Call for SIU to Investigate Equity Programs for Farm Workers

The Department of Land Reform and Rural Development has enlisted the help of the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) to investigate the deficiencies of farm worker equity schemes (FWES).

This move comes in response to strong advocacy from civil society organizations and Parliament, urging the department to examine the allocation of millions of rands to equity schemes, many of which have been unsuccessful or untraceable.

The equity schemes, established in the 1990s, were designed to provide economic benefits to farm workers. The former Department of Land Affairs launched this redistribution project, where farm workers entered into agreements with farm owners to earn shares and dividends for their social welfare.

In August, Parliament was informed that the department had distributed nearly R700 million across 89 equity schemes. The majority of these schemes were in the Western Cape, with 54 schemes receiving R366 million, and in the Eastern Cape, where 21 schemes were allocated R103 million.

During a briefing to the Portfolio Committee on Land Reform and Rural Development, the department disclosed findings from visits to 65 equity schemes, indicating that only 18 were fully operational.

Sixteen schemes had limited functionality, with “limited or no meaningful worker participation.” Nineteen schemes had workers who had sold their shares and no longer held any ownership stakes. Six schemes had collapsed, four were dealing with severe financial difficulties, and two were in the process of business rescue.

For the 24 equity schemes that were not visited, the department stated that they could not locate any related documentation.

SIU spokesperson Selby Makgotho confirmed to GroundUp that discussions are underway with the department’s acting deputy director-general Dumisani Lupungela. They are waiting for more information from the department to determine the need for further investigation.

Once the necessary information is received from the department, Makgotho explained that “the case will be reviewed and forwarded to the SIU’s [Case Assessment Committee] for consideration.”

Various organizations, including Corruption Watch and the Surplus People Project, have been urging the government to probe the mismanagement and lack of oversight concerning the equity schemes.

Corruption Watch’s research and interviews with farm workers revealed significant transparency issues, lack of worker involvement, and inconsistencies in dividend payments.

The findings suggested that each equity scheme differed in its specifics on different farms. Their 2023 report highlighted interviews with 35 beneficiaries across eight farms.

“While the terms of each scheme vary, beneficiaries under the FWES are supposed to receive dividends based on their shares. However, many participants reported receiving minimal or no benefits from the scheme,” the report indicated.

Furthermore, the department faced mounting pressure from the portfolio committee to investigate these schemes.

Evaluations conducted by the department on the 65 schemes revealed that worker governance and benefits were often limited or unclear. There were several instances where workers sold their shares or relinquished ownership while still working on the farm. Others struggled with cash flow issues and mounting debt.

Some schemes were operating effectively and providing dividends to workers for an extended period.

The department proposed immediate intervention measures, including enhancing oversight and engaging the SIU.

Oversight deficiencies were also highlighted in an internal report commissioned by the department from Zalo Capital in 2013.

The report recommended revitalizing failed schemes, establishing a support unit to monitor and assist FWES, and assessing the performance of DLRRD staff involved in equity schemes, among other suggestions.

However, Terries Ndove, deputy director-general of land reform, informed Parliament that the recommendations in the Zalo report were never implemented. He acknowledged that the department’s monitoring of the schemes was inadequate.

The department did not respond to GroundUp’s inquiries.

© 2026 GroundUp. This article was first published here.