THERE has been a mixed reaction to a recently amended regulation which requires land owners to provide personal information such as their race, gender, citizenship and nationality.

Earlier this month, a circular was issued by the Chief Registrar of the Deeds Office, in which there were several amendments to the Deeds Registries Act of 1937, including Amendment 18, which now makes provision for the collection of personal information.

However, this was for the purposes of “statistical and land audit purposes only”, it read.

According to the circular, the amended regulation required the completion and signing of a form by a transferee, or if there is no transfer of land, by the registered owner or holder. It further provided for completion and signing of the form by an attorney, conveyancer, notary public or statutory officer on information received.

The form, which sets out the information that is required such as race, gender, citizenship, nationality and permanent residence status, must be lodged with all deeds, documents pertaining to land, or mortgage and notarial bond registration transactions.

Reaction

Mlindi Nhanha, the Democratic Alliance's spokesperson on land reform and rural development, said the amended regulation was an invasion and infringement of every property transferee’s right to privacy and personal information.

Last week, the political party wrote to Mzwanele Nyhontso, the Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform, calling for him to withdraw “new race rules” in Deeds Offices across South Africa, and that he immediately halted its enforcement.

“This new rule, against which we are fighting, requires parties involved in a property transfer to declare their race in writing, or risk having their transaction rejected.

“We strongly believes that these regulations are an invasion and infringement of every property transferee’s right to privacy and personal information. Parties trying to get their transactions through the Deeds Offices are understandably raising fears on what this information will be used for,” he said.

Nhanha said they were obtaining legal advice, with a view to challenge the amended regulation.

“This regulation is both unconstitutional and beyond the legal powers afforded to the minister under the Act. It is unacceptable to subject South Africans to disclose personal information under threat of a ‘denial of service’.

“In addition, the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA) also makes it clear that data collection must be proportionate, necessary, and accompanied by adequate safeguards, of which this new Deeds Office rule falls foul.

“While the DA supports a fair, inclusive, and lawful land reform programme, we will not stand by while seemingly unconstitutional regulations are used to undermine property rights and trample on individual freedoms,” he said.

Shameen Thakur-Rajbansi, leader of the Minority Front said the Act was decades old and required an overhaul in the face of other land acts that are being implemented.

“Therefore the data collection of personal information is essential as population research with as much information as possible feeds into other planning documents such as social review reports to parliament. This allows for informed policy and budget changes. It should be welcomed.”

Zakhele Ndlovu, a political analyst, said: “The timing is very interesting. Why now? I suspect the government is only realising now that immigrants own a lot of property in South Africa. It turns out Zimbabweans and Nigerians own a lot of property in places like Zimbali. In the Western Cape, people from first world countries own property across the wine lands. I do think the government wants to establish the percentage of land owned by foreigners and of course the racial demographics.

“However, in general, it is necessary to disclose this information for policy-making purposes. But our government has been too focused on and obsessed with racial quotas at the expense of good policy-making.”

The ANC, IFP and MK political parties did not comment at the time of publication.

THE POST

#land-ownership

Debate erupts over privacy concerns in new land ownership regulations