• Skip to main content
  • Skip to header right navigation
  • Skip to after header navigation
  • Skip to site footer
MyZA

MyZA

News, Directory, Events and Other Stuff

  • Social Media
  • Sport
  • World News
  • Home
  • Submit News
  • Directory
  • Events
  • Stratlec
  • TFSA
  • News
    • APO
    • Today’s Sport News
    • Todays Social Media and Tech Headlines
    • Today’s World News
    • Today’s SA Financial News
  • Contact
You are here: Home / News / Select Committee Urges Urgent Resolution of Sogima Mining Impasse Amid Economic and Social Costs

Select Committee Urges Urgent Resolution of Sogima Mining Impasse Amid Economic and Social Costs

13 August 2026 by Guest

Republic of South Africa: The Parliament
Download logo

The Select Committee on Agriculture, Land Reform and Mineral Resources has said the impasse between Sogima Mining and the Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources (DMPR) has come at an economic and social cost to the affected community.

The committee is conducting an oversight visit in Mafikeng in North West Province. The visit is a continuation of the committee’s commitment to resolving longstanding land and mining-related issues in the Madibeng area, following its initial oversight visit in March 2026.

During the March oversight, the committee engaged with various stakeholders, including Sogima Mining, the DMPR, the Black Mamba community and various government departments, about delays in relocating a community from mining land in Mooinooi Ward 27, Marikana, and the withdrawal of Sogima mining rights dating back to 2018.

At the centre of the dispute is the suspension of Sogima’s blasting activities following complaints from community members residing within a 500-metre radius of the mine. Approximately 234 households are located within the affected area. Residents had raised concerns about alleged property damage, dust pollution and safety risks associated with mining operations.

In today’s oversight engagement, the committee received presentations from the North West Department of Human Settlements, the DMPR, the Housing Development Agency, Madibeng Local Municipality and Sogima Mining.

The Department of Human Settlements noted that the government and its partners have invested approximately R49.2 million in infrastructure and services in the community, which includes electrification, water and sanitation projects, land acquisition and community facilities. The department also presented a relocation framework, indicating that relocating affected households could cost more than R76 million, excluding land acquisition and bulk infrastructure costs. The department concluded by recommending that the affected mining companies assume full financial responsibility of any future relocation process.

Responding to this input, committee members questioned both the costing model and the rationale behind shifting the financial burden onto mining company. Members maintained that portions of the expenditure highlighted in the presentation had been funded by entities other than government, including mining companies and Eskom, and sought clarity on how the figures had been calculated.

Department officials maintained that budget constraints and competing service delivery pressures limited the government’s ability to fund further interventions.

The DMPR’s Office of the Chief Mine Inspectorate explained that its primary obligation is to safeguard the health and safety of mine workers and communities affected by mining activities. The Inspectorate noted that the DMPR had consistently called for solutions that allow mining and residential activities to coexist.

The DMPR indicated that complaints about blasting activities had led to the withdrawal of Sogima’s blasting permissions. It also noted that efforts to address the problem had focused on consultation processes, compliance measures and exploring alternative mining methods and blasting technologies.

However, committee members questioned why the matter remains unresolved years after the department first intervened in 2018. They queried whether Sogima is being treated differently from other mining operations facing similar complaints. The department confirmed that blasting permissions at other mines had also been suspended at various times, but stated that those matters were resolved through consultations and corrective measures agreed upon by affected parties.

Sogima in its presentation described its struggle to continue operating amid the prolonged suspension of blasting activities. Sogima said that the mine had acquired its mining rights legally, compensated affected residents for damages that were identified after blasting incidents and participated in numerous consultations over the years.

Sogima has also invested resources in seeking solutions, including investigations into relocation options and alternative technical approaches. Despite those efforts, the continued inability to blast has prevented the business from operating at intended capacity and this has limited employment creation and economic participation.

Throughout the engagement, committee members raised concerns about the economic implications of the deadlock, particularly for job creation and investment.

