The municipal manager of the Vhembe District Municipality (VDM), Mr Norman Kutama, has been called on to explain why he cleared about six hectares of indigenous vegetation on his farm outside Louis Trichardt without the required Environmental Authorisation (EA).
This follows a recent Section 24G rectification application, submitted on his behalf by Naledzi Environmental Consultants, which is currently underway for land-clearing activities on Portion 168 of Farm Rondebosch 287 LS. The clearing, for agricultural and residential purposes, began in May 2025 without the required EA.
What the rectification application means
The Section 24G rectification application seeks to bring the “Kutama Mixed Farming Project” in line with the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) after the fact. This follows a notice of intention to issue a compliance notice by the Limpopo Department of Economic Development, Environment and Tourism (LEDET) against Kutama on 6 February this year.
The process includes a draft environmental impact report, a summary of the non-compliance, and a formal public participation period in March and April 2026. It aims to regularise the activity through an assessment of environmental impacts, payment of administrative fines, and oversight by LEDET.
Public reaction
Democratic Alliance (DA) MP Mr Andrew de Blocq was among the first to object, describing the retrospective application as an attempt to bypass environmental laws.
In a media statement, De Blocq highlighted public concern over the property’s location within the Vhembe Biosphere Reserve, a UNESCO-recognised area and buffer zone for the Kruger National Park. Initial screening suggests the area may be home to species of conservation concern, including endangered African wild dogs, rare small mammals, and invertebrates. Clearing vegetation in this sensitive area, he said, poses a serious threat to biodiversity and the connectivity of natural habitats.
“Public officials should be held to a higher standard of compliance. Allowing this illegal act to be regularised retrospectively sends a message that those in authority can ‘ask for forgiveness rather than permission’ and ignore the law. Section 24G of NEMA is being used as a loophole for developers who ignore environmental laws until damage has already occurred,” De Blocq said.
Regarding Kutama’s application, De Blocq said he had requested that LEDET reject it outright. If the application is considered, he said the DA demands the maximum administrative fine under NEMA (up to R10 million), independent biodiversity and wetland impact assessments, full rehabilitation of the affected area where damage cannot be justified, and an evaluation for a possible criminal investigation.
Kutama says he was unaware EA was needed
In a written response, Kutama explained that the limited vegetation clearing took place in the early stages of establishing agricultural activities, and that he was initially unaware that prior EA was required.
“As soon as this became apparent, I took immediate corrective steps by appointing independent environmental specialists and initiating a formal rectification process in terms of Section 24G of NEMA,” Kutama said.
He acknowledged NEMA’s provisions for administrative fines: “The determination of any penalty is the prerogative of the competent authority, which will consider all relevant factors, including intent, extent of impact, and corrective actions taken. My focus has been on full cooperation, transparency, and ensuring the matter is rectified lawfully,” he said.
Application will address ecological concerns
On ecological concerns, Kutama said the Section 24G process includes specialist assessments, historical data, satellite imagery, and government-prescribed screening tools.
“The DFFE Screening Tool indicates that, while the agricultural theme is sensitive, most biodiversity-related themes are rated low to medium sensitivity, and specialist verification is part of the ongoing process. The process is specifically designed to ensure that any environmental impacts are properly assessed despite the retrospective nature of the application,” he said.
Kutama also committed to rehabilitation measures, guided by qualified specialists and subject to LEDET approval, including a formal rehabilitation plan and ongoing monitoring.
“I never tried to avoid the law”
“I wish to emphasise that I have not sought to avoid the law, but rather to address the matter through the appropriate legal channels. I remain fully committed to cooperating with the authorities, complying with all environmental requirements, and ensuring that the outcome aligns with both environmental protection principles and sustainable land use,” Kutama concluded.