Mining Law Notes

Advantages of mining
1. It develops infrastructure through corporate social responsibility
(building schools)
2. Some minerals like oil are necessary for powering vehicles and the
transport industry (lithium)
3. The mining sector generates employment
4. Makes a significant contribution to the state coffers through taxation
of mining activities
5. It brings in foreign currency through export of minerals

Disadvantages of mining
1) Mining can lead to serious environmental harm – deforestation,
leading to land degradation, siltation of dams, atmospheric and
water pollution, cyanide and mercury contamination. Cyanide in
mining is used for processing of gold.
2) Traditional forms of mining can be risky and unsafe for mining
workers.
Strip mining or open cast mining.
3) Health effects of mining can be devastating for example breathing
from the smoke furnaces
4) Some argue that mining operations exacerbates global warming.

Types of minerals found in Zimbabwe

1) Gold
2) Platinum
3) Coal
4) Chrome
5) Uranium
6) Asbestos
7) Iron
8) Zinc
9) Silver
10) Manganese
11) Copper
12) Dolomite- li
13) Granite -
14) Nickel
15) Phosphate
16) Tantalite
17) Tin
18) Emeralds
19) Lead
20) Aquamarine
21) Antimone
22) Rhodium
23) Palladium
24) Assenic
25) Niobium
26) Feldspar
27) Ammonia
28) Bentonite
29) Cobalt
30) Ferrochromium
31) Graphite
32) Lithium
33) Brine
34) Perlite
35) Raw Steel
36) Pyrophylite
37) Hydrolic cement
38) Vermiculite
39) Natural gas
40) Mineral oil

Definition of terms

1) Mineral reserve. This is an estimated amount of mineral in a body of

ore. Ore is the mineral containing material (rock)

2) Grade. This is the quantity and quality of mineral within the ore

3) Assay. To assay is the process of testing the content of the mineral ore.
It is the qualitative or quantitative analysis of the mineral ore to determine
its components. From the testing you also obtain the grade. This is
important to get the wealthy estimates of the mineral and whether you
are going to make profits or loss in the mineral process

4) Slimes/tailings also known as mine dumps these are the unwanted

material or the waste rock that results from the extraction of the mineral.
They are the materials left over after the process of separating the
valuable fraction from the uneconomic fraction.

5) Mining claim. This is the claim of the right to extract minerals from a
tract of land.

Mining location. This is a defined area of ground in respect in which

mining rights have been acquired. It is the area where the minerals are to
be found, which is pegged, where one is to carry out the mining activities.
6) Miner. A miner is a person actually carrying on the work of mining on
any mining location whether he is a holder of a mining lease or an
assignee of the rights of such holder.

7) Mining claim holder. The person in whose name the mining location is
registered.

8) Peg or beacon. It’s an indication of the boundaries or extent of the

mine or claim

9) Stock pile. The unprocessed material

10) Leaching. This is the dissolution of gold from the crushed material. It’s
done with chemical called cyanide. It’s also called Gold cyanidation. The
dissolved gold is then concentrated to make solid gold bars or solid gold.

11) Reef. This is a gold bearing horizon

12) Shaft. It’s the opening cut downwards from the surface to the ore
body. It can be used for transportation of personnel, equipment, supplies
and even the ore or waste.

13) Overburden. This is the waste material covering the ore body for open
cast mining you have to remove the overburden.

14) Productivity. This usually works in mining firms and companies. This is
an expression of labour used and is based either upon the ratio of the
grams of minerals produced to the total number of employees.

a. Rehabilitation. The process of restoring the mined land to a

condition which is almost similar to its original state.

15) Environmental impact assessment. This is an evaluation of the

probable impacts of the mining operations on the environment –
environment refers to the area around us that is water, atmosphere, land
vegetation, animals.

Sources of mining law

Legislation- statute - mines and minerals act

Case law and judicial precedents
Common law principles
Authoritative text - they are not of binding effect but they provide a
persuasive value
Eg The owner of the land is not only the owner of the land on the surface
but everything that attaches underneath down to hell. Common law
position. This position has since been altered by case law and statute.
Jourbet v Muranda

Mining methods

There are two categories of mining methods surface mining and

underground mining

1) Surface mining. It is carried out where minerals occur close to the

surface this can be strip mining or open cast mining. Open cast mining
takes place in open pits. Mining commences with a cut which is initiated
by the removal of the overburden to access buried deposits of useful
materials. The technique is referred to open cutting or stripping,
classically stripping is used to mine coal. For open mining see the case of
Grand mines pvt v Giddeyno 199 vl1 SA 960.

2) Underground mining is carried out where mineral deposits occur

several metres or kilometres beneath the earth surface. It can be shallow
mining or deep underground mining. Gold mining is a good example of
underground mining but it is also used for platinum and diamonds

History of mining law in Zimbabwe

Zimbabwean law is based on Roman Dutch and common law; however

mining laws are largely influenced by common law principles relating to
property law. It is within the various statutes and case law governing
property that the notion of mineral rights has developed since the 19th
century. In property law terms mineral rights have been classified as quasi
servitudes, personnel quasi-servitudes or limited real rights. Mining rights
are considered to be limited real rights conferring on the holder, the right
to prospect, to mine and dispose of the land belonging to another. The
right to prospect and deposit minerals belonging to another

What is the role of government in mining?

1) To enforce legislation (the provisions of the mine and minerals act

chapter 21:05) and other appropriate legislation. ( mines and health
regulations, indigenization act

2) Granting of mining rights - mining rights can be granted in the

following ways
i. Mining leases,
ii. certificates of registration of mining claims,
iii. special grants,
iv. exclusive prospecting orders
3) government is also responsible for registration of custom millers
(machine used to crush the ore)
4) To initiate legislation and recommend amendments when necessary.
5) Government also create and maintain an accurate data base for all
registration, cancellation and productions
6) Government is also responsible for the marketing of minerals through
( MMCZ) Minerals marketing corporation of Zimbabwe.

Research THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MINING LAW AND OTHER

BRANCHES OF LAW FOR EXAMPLE MINING LAW AND PROPERTY LAW,
MINING LAW AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, MINING LAW AND HUMAN
RIGHTS LAW

Acquisition of mining rights or title

The mines and minerals act chapter 21:05 is the principle law governing
mining in Zimbabwe. The act was enacted in 1961 and has been
amendment on various occasions since then. The act provides for among
other things security of tenure, acquisition, maintenance and
relinquishments of mining title. Section 2 of the act vests the dominion in
the right to search, to mine and to dispose of all minerals, oils and natural
gas in the President.

