» JOBS
Nationalization wearing a mask
Media still fighting for freedom
During the latest turmoil of court cases, mining- disinvestment and shareholder distrust is triumphing.
The Minister of Mineral Resources, Susan Shabangu, announced on Tuesday that South Africa's "ambiguous" minerals legislation would be subjected to a "major overhaul".
In reaction, a very prominent investor in mining shares who wishes to stay anonymous, told the Platinum Weekly; “To a lot of people, this left-right-and-centre awarding of mineral rights, where there is already mining companies extracting other minerals, is nothing else than nationalization wearing the mask of mineral rights”.
He further added; “If something does not get done about this explosive situation, it will bear fruits that could negatively impact the South African economy to such an extent that every citizen would be very negatively affected.”
A moratorium on new applications for prospecting licences has also been imposed for the next six months.
Quite a few cases made headlines lately, which includes close to home Lonmin who was asked to compensate mineral rights holder Keysha. Another prominent case is Sishen Iron Ore, who remains convinced of the view that its challenge against the rights granted to ICT is justified. They have also made it clear that they will continue to pursue the court process.
However, a few questions come to mind with the changing of the law. How would it affect mineral rights issues that have been in place for some time? Example: RPM that pays compensation to Trojan Exploration (mineral rights holder).
How much money are the court cases, which is going to follow whether the law is going to be revisited or not, going to cost the taxpayer?
Is too much damage already done? The DMR promised that they would focus all their attention to solve this crisis.
With immediate effect, prospecting rights would cease to be issued at regional office level and would instead be issued from the DMR head office.
"We acknowledge that there are gaps and weaknesses in our system, which we intend to address," Shabangu said...
A document produced by the ANC states: "Freedom of expression needs to be defended but freedom of expression can also be a refuge for journalist scoundrels, to hide mediocrity and glorify truly unprofessional conduct. Freedom of expression means that there should be objective reporting and analysis which is not coloured by prejudice and self interest. Freedom of expression means that we should all try to ensure diversity: diversity of content, diversity of sources of information, diversity of ownership and diversity of outlook and responses in our advertising industry. If the media occupies such a hallowed position as a contributor to the evolution of nations, what frames of reference should it define for itself?"
This is a question about the role of the media, not about the free flow of information. Much of the comment in the printed media and on talk shows is confusing the two. The frenzy of media accusations that the Media Appeals Tribunal (MAT) is an attempt to muzzle the media is because there is a realisation that the media has, too often, overstepped the mark in terms of accountability and accuracy.
The media and the public must fight any attempt to curb the flow of information.
Media editors must dissuade the government from implementing the MAT by introducing a more vigorous form of regulatory control. This body should take the form of an independent media tribunal, comprising representatives from the media, big business, civil society and government. Journalists should fear for their jobs if they are brought before this tribunal. Editors should have to pay hefty fines if they are found guilty of unaccountable, irresponsible journalism. And ordinary people should have easy, quick access with confidence that their case will be heard inexpensively and fairly.