusion between transnational corporations and governments, and more.
The tribunal highlighted and focused on a few cases, among them the Lonmin/Marikana and Inga 3 Dam, in its recommendations.
It recommended that an expert opinion be obtained with a view to holding special hearings on the Sibanye, Lonmin and the Public Investment Corporation (PIC), so that the rights of workers whose pension funds are invested in the PIC are protected.
In the democratic dispensation, there have been cases where people have been killed over conflict involving a foreign company coming into an area and dividing the leadership of the communities.
A case in point being in the Wild Coast where an Australian company, bent on prospecting, with the backing of the government, so divided the community that it resulted in Bazooka Radebe being killed and others fleeing from their homes, out of fear of the rival group, which received inducements from the foreign company.
Having listened to the harrowing stories, we were left in no doubt that capital needed to be tamed to respect human rights of individuals, in general, and indigenous communities, in particular.
Finally, it was heartening to learn that the First Nations support the River Club Development for what it considers to embody its aspirations, instead of rejecting the development outright. It has exercised prudent and wise leadership for its people, now and in generations to come. We salute its example.
John Maxwell says: “The strength of any organisation is a direct result of the strength of its leaders. Weak leaders = weak organisations; strong leaders = strong organisations. Everything rises and falls on leadership.”
* Wallace Amos Mgoqi is a non-executive chairperson at Ayo Technology Solutions