Union Government v Marais 1920 AD common law position the owner of

the land is not only the owner of the surface mine and mineral but
everything that is adequate to it that is from the surface of land down to
hell and to heavens, this was also the position as was in the case of
Minister of Minerals and Energy v Agri South Africa but section 2 of the act
alters this position

So therefore the owner of the land does not enjoy an exclusive right in
terms of his or her land.

One acquires rights to work on mineral deposits through an application to

the mining commissioner for the district in which the mining location is
located.
Mining activity is open to both locals and foreigners, individuals and
companies but for individuals they must be above the age of 18 in terms
of section 15 and 20 of the mines and minerals act. For foreign individuals
and companies to mine in Zimbabwe they must first incorporate a
company in Zimbabwe under which
mining activities would be executed.

M ODES OF ACQUISITION OF MINING TITLE

Mining title can be acquired through any of the following ways

1) Registrations of a mining claim on a land open to prospecting and
pegging.
You can’t prospect on a land set aside for the purposes of development,
land of parks, on a graveyard or cemetery

2) By transfer of mining title from another person that is cession

whereby we have the grantor and grantee
3) By a standard tribute agreement (Durma v Siziba)
4) By application of a special grant
5) By application for a mining lease

Acquisition by prospecting, pegging and registration of a mining claim

Any person who is a permanent resident and is above the age of 18 or his
or her duly appointed agent may take out one or more prospecting
licenses at any mining commissioner’s office, upon payment of an
appropriate fee (see section 15 and section 20 of the mines and minerals
act). A person who is not a permanent resident of Zimbabwe shall not be
entitled to make an application for a prospecting license unless he or she
has first obtained a prior written consent of the secretary of the ministry
of mines which consent he or she must submit with the application for a
prospecting license. See section 15 sub section 1 of the act. A mining
claim can be pegged after prospecting (searching for any mineral deposits
using detectors) or an aero magnetic survey of a given piece of land. This
is followed by a process called exploration which can be done through
drilling to the core of the mineral (diamond drilling) a list of active and
dormant mines can be obtained from the mining commissioner of the
district so that one can peg a dormant or forfeited mine and register it in
one name.

Application, License, Prospecting, registration of mining location,

exploration, mining

The prospecting license is valid for 24 months,

the holder of a prospecting license is entitled to peg and register a claim,
further the claim holder shall have a right to prospect and search for
minerals on the land open to prospecting and pegging but not removing
the ore save for the bona fide purpose of having it assayed but not of
removing the ore (see section 27 and read together with section 29 of the
act). The claim becomes a registered mining location where
mining activities can take place

After assaying we get the grade of the ore

One can also obtain an approved prospectus which is valid for 5 years.
The
prospecting license may be used anywhere in Zimbabwe. The holder
cannot sell his license to another person.

Land open to prospecting (section 26 of the act)

All state land and communal land is open to prospecting, all private land is
also open to prospecting

Land not open to prospecting

Section 31 of the act. According to section 31 no person shall be entitled
to exercise his rights under a prospecting license upon

1) Land which is within 450 metres from a homestead or the sight of an

intended homestead.
2) Land which is 90 metres from any area set aside from the construction
of houses
3) Land which is 90 metres from any permanent cattle dip tank
4) Land under cultivation or within 50 metres thereof
5) Land or mining location other than in respect of which the prospector
may have acquired the exclusive right of prospecting under such license.
6) Land within the surveyed limits of any city
7) Any licensed aerodrome or any emergency landing zone or ground
8) Any rifle range of the state, any railway reserve or any cemetery

Obligations of the prospecting holder

1) The licensed holder must give notice of his or her intentions to prospect
on private land to the land holder. This has sometimes confused with
permission to prospect . Here, the prospecting license holder will be
merely notifying the land holder of his intention to prospect within the
land or farm. The farmer or land owner cannot refuse prospecting
activities on his land open to prospecting and pegging because of section
2 which vest the dominion in the state President. N.B they are two ways of
delivering the notice to prospect viz that is by registered post or by hand
but it is better to use this method so that the land owner or farmer can
discuss and establish good working relations.

2) To appoint a responsible person to be in charge of the operation if the

owner is absent for more than 24 hours.
3) He or she is obliged to carry out the prospecting in a good workman like
manner He or she is obliged to leave the area where he was prospecting
in the original state and on leaving the area or land he or she is obliged to
fill on trenches and excavations made

Exclusive prospecting order

The EPO confers the exclusive right to prospect for specified minerals in
any defined area.
It is obtained through an application to the mining affairs board and upon
payment of a specific fee. The net effect of an exclusive prospecting order
is that once is granted no one else can peg or prospect on that land or
area. The maximum period for an EPO is 6 years made up of 3 initial years
and another 3 years of extension.

EPO holders are obliged to submit from time to time work programs to be
carried out in the next 6 to 12 months with work done in the past 6 to 12
months.

The rights granted under an EPO are personal rights they are not
exclusive
rights, this can be altered by the minister upon recommendations from the
mining affairs board, to either cede or assign to another person in whole
or in part.

Acquisition by transfer

See section 275-279 of the act. When a registered mining location is sold
or alienated the seller or person to whom the land or claim is so alienated
shall notify the mining commissioner within 16 days of the transaction. If
it’s the seller he or she shall inform the mining commissioner of the name
of the person to whom its sold and the amount for which it is sold and the
date of the sale or the transaction

Acquisition by a tribute agreement

Read the case of Durma v Siziba zlr 1996 636 (S) where the nature of a
tribute agreement was explained. Section 283 defines a tribute
agreement

The holder of a mining location may agree in writing to grant a tribute to

any other person in such a scenario the mining location holder is called
the grantor and the recipient becomes the tributor. The grantor must
apply to the commissioner for the registration of a notarial deed
embodying the terms of such agreement.

The status of a tribute agreement was clearly provided for in the case of
Durma v Siziba whereupon it was defined as a contract sui generis being
neither a lease nor a sale at common law but that which involves two
parties one who is called the grantor and the tributor. A grantor is one who
has a mining claim and the tributor is the one to whom the right to mine
from the incorporeal right of the claimholder on a certain piece of land is
given. The tributor agrees to win precious minerals and pay a fee known
as a royalty in respect of the value of the precious minerals so mined.