Committee Chairperson Mr Mpho Modise made it clear that Parliament’s objective is not to revisit old arguments but to establish a practical path forward. The Chairperson stressed that the committee is determined to move beyond historical disagreements and focus on solutions. “The issue is no longer the department and Sogima. The issue is us and Sogima, because all of us here are representatives of government,” he said.

Mr Modise urged stakeholders to consider the lived realities of workers and families affected by the situation. “When we are seated tonight eating dinner, nicely sleeping, we must think about those people,” he said, referring to workers who would have not benefited from the mine’s operations.

The Chairperson questioned whether enough had been done to find technical solutions that would enable mining to continue while reducing the impact on nearby residents. During discussions, it emerged that Sogima and the DMPR are due to meet to discuss revised blasting methodologies and alternative technologies designed to minimise vibration, dust and noise.

Mr Modise challenged stakeholders to accelerate those discussions, saying that the committee could not continue returning to the same matter without measurable progress. He also emphasised that the committee expects stakeholders to return with concrete proposals.

As deliberations concluded, Mr Modise directed the parties to continue engaging on the technical proposals and return with a clear way forward. He emphasised that the committee’s ultimate goal is to balance community safety, regulatory obligations, employment creation and economic development.

The oversight visit continues today(13 August) at the North West Legislature Building.

Distributed by APO Group on behalf of Republic of South Africa: The Parliament.

The Select Committee on Agriculture, Land Reform and Mineral Resources has said the impasse between Sogima Mining and the Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources (DMPR) has come at an economic and social cost to the affected community.

The committee is conducting an oversight visit in Mafikeng in North West Province. The visit is a continuation of the committee’s commitment to resolving longstanding land and mining-related issues in the Madibeng area, following its initial oversight visit in March 2026.

During the March oversight, the committee engaged with various stakeholders, including Sogima Mining, the DMPR, the Black Mamba community and various government departments, about delays in relocating a community from mining land in Mooinooi Ward 27, Marikana, and the withdrawal of Sogima mining rights dating back to 2018.

At the centre of the dispute is the suspension of Sogima’s blasting activities following complaints from community members residing within a 500-metre radius of the mine. Approximately 234 households are located within the affected area. Residents had raised concerns about alleged property damage, dust pollution and safety risks associated with mining operations.

In today’s oversight engagement, the committee received presentations from the North West Department of Human Settlements, the DMPR, the Housing Development Agency, Madibeng Local Municipality and Sogima Mining.

The Department of Human Settlements noted that the government and its partners have invested approximately R49.2 million in infrastructure and services in the community, which includes electrification, water and sanitation projects, land acquisition and community facilities. The department also presented a relocation framework, indicating that relocating affected households could cost more than R76 million, excluding land acquisition and bulk infrastructure costs. The department concluded by recommending that the affected mining companies assume full financial responsibility of any future relocation process.

Responding to this input, committee members questioned both the costing model and the rationale behind shifting the financial burden onto mining company. Members maintained that portions of the expenditure highlighted in the presentation had been funded by entities other than government, including mining companies and Eskom, and sought clarity on how the figures had been calculated.

Department officials maintained that budget constraints and competing service delivery pressures limited the government’s ability to fund further interventions.

The DMPR’s Office of the Chief Mine Inspectorate explained that its primary obligation is to safeguard the health and safety of mine workers and communities affected by mining activities. The Inspectorate noted that the DMPR had consistently called for solutions that allow mining and residential activities to coexist.

The DMPR indicated that complaints about blasting activities had led to the withdrawal of Sogima’s blasting permissions. It also noted that efforts to address the problem had focused on consultation processes, compliance measures and exploring alternative mining methods and blasting technologies.

However, committee members questioned why the matter remains unresolved years after the department first intervened in 2018. They queried whether Sogima is being treated differently from other mining operations facing similar complaints. The department confirmed that blasting permissions at other mines had also been suspended at various times, but stated that those matters were resolved through consultations and corrective measures agreed upon by affected parties.

Sogima in its presentation described its struggle to continue operating amid the prolonged suspension of blasting activities. Sogima said that the mine had acquired its mining rights legally, compensated affected residents for damages that were identified after blasting incidents and participated in numerous consultations over the years.

