South Africa's Stricter Mining Rules Face Scrutiny Over Enforcement Targets

Cabinet’s approval of the General Mining Laws Amendment Bill for public comment, timed against the backdrop of at least 14 deaths at a collapsed disused mine at Nkaneng near Rustenburg this week, has placed South Africa’s illegal mining regulatory framework under intense scrutiny. The tragedy sharpened questions that lawmakers and oversight bodies must now answer: who does the proposed legislation actually target, and does it reach far enough up the criminal chain?

Justice and Constitutional Development Minister Mmamoloko Kubayi framed the Bill as closing a critical legal gap. Illicit mining is currently prohibited, but the activities themselves are not classified as criminal offences. The amendments would change that dramatically. Under the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, certain offences would carry fines up to R100 million and 30 years in prison, against the current maximum of R100 000 and two years. The Diamonds Act and Precious Metals Act would see comparable increases, with the latter rising from R100 000 and 20 years to R100 million and 30 years. The Bill also introduces a new offence covering anyone who unlawfully conspires with, aids, abets, induces, incites, instigates, instructs, commands or procures another person to support illegal prospecting or mining. Kubayi was explicit that the legislation “does not seek to criminalise authorised artisanal miners, meaning small-scale miners with permits, from engaging in mining activities.”

Additional reference context is available at https://mg.co.za/the-green-guardian/2026-08-17-tougher-illegal-mining-laws-raise-questions-over-who-will-be-targeted/.

The Minerals Council South Africa endorsed the tougher approach, characterising illegal mining as deeply intertwined with organised crime. Its submission noted that illegal miners and their syndicates are often heavily armed and use explosives, ambushes and booby traps, particularly when trespassing on operating mines. The council supported formalisation of legitimate artisanal mining in selected communities, but cautioned that such a process “is not a process that will legitimise illegal syndicates.”

By contrast, a coalition of labour, environmental and mining-affected community organisations questioned whether criminal penalties alone address the underlying drivers of the problem. The South African Federation of Trade Unions (Saftu) argued that the Nkaneng deaths cannot be dismissed simply as “illegal miners” dying in an abandoned mine. The union pointed to South Africa’s thousands of abandoned and inadequately secured mines, which it described as “death traps, environmental hazards and breeding grounds for organised criminal syndicates,” adding that “the Nkaneng tragedy once again demonstrates the terrible human price of failing to confront the crisis comprehensively.”

The accountability question at the centre of the debate is whether the Bill targets those who organise and profit from illegal mining, or primarily those who work underground. David van Wyk, lead researcher at the Bench Marks Foundation, argued the legislation focuses on “trying to curb the people who are underground, who are basically super exploited labour, former mineworkers, people who didn’t receive their pensions and benefits and so on, and live in squatter camps around mines.” He identified what he termed a “managerial class on the surface” responsible for arranging payments, food, water and supplies for underground miners. “The legislation doesn’t address that issue,” he said, noting that most trespass cases involving ownerless mines are dismissed because the property has no identifiable owner.

Saftu made a parallel argument, describing an “illegal mining economy above the ground” encompassing financiers, recruiters, suppliers, transport networks, buyers of illegally extracted minerals, processors, exporters and money launderers. “The poorest worker underground is frequently the most visible and disposable link in a much larger economic chain,” the union stated. It called on law enforcement to “follow the money,” arguing that arresting impoverished miners while financiers, buyers, smugglers, exporters and syndicate bosses remain untouched would not eliminate illegal mining.

Mining Affected Communities United in Action (Macua) and Women Affected by Mining United in Action raised similar concerns about where enforcement pressure falls. Macua asked directly: “Where is the equivalent urgency to follow the money?” The organisation also questioned whether the government’s formalisation pathway would be accessible to the poorest miners, noting that “an indigent artisanal miner with rudimentary equipment, no capital, limited technical capacity” could not realistically enter the legal system. “Thirty-year prison sentences will not redistribute mineral wealth, create livelihoods or make mining communities less poor,” Macua said.

Mariette Liefferink, chief executive of the Federation for a Sustainable Environment, supported the Bill’s purpose but identified a structural gap in its drafting. The Bill refers to an “artisanal mining permit” without establishing the complete mechanism through which a miner could obtain one. “The minister’s statement says that authorised artisanal miners will not be criminalised, yet the Bill does not create the complete legal mechanism through which an artisanal miner can obtain the contemplated authorisation,” she said. Liefferink called for a comprehensive artisanal and small-scale mining framework, including accessible application procedures, community consultation, environmental and safety requirements and access to lawful markets.

Mine closure and rehabilitation have emerged as a separate but related accountability gap. Van Wyk argued the legislation should make it impossible for a mining company to walk away from a mine at the end of its productive life without meeting its obligations. “Unless you start off at that particular point and make sure that people apply the law in terms of mine closure and rehabilitation and obtain actual closure certificates and rehabilitation certificates from the department of mineral resources, I don’t think any have been issued, so people just walk away from their responsibilities,” he said. Liefferink echoed that concern, arguing that abandoned, derelict, liquidated or inadequately secured mines create the very conditions that enable unlawful entry.

The Minerals Council said tougher laws, effective policing and improved crime intelligence were all needed to reach the leaders and masterminds of illegal mining syndicates. Liefferink argued that criminal enforcement must be combined with accessible legalisation, responsible mineral markets, mine closure and rehabilitation, and enforcement against those who profit from illicit mineral flows. Whether the Bill, as currently drafted, can satisfy those conditions is the question the public comment process must now answer.