In the case of Durma v Siziba there was conflict between the two parties
pertaining to the nature of the agreement. This was an unusual
agreement
whereupon although the contract was on a standard tribute agreement
form the tributor instead of paying a royalty on the percentage value of
the ore agreed to pay a monthly amount of $5000. Under the conditions
clause of the agreement the parties agreed that the tributor will exercise
surface rights only. So there was a dispute between the nature of
agreement and the extent of rights provided for

The court held that the contract between the two parties was irrelevant
and that the document constituted the sole memorial between the parties

Acquisition by a special grant

see section 291 defines a special grant

Government may issue to any person, a special grant to carry out

prospecting or mining operations upon a defined area which has been
reserved against prospecting and pegging. For example, wildlife reserve.
Special grants are usually granted for certain minerals for example coal,
natural gas, diamonds and mineral oils.

Acquisition by means of a mining lease

Section 135
A holder of a mining location or contiguous claims (sharing a common
border) may make a written application to the mining commissioner for
the issue to him or her mining lease for the defined area. The mining lease
holder has the right to exclusively mine any deposit or minerals that occur
within the vertical limits of the mining lease.

TENURE AND PRESERVATION OF MINING TITLE

As noted earlier all minerals belong to the state. When one registers a
claim he is in actual fact hiring a mineral right from the state just like in
any other hiring agreement, rent become due and payable from time to
time.

The mineral rent is called the annual license fee or inspection fee. In the
case of mining leases it is called ground rental fee

Methods of preserving mining title

1) By payment of an annual inspection fee. Inspection fee is payable

initially within 6 months of registration; thereafter it is payable at a 12
month
interval. So mining title or rights is preserved by paying the annual license
fee when it falls due in the case of mining lease it is called the ground
rental fee. Failure to pay results in forfeiture of the mining rights

2) By working the mineral deposit. All mining claims should be

continuously
worked in order to obtain a renewal of title. This means that one cannot
hold the mineral deposit for the purposes of speculation that is trying to
prevent others from acquiring mining rights. The government can exercise
a reversionary right that is taking the claim back and reassign it. The
principle is you use it or lose it principle.

3) By compliance with the law for example environmental impact

assessment laws and tender a report when it falls you, where adverse
effects on the environment are extremely recognised mineral rights can
be lost because of the principle of intergenerational equity (we are
trustees of future generations we should exploit resources in a manner
which sustains future generations)

There is a problem of institutional overlaps regarding the harmonising of

the mining laws and environmental laws because mining brings revenue
which is needed to turn around the economy thereby subjugating
environmental concerns

Anglo v Maranda

HOW CAN MINING TITLE BE FORFEITED OR LOST

1) By not renewing mining title.

2) Failure to abide by mining and environmental regulations
3) Failure to work the mine and hold it for speculation purposes
4) Failure to pay mining (annual inspection fees or ground rental fee)
5) Failure to indigenize

Disposal of mining title

1) By transfer for example of a mining lease. A mining lease can be

disposed
by transfer; the transfer must be approved by the mining affairs board.
The Board will not transfer the mining lease if the transferee is in a
financial state which will not enable him or her to buy the private land on
which the location is situated. In the event that the landowner or holder
applies for compulsory purchase of the land, in terms section 314 of the
act, the transferee must guarantee that such payment is required, there
will be able to pay the land holder and acquire the land.

2) Abandonment-renunciation of mining title. We have what is known as

partial abandonment or partial renunciation and total abandonment of a
mining lease or a mining title.

Partial abandonment section 155 of the act

An application has to be made to the mining commissioner for the
abandonment of a portion(s) of mining lease which application must be
considered by the mining affairs board. In the event that the application is
granted, upon abandonment the lease holder shall remove pegs or
direction marks indicating the direction and the boundary lines of the
mining location and erect new beacons on the reduced area.

Total abandonment of a mining lease section 156 of the mining act

A claim holder who wishes to abandon the whole of his or her claim may
apply in writing to the mining affairs board through the mining
commissioner, for the cancellation of the mining lease. There is a proviso
(condition) provided that the claim holder shall not apply for abandonment
if the mining lease is subject of a hypothecation such that there is
someone who has power over the land or an option.

3) Disposition by termination

This is a forced way, it is compulsory and involuntary compared to

abandonment.

Aka compulsory disposition. Before terminating the mining lease the

mining
affairs board must first consider the reasons for such termination.
Common
reasons for termination include the following:

i)Failure by the leaseholder to comply with the terms of a mining lease,

ii) Failure to pay annual fees N.B usually the board imposes penalties on
lease holders before considering termination

PRIORITY OF MINING RIGHTS

See the case of Munamato mining syndicate v mining commissioner and

ors 1999 vl2 zlr 136
See also the case of Jin Yang Africa v Estate Late George Makurira & Ors
HB 18/22

These cases deal with acquisition of mining title especially the rights of
the prior pegger v rights of the latter pegger. The principle of priority of
mining rights is set forth under section 177 of the mines and minerals act
as follows, “If such title has been duly maintained, shall in every case
determine the rights as between the various peggers of mining locations,
reefs (it’s a gold bearing horizon), deposits… and in all cases of disputes,
the rules shall be followed that;
in the event of the rights of the subsequent pegger conflict with the rights
of a prior pegger, then, to the extent to which such rights conflict, the
rights of any subsequent pegger shall be subordinated to those of the
prior pegger, and all certificates of registration shall be deemed to be
issued subject to the above conditions” N.B rights of the latter pegger are
supposed to be subordinate to the earlier pegger.

There must be made a first physical act on the farm or piece of land. This
position was clearly explained in the case of Munamato mining Syndicate
v Mining Commissioner whereupon Nesh Trading company as second
respondent to this case obtained an exclusive prospecting order to search
and mine granite rock. Later on Munamato was also granted the exclusive
prospecting order and argued that his act of making an application to the
court constituted a physical act. The court held that a physical act means
more than an application that, it requires visiting the mining claim and
peg that is establishing beacons which determine the boundaries of the
claim. And in as much as in this case they was a dispute to the actual
dates at which Nesh trading pegged the land, the respondent did not
disagree that Nesh trading pegged first the land. The court ruled that
Nesh trading by putting the pegs first obtained priority of acquisition of
mining rights.

Rights of the Miner v Landowner

Once one registers a claim he or she is entitled to develop the mining

operations however, claims are usually situated on another person’s piece
of land. Once the claim holder begins to erect plans and build houses he is
affecting the rights of the landowner, to this end section 178 and 179
provides for the rules by which the miner or claim holder should abide.
Such that it mitigates the issue of disputes.

