The review of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) Amendment Bill will be restricted to four recommendations and the focus will be on whether or not these pass constitutional and procedural muster, Mineral Resources Parliamentary Portfolio Committee chairperson Sahlulele Luzipho has outlined in a media release.

Luzipho reported that the parliamentary portfolio committee was to have met on February 25 to discuss a process of responding to the constitutional reservations raised by President Jacob Zuma, who referred the Bill back for inputs and amendment to sections 26 (2b) and 26 (3), the definition of “this Act” and amendment of Section 74 of the Act.

The Presidency stated last month that sections 26 (2b) and 26 (3) appeared to be inconsistent with South Africa’s obligations under the multilateral international trade regulation agreement, the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (Gatt), as well as the Trade, Development and Cooperation Agreement (TDCA), a bilateral agreement signed between the European Union and South Africa in 2004, which covered trade relations, development cooperation, economic cooperation and numerous other fields, such as sociocultural cooperation and political dialogue.

The MPRDA Amendment Bill, the Presidency said, appeared to impose quantitative restrictions on exports in contravention of Gatt and the TDCA, rendering the State vulnerable to challenges in international forums – an apparent reference to the issue of the developmental pricing matter being reopened.

The latest media release follows Mineral Resources Minister Ngoako Ramatlhodi saying at the Mining Indaba, in Cape Town, that he wanted to bring early finality to the developmental pricing debate and shadow Democratic Alliance Mineral Resources Minister James Lorimer drawing attention to mining industry concern at the developmental pricing debate being reopened and calling on the President to back his Minister.

Luzipho reiterated that the committee would not make further input into the Bill and that the parliamentary legal services team had reaffirmed that it was being returned on the grounds of constitutionality, as well as procedure relating to the allocation of sufficient time for the National Council of Provinces to provide inputs and amendment and the need for the Bill’s referral to the National House of Traditional Leaders.