Sogima has also invested resources in seeking solutions, including investigations into relocation options and alternative technical approaches. Despite those efforts, the continued inability to blast has prevented the business from operating at intended capacity and this has limited employment creation and economic participation.

Throughout the engagement, committee members raised concerns about the economic implications of the deadlock, particularly for job creation and investment.

Committee Chairperson Mr Mpho Modise made it clear that Parliament’s objective is not to revisit old arguments but to establish a practical path forward. The Chairperson stressed that the committee is determined to move beyond historical disagreements and focus on solutions. “The issue is no longer the department and Sogima. The issue is us and Sogima, because all of us here are representatives of government,” he said.

Mr Modise urged stakeholders to consider the lived realities of workers and families affected by the situation. “When we are seated tonight eating dinner, nicely sleeping, we must think about those people,” he said, referring to workers who would have not benefited from the mine’s operations.

The Chairperson questioned whether enough had been done to find technical solutions that would enable mining to continue while reducing the impact on nearby residents. During discussions, it emerged that Sogima and the DMPR are due to meet to discuss revised blasting methodologies and alternative technologies designed to minimise vibration, dust and noise.

Mr Modise challenged stakeholders to accelerate those discussions, saying that the committee could not continue returning to the same matter without measurable progress. He also emphasised that the committee expects stakeholders to return with concrete proposals.

As deliberations concluded, Mr Modise directed the parties to continue engaging on the technical proposals and return with a clear way forward. He emphasised that the committee’s ultimate goal is to balance community safety, regulatory obligations, employment creation and economic development.

The oversight visit continues today(13 August) at the North West Legislature Building.

Per Kind Favour of APO

Africa Fact: 40% of Africans now live in urban areas.

Share this:

  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
Category: NewsTag: APO

If you feel strongly about this article then feel free to send MyZA a ‘Letter to the Editor’ using the submission form below:


Letter to the Editor

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
If this is in response to an article please include that article title here or as the lead in for the first paragraph of your Letter below.

Separate tags with commas

Localise your letter by naming the city your words are about. Add relevant words describing your subject. Single comma separated words of no more than 5
Your Name(Required)
Your Name will be linked to the website below.
Your personal, business or social media web site
Choose NO to not set up a user account on MyZA. User Accounts will allow you to submit letters under your own Author Name

3 Latest Letters to the Editor:

  • Fun South African fact

    Dear Editor Fun South African fact: towns like Franschhoek and Stellenbosch are home to world-class wine farms set in stunning, scenic surroundings. Regards Aressa Smith In Response to/From: Luxury Properties Seized in New Lottery Crackdown

    27 January 2026
  • Condolences on the Passing of Lusanda Dumke

    Statement by Leander Kruger MPL – DA Buffalo City Constituency Leader: The Democratic Alliance in Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality mourns the passing of Springbok Women’s rugby player and Mdantsane trailblazer, Lusanda Dumke, who lost her battle with cancer at the age of 28. South Africa has lost an exceptional athlete, a leader, and a source…

    17 December 2025
  • Rape Kits Delivered, But…

    Statement by Nicholas Gotsell MP – DA NCOP Member on Security & Justice: The DA can confirm that 2 840 rape kits arrived in Cape Town on Monday, following sustained DA oversight and pressure after multiple police stations across the Western Cape were found to be without this critical forensic evidence tool. While this delivery…

    17 December 2025

About Guest

Previous Post:Water Security Africa Johannesburg 2026 Programme Puts Investment and Implementation at the Heart of Industrial Water Resilience
Next Post:Is Subscribing to a Social Media Network Worth it?

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. New Magoo

    16 August 2026 at 6:14 am

    Fun South African Fact: South Africa is part of BRICS.

  2. Wonder Lady

    15 August 2026 at 2:03 am

    Fun South African Fact: South Africa is now the only country in the world to have hosted the Soccer, Cricket and Rugby World Cup!

Copyright © 2026 · MyZA · All Rights Reserved · Powered by Reach Trust