Surface rights of miner section 178

The miner of a registered mining location can do the following:

i) He or she can is use any of the surface within the boundaries of the
claim for all necessary mining purposes
ii) He can use free of charge, soil, waste rock or indigenous grass
situated within the mining location for all necessary mining purposes
iii) He can sell or otherwise dispose of waste rock removed during the
course of mining operations
iv) He can take any water from the land for mining purposes only
v) He can use timber for firewood or for mining purposes provided that
the timber is removed within the boundaries of the mining location N.B
an agreement should have been breached with the landowner to cut
and to use timber. When such agreement is negotiated it should
include the following
a) The area in which the timber may be cut
b) The period within which the timber may be taken
c) The quantity and type of the wood to be cut
d) The price to be paid in respect of the timber

Rights of the landowner section 179-180 of the act

i) The landowner retains the right to graze stock or cultivate the

surface provided that it does not interfere with the proper working of
location for the mining purposes.

ii) Right to receive compensation. If the landowner is deprived of his

right to use of his land, he can claim compensation in terms of
section 188 of the act.

Conflict cases

How land owners have clashed in respect of their rights

Anglo operations ltd v Sandhurst Estates pvt 2007 vl2 ALL S.A 567
Jourbet v Maranda 2010 vl2 S.A pg 67

The Anglo Operation case, where the landowner appealed to the court to
restrict the miner not to conduct open cast mining which was deemed to
be catastrophic to the environment than underground mining. And the
court ruled in favour of the miner, it held the miner had right to conduct
open cast mining.

In this case, the court was requested to determine whether the right of a
mineral right holder include the right to open cast mining at the expense
of the surface rights owner (landowner) the court likened a mineral right
to that of quasi-servitude. It was held that provided that it was necessary
to undertake open cast mining operations and provided that the right is
exercised in a reasonable way and all precautionary measures against
degrading the environment are taken, the rights of the landowner are
subservient to the rights of the claimholder. In such a case the mineral
rights holders can conduct opencast mining at the expense of the
landowner.
It was held further that the surface owner must endure the inconvenience
and impact on his land and business. The court held further that the
correct approach in resolving such disputes has been developed in our law
involving conflicts between holders of servitudial rights and the holders of
the servient tenements or property see property law on servitude. In
accordance with these principles, the owner of the servient property is
bound to allow the holder of the servitude to do what it is necessary for
the proper exercise of his rights however, the holder of the servitudial
right is in turn bond to exercise his rights civilita moddo (it drives its
authority from civilisation) in a civilised method by which you are
supposed to exercise you right that is reasonably viewed with as much
consideration and with the least possible inconvenience to the landowner)
that is less onerous .

The court held further that in applying these principles to mineral rights, it
can be accepted that the zholder of a mineral right is entitled to go on to
the property, to search for the minerals and if he finds them to remove
them. This include the right of the mineral holder to do whatever is
necessary to attain his or her ultimate goal as emphasized by the law. This
position was supported in the case of Hudison v Mann,

In case of irreconcilable conflict the use of the surface rights must be

subordinated to mineral exploration. The solution of a dispute in such a
case resolves itself into a determination of a C question of fact, viz.,
whether or not the holder of the mineral rights acts bona fide and
reasonably in the course of exercising his rights. He must exercise his
rights in a manner least onerous or injurious to the owner of the surface
rights but he is not obliged to forego ordinary and reasonable enjoyment
merely because his operations and activities are detrimental to the
interests of the surface owner

Trojan Exploration case

Since open cast mining is usually more invasive of the surface owners
land rights than underground mining, it should only be allowed if its
reasonably necessary whether it qualifies as such in any particular case
cannot be determine at a theoretical level. Reasonable necessity will
depend on the facts of the case (each case according to its merits) so the
case of Anglo do not serve as a blueprint of the law the more invasive the
mining operations would warrant tilting the balance of justice to the
landowner.

Jourbet Case
This was a case on appeal against a high court order granting an interdict
restraining Jourbet from refusing Maranda access to a certain piece of
land. The matter revolved around a gold mine originally worked in the
early 1990’s, after which mining activities ceased however, mineral assay
or sampling reports which were conducted subsequently indicated that
the land remained rich in gold. Maranda had applied for a prospecting
right and a mining right.
On acceptance of its mining application and its registration Maranda
lodged an environmental management plan with the environmental
authorities. Maranda notified the landowner that it had made the
application, lodged the environmental management plan and was
notifying the landowner to accept or to object the operation of mining
operation. The notice also indicated Maranda’s intentions to do open cast
mining. The Landowner objected to the application alleging that the
proposed mining operation would have a detrimental impact on his land’s
eco-tourist and environmentally orientated activities. The mining
activities, would in his view negatively impact on the game and game
breeding operations arising from the noise and blasting, which would
subsequently result in cancellation of safari bookings. Furthermore the
mining operations would lead to degradation and pollution of the
environment

Despite the objection, the mining permit was granted and the
environmental management plan was approved. The court upheld the
decision of the minister to grant the mining permit based in the
interventions raised in the environmental management plan. This shows
that the extraction of minerals is considered important than any other
forms of land use. The economic concerns of the affected landowners are
secondary to the interest of extracting the minerals for the benefit of the
state. Moreover, the environment of the land owner would through
mitigatory interventions recover years after the extraction of the minerals
therefore mineral rights are superior to any other rights, this is also the
reason why the law has transferred the mineral rights into the hands of
the state for easy administration. The state become arbiter between the
landowner and the mineral rights holder see also the cases of
i) Swaziland Municipality v Law,
ii) City of Cape town v Maccsand (cct) 103 -11 2012 ZACC 7,
iii) Meepo v Kotze and ors 2007 ZACHC pg 47,
iv) Hudson v Manne and anor 1950 vl 4 S.A pg 45
v) Trojan exploration company v Ransenberg platinum mines ltd 1996 vl4
sa 499

N.B Mining rights are superior to land rights (Mining operation takes
precedence upon any other land use) except to special circumstances
where the mineral right holder is prohibited from going ahead with mining
operations to give the rights of the landowner.

Mining taxation
The tax regime for mining operations is set out on statute particularly
mines and minerals act, income tax act and the finance act. There do not
only regulated conveyancing and notarial practices. The state as the
owner of all mineral realizes revenue from the mining sector by either
taxation or holding of mining shares in mining companies.

