The report was tabled during a Land Bank board meeting held from 29 to 31 July after the bank agreed to consider the allegations and provide feedback within a week. Speaking to Farmer’s Weekly, DA MP Dr Igor Scheurkogel said the bank also undertook to engage with affected farmers.
The allegations were echoed in a separate petition submitted by the FF Plus to the National Council of Provinces on behalf of approximately 150 commercial farmers and farming entities. The petition calls for an urgent investigation into Land Bank’s debt recovery practices and a moratorium on further attachments and liquidations while the issues are investigated.
Disputed legal standing
Central to both the DA’s report and the FF Plus’s petition is the allegation that Land Bank lacks locus standi (legal standing) in a number of debt recovery matters involving loans originally concluded through agricultural credit intermediaries such as Unigro, GWK, and Suidwes Landbou.
Scheurkogel said that, in several court cases, Land Bank had failed to produce cession agreements proving that the debts had been lawfully transferred to the bank.
“The lending agreements at the heart of these cases were signed with agricultural credit intermediaries, not with Land Bank,” the DA said in its report, arguing that when challenged in court, the bank had repeatedly failed to produce the agreements on which its legal right to recover those debts depended.
The FF Plus raised similar concerns, arguing that many affected farmers had never concluded direct loan agreements with Land Bank, and questioning whether historic debt transfers from co-operatives had been legally perfected.
According to FF Plus MP Kobus van den Berg, errors in the transfer processes had resulted in what he described as “an unprovable mess”.
Procurement and liquidation practices questioned
The DA’s report also alleges that a relatively small group of attorneys, liquidators, and auctioneers handled the majority of Land Bank liquidation matters.
According to the party, parliamentary replies obtained in 2022 revealed that a handful of law firms were repeatedly appointed in Land Bank matters, with some also acting as auctioneers in the same estates.
The party further alleges that these legal service providers could not demonstrate compliance with National Treasury procurement requirements.
Scheurkogel cited one case in which a farming company’s debt amounted to less than one-third of the value of its assets, yet it was liquidated and assets allegedly worth R14 million were sold for approximately R6 million.
He also referred to another case in which a multigenerational farming business spanning tens of thousands of hectares was dismantled on the basis of ceded claims that, according to the DA, were never proven.
Adams & Adams report
The DA further relied on an independent report prepared by law firm Adams & Adams and submitted to Land Bank in February 2024 under the title Outrageous Liquidation Practices and Land Bank.
The report alleges that Land Bank repeatedly relied on historical recordal agreements (documents recording earlier transactions) instead of producing cession agreements (the legal documents transferring debts from agricultural credit intermediaries to the bank) demonstrating ownership of the debts it sought to recover.
It argues that previous court judgments required the bank to prove its legal standing by producing the underlying transfer agreements rather than relying on historical records alone.
The Adams & Adams report also questions the appointment of attorney Henk Strydom, alleging that procurement procedures were not followed and that he continued to act for Land Bank after his mandate had expired.
It further alleges that the same small group of attorneys, liquidators, and auctioneers received a disproportionate share of Land Bank liquidation work.
Beyond the legal issues, the report alleges that liquidation was frequently pursued instead of business rescue, resulting in the loss of viable farming enterprises, jobs, and productive agricultural assets. It also raises allegations of aggressive litigation tactics and procedural irregularities, many of which remain disputed.
SIU report and further action
The DA has submitted a Promotion of Access to Information Act application to the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) seeking the release of its report dealing with the liquidation industry and the offices of the Master of the High Court.
It has also submitted parliamentary questions to Minister of Finance Enoch Godongwana regarding the procurement of attorneys, liquidators, and auctioneers involved in Land Bank recoveries, and intends approaching Minister of Justice Mmamoloko Kubayi to request an independent investigation into the Master’s offices.
The FF Plus petition similarly calls for a joint investigation, improved oversight, and engagement with all affected stakeholders before further recovery action is taken.
Specific questions not answered
Farmer’s Weekly submitted a detailed list of questions to Land Bank regarding the allegations raised by the DA, FF Plus, and the Adams & Adams report.
Among other issues, the publication asked whether the bank could produce the disputed cession agreements, whether procurement processes were followed in appointing external attorneys, whether the board had investigated the Adams & Adams report, and whether allegations that some farming assets had been sold below market value had been investigated.
Land Bank did not respond to these questions. However, it referred Farmer’s Weekly to a general media statement issued on 28 July.
In this statement, Land Bank said it recognised the impact that financial distress had on farmers and remained committed to engaging borrowers constructively wherever possible while also protecting public funds.
It said certain borrowers had challenged the validity of historical sale and cession agreements, but maintained that no court had issued a final judgment declaring those agreements invalid or unenforceable.
According to the bank, some adverse court outcomes related only to procedural or evidentiary issues and should not be interpreted as findings that the underlying debts did not exist or that borrowers had been released from their obligations. It added that several matters remained sub judice (under judgment) and that it would therefore not comment on individual cases.
Land Bank further stated that liquidation was not its preferred recovery mechanism and that it first sought restructuring, repayment arrangements, voluntary asset sales, and other commercially sustainable solutions where circumstances permitted.
It added that it remained open to mediation and other forms of alternative dispute resolution.
Regarding the FF Plus petition, the bank said it respected Parliament’s oversight role and would cooperate fully with any parliamentary process arising from the matter.