Types of mining levies or taxes

Royalties (tax)
Of taxes payable by mining companies royalties makes a significant
contribution to the state coffers however, this depends on the percentage
and level of royalties. Ideally revenue realized from taxation of mining
operations should be used to develop the country and eliminate poverty.
However, as acknowledged by the then Minister of finance during his mid-
term fiscals’ report in 2010, the mining tax regime is not satisfactory for
example royalties collected from precious metals between January to
September 2010 amounted to 20,7 million dollars from sales of $500,8
million. This means that the revenue in the form of mining tax is not
enough to contribute immediately to the needs of the state and people
living in poverty.
Other taxes and levies paid by the mining companies are normally
absorbed by government departments and do not go to the consolidated
revenue fund for example the environmental fee collected by the
environmental management agency is absorbed by EMA. Also revenue
collected by local authorities goes to the rural district councils and not to
the central pool. In general the tax regime in the mining sector has a thin
base which makes
it difficult for the country to fulfill its socio-economic, cultural needs and
the expectations of communities. This has resulted in the indigenization
wave to fulfill the expectations of local communities

Taxes and Rates payable by mining operations rapecav

1) Royalties. This is the major tax paid by mining operations. ZIMRA

Zimbabwe Revenue Authority was designated as the colleting agent for all
minerals except for gold and silver. The Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe is the
sole collector of revenue for gold and silver because this is money. The
percentage rate for gold mining companies is 7%, while diamond and
platinum miners pay royalties at the rate of 10% however, platinum also
play an additional levy of 15% on unprocessed platinum shipments the
whole idea is to encourage mineral beneficiation value addition so the
measure is coercive in order to establish mineral processing plants in
Zimbabwe
SI 129/22 – partly in cash, kind and minerals
S6 of the Income Tax Act

2) Corporate tax. This is 25% of taxable income as per section 14 (2) of

the finance act.
3) VAT Value added Tax. This is 15% on all minerals however since
minerals
are being exported without being processed this results in VAT being
chargeable at 0% because in Zimbabwe we have no mineral procession
plants. However after we have exported our unprocessed ore the
company
as able to claim their value added tax or concession from ZIMRA.

4) PAYEE. Pay as you earn. The rate is 0-40% of taxable income but this is
the problem with artisanal miners since their activities remain
unaccounted to the mining ministry such that they do not pay this form of
tax

5) Allowable deductions. This is a levy; it’s a form of an incentive to

mining
companies. This are provided for in terms of section 15 of the income tax
act. These are deductions allowed in determination of taxable income
especially at prospecting stage (borehole drillings, surveys, trenches and
other exploratory work), production stage, allowable deduction are
provided for construction of buildings, hospitals, clinics, houses and even
for the purchase of motor vehicles. Allowable deductions mean the law
gives the companies some incentives or concessions

6) Withholding tax. This is 10% for client without tax clearance certificates
and on non-resident technical services.

7) Export tax. Export tax is payable in respect of chrome ore and chrome
fines. Its 15% on the value of gross export proceeds that is the value of
the total quantity one would have exported. The policy is to encourage
value addition.

8) Additional profit tax. This is levied or taxed on holders of special mining

leases and is charged over the above the normal income tax because it’s
a special mining tax. See section 23 of the income tax as read together
with the 23rd schedule thereof

9) Assay fees. For one to do assaying one must pay the assaying fees

Tax evasion in the mining sector

Altering their books through reinvoicing, transfer pricing, under-pricing,

thin capitalization (not expanding the business if the share capital is
50000 as a business it should develop but mining companies will simply
stagnant their share capital at a very minimal level so as to ensure the
amount of tax they pay to the government is minimal.
Marketing and exportation of minerals

MMCZ Act Minerals Marketing Corporation act chapter 21:07, Mines and
Minerals act and the Zimbabwe Mining development corporation act

The government of Zimbabwe does not usually participate in the mining

sector. Its participation is limited to corporations. examples of such
corporations are
1) ZMDC
2) MMCZ

ZMDC
ZMDC was formed in 1982 with the main purpose being state participation
in the mining sector and save companies that were threatened with
closure. ZMDC is active in exploration and mining; it also gives assistance
to corporations and small scale miners. The activities of ZMDC are meant
to be for national interest as stated in section 20 of the ZMDC act.
Whatever investment ZMDC does should benefit the people of Zimbabwe
and it should contribute to national economic development. ZMDC can
operate mines on its own or through joint ventures example of a joint
venture with ZMDC for example Marange fields where it is in partnership
with Grantwale holdings and Coal Mining ltd. All these companies are
equal to Mbada diamonds. However the major question at
Marange diamond fields is whether or not the operations are benefiting
local community and the nation at large. The involvement of other state
institutions and agencies reduces amounts surrendered to the revenue
consolidated fund.

MMCZ
The MMCZ is a wholly owned government parastatal which falls under the
ambit of the ministry of the mines and mining development. It was formed
in 1992 as the exclusive agent for the marketing of all minerals except for
gold and silver which minerals are being marketed through the Reserve
Bank of Zimbabwe.

Reasons which necessitated formation of the MMCZ

1) To control and carry out sales and exports of all minerals produced in
Zimbabwe
2) To control stock piling that is holding minerals for speculative purposes
3) To minimize the opportunities for underhand dealings and dishonesty
on transfer pricing under invoicing and any other related problems.
4) It was formed to centrally coordinate all marketing intelligence and to
monitor international affairs and technological changes to the best
advantage of the state

Functions of the MMCZ

1) To act as the sole marketing board and selling agent for all minerals
save for gold and silver see section 20 of the MMCZ Act.
2) To investigate marketing conditions for all minerals
3) To encourage local beneficiation and utilization of minerals
4) To advise the minister on all matters connected to the marketing of
minerals

Procedure for marketing

For one to export minerals he or she must first obtain an export license
from the ministry of mines (the export license is valid for a specific
period). When you obtain an export license you approach the MMCZ which
has a database of buyers of minerals and it also sets the price for minerals
to be exported or you state your own buyer but you cannot state your
prices MMCZ then contacts the buyer and enters into the contract for the
sale and purchase of the mineral. The contract or agreement include the
purchase price, payment terms, the grade of the ore to be exported and
the delivery terms.

MMCZ required 90% down payment before the mineral can be exported or
taken through the boarders. The remaining 10% is paid after the mineral
has been delivered to the premise of the buyer. The buyer inspects and
conduct assays on delivery. So the 10% can be used to adjust the total
amount to be paid after considering grade and the total quantity of the
ore. MMCZ also enters into contracts with the seller or transporter to
ensure that the means of transportation is secure, in particular the
transportation should have a vehicle tracking system.

MMCZ actually visits depots of the transporter and ask for the following
documents
1) Vehicle registration books
2) Vehicle insurance
3) Vehicle tracking system
4) Breakdown procedure for the transporters company N.B MMCZ also
assess the roadworthiness of the trucks

ZIMBABWE INVESTMENT AND DEVELOPMENT AGENCY – ZIDA

 It is an investment agency responsible for promoting and facilitation
of both local and foreign investment in the country.
 It is established in terms of the ZIDA Act [Chapter 14:37] which
became law on 7th February 2020. It repealed the Zim Investment
Authority Act [Cap 14:30], the Special Economic Zones Act [Cap
14:34] and the Joint Ventures Act [Cap 22:22].
 It heralds a new legal regime whose intention is to restore investor
confidence in the country.
  It is important in the mining sector – which is a major contributor to
the country’s economy, with significant opportunities for investment
in gold, platinum and diamond mining. There is also chrome and
coal mining, which are crucial to the economy.
 It defines an investor as any person, natural or juristic, who seeks to
make, is making or has made an investment in Zimbabwe, including
a foreign investor. – (unlike in the repealed ZIA Act)
 It establishes ZIDA which has functions to encourage investments,
promoting decentralization of investment activities, and facilitating
entry of investment projects.
 It also establishes what is known as the One Stop Investment
Service Centre (OSISC) – s5, which integrates almost all relevant
offices that are key stakeholders in the establishment of
investments in Zimbabwe in order to speed up the process of est.
investments.
 An investor may apply for an investment license ito the act, which
will be granted or refused by the CEO. The CEO reports directly to
the President.
 There is fair and equitable treatment in granting of investing license.
(s 16)
 There is guarantee against nationalization and expropriation of
private property without compensation. Nationalization or
expropriation will only be done for public purposes and in
accordance with due process of the law. Prompt, adequate and
effective compensation will be made.
 Lastly, there is provision for dispute settlement – in three ways- s 38
of the Act: - domestic arbitration, international arbitration referred to
by mutual agreement of the parties and the dispute settlement
mechanisms provided for in any treaty or agreements on the
promotion and protection of investments between Zimbabwe and
the country from which the foreign investor originates.

Indigenization and economic empowerment

o Indeginisation and economic empowerment Act chapter 14:33

o Statutory instrument 21/2010
o SI 34/11
o General Notice 114/ 2011
o SI 84/2011
o General Notice 280/2012

What is indigenisation
The term is defined in section of the indigenisation and Economic
Empowerment Act as a deliberate involvement of indigenous
Zimbabweans in the economic activities of the country which before that,
they had no access so as to ensure the equitable ownership of the nations
resources.

What is empowerment

Defined as the creation of an environment which enhances the

performance of the economic activities of indigenous Zimbabweans

Who is an Indigenous Zimbabwean

Defined as any person who before 1980 who was disadvantaged by unfair
discrimination on the grounds of his or her race and any descendant of
such person. NB General notice 114 introduced a new group of
beneficiaries and these include the State through the various companies
for example Zimbabwe Mining Development Corporation.

Criticism
The designated entities don’t qualify as indigenous Zimbabweans for
example ZMDC did not exist before 1980, it was incorporated in 1982 and
neither was it disadvantaged or discriminated on the grounds of race.

General Notice 114/2011

Pursuant to this notice, the net effect of the Public Notice was to
nationalise
mining businesses, specifically focusing on the nationalisation of profits by
deeming that the state owns 51% of non-compliant businesses. Pursuant
to this notice, every mining business not already owned or controlled by
indigenous Zimbabweans with a majority share of 51% whose net asset
value was at above $1 was required to submit an indigenisation plan by
may 10 2011. The idea was to have all foreign companies indigenised.
This means it was compulsory indeginisation. The mining business were
required to dispose of 51% of their shares of business to the designated
entities

Who are the designated entities

1) ZMDC
2) Companies incorporated by ZMDC for the purpose of indigenisation
process
3) Statutory sovereign wealth Fund
4) Community share ownership schemes
Deadline was to be 24 September 2011 for completion of process that is
within 6 months of submission of the indigenisation plan. However the
Ministry could grant extension of 3 months up to December 24 2011. In
practise the process has not been that smooth.
Under the indigenization process ****** of shares was supposed to take
into account the States ownership of shares. 51% must be disposed on the
basis of evaluation agreed upon between the Minister and Mining business
concerned. In doing so the parties must take into account the States
sovereign ownership of minerals being or to be explored. This was meant
to minimise or reduce the amount to be paid for the shares disposed

SI 34/2011

It meant to amend the indigenization regulations contained in SI 21/2010.

These amendments do not specifically mention the mining industry and so
are general amendments that affect all industries. SI 21/2010 had set the
time frame within which the Minister was supposed to respond to an
indigenization plan at 45 days after submission thereof.

1) SI 34/11 has amended the time frame to 90 days after submission of

the indigenization plan.
2) SI 34/11 has criminal penalties for failure to submit an indigenization
plan when specifically required by the Ministry to do so or penalties for
missing the deadline when minister has extended submission date.
3) Provisions for the resubmission of the indigenization plan, when it has
been rejected by the minister, the law provides that, “ A business whose
indigenization plan has been rejected must submit its renewed plan within
45 days.
4) There is also a criminal penalty for foreign investors who acquire a
controlling interest in a business sector which is reserved for indigenous
Zimbabweans without a prior written approval of the minister of youth
development, indigenization and empowerment. The penalty upon
conviction is a fine of up to 2000 dollars or a prison sentence of 5 years
or both. NB see third schedule for reserved business
5) There is also a new provision regarding the supporting documents to
accompany an indigenization implementation plan. This is a provision to
the effect that, “Every indigenization implementation plan must be
accompanied by secondary documents containing proof that the
responsible person submitting the plan has been properly authorised to do
so.
6) Last but impotant, SI 34/2011 introduced a criminal penalty for under
valuing of assets, “any business that undervalues its net assets by 10% or
more shall be liable for an offence and the penalty is a fine of up to 2000
dollars or prison sentence up to 5 years or both.(to deal with under pricing
by altering an invoice to pay less tax)(why 10% or more and how do you
arrive to the 10%, who is that you will sent to prison,,, ie the companies
dnt go to prison.) 10% might be too low
SI 84/2011

It was meant to rectify the loopholes contained in SI 34/11

It was enacted after criticism of SI 34/11 by both members of the public
and parliamentary legal committee. It was particularly criticised for the
heavy penalties laid down for business convicted for failure to submit IP’S
or at least for undervaluing net assets. Of particular mention, the PLC
pointed out that the penalties were disproportionate and heavy pointed
out that the penalties were disproportionate pursuant to SI 84, the fines
were reduced.

However, SI 84 added a provision to the effect that every director,

member partner of a business who fails to submit an indigenization plan
or undervalues net assets of the company, is / are to be imprisoned This
was a rejuvenation of the old SI34/2011, at the very least it became the
case of same old wine in new wine bottles.

NB : {this is critique}The minister does not have the power under the
Indigenisation and Empowerment Act to make this kind of legislation, his
powers are to be derived from the Act and there are no such powers in the
Act.

Furthermore, SI 84 is inconsistent with section 277 of the criminal

codification and reform act -(can a company be sent to prison).

General Notice 280/2012

It provides the minimum requirements for indigenisation in other sectors
other than mining for e.g agriculture, industrial, transport,
communications and telecommunications

Constitutional issues arising from indigenisation and economic

empowerment laws and their legality.

A) Right to freedom of association

It is common purpose (a banal) that for all intent and purposes a company
is regarded as a juristic person. In this light it has been argued that 51%
qouta imposes upon who a mining company or business should associate
with. General notice 114 imposes partners on mining business by
specifically stating the designated entities. Companies should chose their
own business partners.

Furthermore, Constitutional issues which arise from the share

1) Is the compulsion to dispose 51% of shares to indigenous Zimbabweans
in a democratic society. What criterion did the government use to get to
51%, when the indeginous people are not bringing any resources.
2) Freedom of association is infringed
In an attempt to answer the first question, the case of Woods and Anor v
Minister of Justice 1994 (2) ZLR 195 is noteworthy. In this case the court
acknowledged that the concept of reasonableness is not very elusive
(difficult to catch / ascertain) and the only legal yardstick to determine
whether the law is reasonably justifiable..., is ti examine whether the law
itself is arbitrary or excessively invasive of the right.

The case of Ngulube v Zesa and anor SC 52/2002 at 18 sets the criteria
that should be used to determine whether or not a provision should be
permissible in the sense that it is arbitrary or excessive as follows;

1) The means used to impair the freedom or the right must have been
more than is necessary to accomplish the objective of the limitation.
Limitations on freedoms are justifiable in a democratic society, however
the means of limitation must be justifiable for eg POSA and AIPPA which
were drafted in 2002, people were not supposed to move are to be seen
loitering in a group of four and above but the object of limiting political
violence has been far surpassed by the means,
2) The measure designed to meet legislative object are rationally
connected
to it. Rationality is an illusive concept.
3) That the legislative object is sufficiently important to justify limiting a
fundamental right.
b) Audi Alterum Partem rule
The rules of natural justice state that the other party has a right to be
heard. A fundamental question that begs to be answered is: were the
views of the mining considered before the indigenization process or laws
launched? The answer is in the negative. In cavalious disregard of the
principles of natural justice with brazen impunity parties were designated/
partners were imposed, no one was heard. Zimbabwe Teachers
Association v Minister of education Emergency Powers (Maintenance of
Essential Services) Regulations 1989 in which the minister dismissed the
teachers from their employment the court held that the respondent was
not competent to dismiss the teachers without affording them the rights
to be heard first therefore such dismissal was ruled to be null and void.
The other question is, is six months a reasonable for the implementation
of the indigenisation Act NB doesn’t general notice 114 amount to
expropriation or deprivation of property?

Other questions are

1) Is 6 months a reasonable time within which to complete a meaningful
indigenization process?
2) How do you arrive at 51%
3) Why not 10, 20 or 30%
4) Is it reasonably justifiable in a democratic society.
In the case of Chavhunduka v Minister of Home affairs The appellants
were the editor and senior reporter of a weekly newspaper which
published an article about an attempted coup d'etat which was said to
have taken place. They were arrested on charges of contravening s G
50(2)(a) of the Law and Order (Maintenance) Act [Chapter 11:07], which
makes it an offence to publish a false statement likely to cause fear, alarm
and despondency among the public. It was held that, statutory vagueness
cannot be allowed. The law must be precise enough to enable a person to
regulate his conduct. The provision was far too wide and vague. It forbade
statements "likely" to cause fear, alarm and despondency, as opposed to
actually causing it. The word "false" was also very wide, embracing the
merely inaccurate as well as actual lies. The provision could not be said to
meet the requirement of being "under the authority of any law".

The Government of Zimbabwe (GOZ) enacted the Indigenisation Act in

2007 (herafter the Indigenisation Act), which took legal effect in 2008. The
stated idea behind the law was to indigenise the Zimbabwean economy
by promoting the participation of indigenous Zimbabweans in business
and the exploitation of economic resources
The bill defines an indigenous Zimbabwean as “any person who before the
18th of April 1980 was disadvantaged by unfair discrimination on the
grounds of his or her race, and any descendant of such person.” NB
General notice 114 introduced a new group of beneficiaries and these
include the State through the various companies for example Zimbabwe
Mining Development Corporation.

A Public Notice was issued to business in the mining sector what had not
at the time complied with provisions of General Notice 114. The net effect
of the Public Notice was to nationalise mining businesses, specifically
focusing on the nationalisation of profits by deeming that the state owns
51% of non-compliant businesses.

In the Public Notice issued against mining business in April 2012 we

observed the worst effects of this approach that pays no regard to the rule
of law. A worrying part of the Public Notice was a paragraph which
“enjoined all Zimbabwean citizens, top management, middle
management, technical support staff and the general workforce of the
companies involved that they are now expected to defend the
Zimbabwean 51% equity stake and also to uphold and execute the
national interest in respect of the administration, trade and any other
business transactions so as to ensure total indigenous economic
empowerment.”

The effect of those words was to effectively open the floodgates of

individual
and group action to give effect to the policy of nationalisation which, left
without safeguards, could lead to lawlessness and a breakdown of the rule
of law. The provision encouraged aggressive conduct and threatened
business security. There was no requirement that the so-called defence of
the “51% Zimbabwean equity stake” must be lawful. The Minister’s
statement opened floodgates for unlawful conduct by vigilante groups
under the guise of defending the “Zimbabwean equity stake”. It would be
a further assault on the rule of law, business stability and confidence in
the business sector if such a provision were repeated following General
Notice 280/2012.

The effect of GN 114/2011 impose partners on mining businesses –

violates the right to freedom of assembly and association provided in
terms of section 58. The constitution allows business entities freedom to
choose partners. So this provision of the GN may be ultra vires as well as
unconstitutional.

Moreso the GN 114/2011 infringe the common law right to natural justice
that is the audi alterum partem rule which states that a person has a right
to be heard before an adverse decision is taken against him or her. The
government has embarked on the indigenization process without first
giving mining companies notice of proposals and opportunity for them to
make representations

The effect of the GN 114/2011 and SI 34/2011 is the compulsory

acquisition of property by the State of which such provision must comply
with section 71 of the constitution which protects property rights. The
constitution provides for assessment and payment of compensation but
the problem is that neither the provisions of GN14/2011 nor SI34/ 2011
comply with section 71 of the constitution enshrining a right to property
Section 56 (3) proscribes any provision that is discriminatory either in
itself or in its effect. Discrimination on the basis of race or place of origin
of any person is specifically prohibited.
Section 23(3)(g) provides for an exception based on the implementation of
affirmative action programmes for the protection or advancement of
persons or classes of persons who have previously been disadvantaged by
unfair discrimination. While this exception may be read to include the
indigenisation policy under the Indigenisation Act and its subsidiary legal
instruments, it is important to note that it does not authorise unfair
discrimination. It allows for positive discrimination but the design and
implementation of the law to meet the exception must be fair and
reasonable.

Such laws are subjected to the same constitutional test that they should
be
reasonably justifiable in a democratic society. While the idea of affirmative
action to redress past wrongs is recognised, it is debatable whether the
design, implementation and effect of the indigenisation laws as presently
formulated would pass the constitutional test of being reasonably
justifiable in a democratic society. There is a real risk of unfair
discrimination which would make it difficult to save them by the
derogation contained under Section 23(3)(g) of the Constitution. The
definition of indigenous persons is of itself exclusionary even as against
persons born in Zimbabwe to Zimbabwean parents after 1980. The
personal circumstances of individuals are not taken into account. There is
no regard to the manner in which businesses were created, financed and
developed – there is a presumption that all businesses that are owned by
those who do not meet the indigenous criteria were built on the back of
past wrongs against the indigenous whereas different circumstances apply
to different individuals and businesses. A general approach to the issue
risks unfairly punishing otherwise innocent persons who have built their
businesses independent of any unfair advantages of the colonial past. This
is important considering Zimbabwe has been independent for 43 years –
a period long enough
to incubate and raise a successful business.

The rule of law requires that the law must be clear and certain. This is
particularly important where active compliance is required. A person must
be sure and certain that the law is applicable to his or her circumstances
and the steps required for compliance must be clear. In this case, General
Notice 280/2012 lists numerous businesses that are required to comply
but there is no definition of terms. Terms like “Freight and logistics”,
“Security Services”, “Communication and networking”, “Workshops”,
“Agents and sub-dealers” which are listed as business sectors can yield
any number of interpretations.

Business will be left unsure whether or not they fall into one or other
category or indeed if they are covered at all and therefore required to
comply. This will increase the compliance and regulatory burden at a time
when reducing business costs should be a priority. General Notice
280/2012 is poorly drafted and unclear and this will make compliance a
very difficult if not impossible proposition in many cases. Chavhundaka v
Minister of Home of affairs

1) New group of beneficiaries the ZMDC did not exist before 1980 it was
only formed in 1982
2) Rule of law
3) Audi Alterum partem rule
4) Freedom of association and assembly
5) The policy framework is discriminatory against section 56 (3)
prohibiting discrimination
6) The law is unclear and unambiguous
7) Compulsory acquisition by the state and deprivation of right to property
Read the article do our indigenization laws abide by the international
standards

MINING AND ENVIRONMENT

Every citizen of the country has a constitutional right to an environment

that is not harmful to their health and well being. Everyone has a right to
have the environment protected through legislative and the other means
to prevent pollution and encourage conservation while protecting socio-
economic development yet mining destroys or affects the environment
aggressively either by removing or introducing certain things in the
environment .
The role of the government therefore is to protect the environment whilst
pursuing socio- economic goals . this entails that the environmental right
should be integrated into all socio-economic development activities, thus
prioroty should not always be given to socio-economic activities but also
to the environmental interest.

Mining activities affect the environment in different ways and these

include
a) The environmental impacts of exploration and prospecting
b) The environmental impact of current mining operation.
c) The environmental of closed and unrehabilitated mines. N.B as a result
of these impacts on the environment the Zimbabwean legislature has
enacted an environmental statute called the Environmental Management
Act chapter 20.27. This act defines the environment as the natural and
man made resources occuring in the lithosphere and atmosphere. the Act
is organised into 16 parts constituing 116 sections. It provides for the
following

1) Environmental right in terms of section 4 of the act which provides that

every person is entitled to a clean environment that is not harmful to
health as well as access to environmental pollution
2) The act also provide for environmental institutions for example EMA
Environmental Mangement Agency whose duties are amongst other the
following.
a) To advise the Minister on any matter regarding planning, development,
exploitation and management to the environment.
b) To regulate any environmental impact assessment .
c) To regulate the management and utilisation of ecologically fragile eco
systems for example swamps and wetlands.
3) The act also establishes the environmental management body in
addition to the environmental management agency establish the
environmental management board. The director of the environmental
management board
is responsible in managing the board. It also manages the property of the
agencies N.B read regulations under the Act in particular those regulations
dealing with waste management. These affect mining operations by
providing that no person shall transport waste, every person who
generates waste shall employ measures to minimise waste generation
through treatment and recyling.

EIA’s requirements include; a detailed description of the project, the

activities to be undertaken and the likely positive and negative impacts on
the environment and the measures proposed by the mining company or
mining business to minimise the vagaries of environmental impacts and
this set of measures is what is known as the environmental management
plan. For the certification of mining companies read ISO international
Standards Organisation and it enacted rules which govern the certification
of mining companies.

Mining and Health safety

Environmental management hazadours substances, pesticides and other

toxic subtances regulations. The food and food standards Act, the Public
health Act

1) Outline the provisions and critically discuss the legality of the Mining
Indigenization Notice 114 of 2011 and SI 34 of 2011 (25 marks)
2) Critically discuss the legality of Indigenization legislation with particular
reference to the mining industry.