ExplainerAll minerals

Explainer: where South Africa's mining law rewrite stands, and the five clauses that matter

A year after the draft Mineral Resources Development Bill was gazetted, the second draft is still with state lawyers. Here is what is in it and what the industry is watching

MRMiningWrap ResearchResearch desk3 June 20266 min read

About this piece

Format: Explainer
Focus: All minerals
Published: 3 June 2026
Reading time: 6 min
Topics: policy, south africa, beneficiation, artisanal mining, exploration, jse

South Africa's mining industry is waiting, again, for a law. On 19 May, mines minister Gwede Mantashe told Parliament in his budget vote speech that the Mineral Resources Development Bill was with the Chief State Law Advisor. He said it would go to Cabinet in the second quarter of the 2026/27 financial year, that is, between July and September. A week later, at the Minerals Council South Africa's annual general meeting, council president Paul Dunne said he expected the second draft before year-end. He described talks with the department as professional and productive. He also said the industry's worry is that the second draft might not reflect those talks.

This explainer sets out how the bill got here, what the first draft proposed and which provisions will decide whether the rewrite supports investment or damages it.

How we got here

The Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) of 2002 has been the backbone of South African mining law for more than two decades. The last attempt to amend it stalled for years in Parliament before Mantashe withdrew it in 2018. The current effort started with an amendment bill, renamed the Mineral Resources Development Bill, which was approved by Cabinet and gazetted in May 2025. Public comment closed on 13 August 2025.

Two of the most contentious provisions were dropped within weeks. A June 2025 correction notice removed a requirement for black economic empowerment (BEE) ownership in prospecting rights. It also removed a clause requiring ministerial consent for changes of control in listed companies. At the Mining Indaba in February 2026, Mantashe presented the prospecting U-turn as pragmatic, arguing that no economic value has yet been proven at the exploration stage. He also defended empowerment in general. "Many say BEE is driving investors out. It is not," he said, as reported by Business Day.

The five clauses to watch

1. Empowerment by regulation

This is the central issue. Lawyers reading the first draft, including Hulme Scholes of Malan Scholes Attorneys quoted by Miningmx, noted that it would make codes of good practice enforceable law. It would also let the minister issue regulations on transformation. In 2021 the High Court found in the Minerals Council's favour that the Mining Charter was policy rather than law. The ruling meant companies that had met earlier ownership targets did not have to re-empower when their BEE partners sold out, a principle known as "once empowered, always empowered". A power to set targets by regulation could reopen that question without a new court fight. The industry reports 39% ownership by historically disadvantaged South Africans. It wants the second draft to rule out retrospective re-empowerment explicitly.

2. Change of control

Section 11 of the MPRDA requires ministerial consent before a mining right, or a controlling interest in a company holding one, changes hands. The first draft widened this. Mantashe removed the listed-company element, but lawyers told Miningmx in December 2025 that problems remain. The definition of control is unclear for unlisted companies and indirect shareholdings. Routine corporate actions such as share buybacks and employee share schemes could also need consent. For a sector that has used the JSE and private equity to recycle assets, a slow consent process affects deal value directly.

3. Historic dumps

Under the first draft, residue stockpiles created before 1 May 2004, which could previously be reprocessed without a mining right, would need one. Scholes warned this could be challenged as expropriation of a movable asset. The issue matters most to businesses that retreat old tailings for gold, and to operations that recover chrome from PGM tailings. Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer partner Ziyanda Ntshona told Business Report in February that she expected the revised bill to clarify residue stockpiles and beneficiation. Whether it does will be one of the first things lawyers check.

4. Artisanal and small-scale mining

The draft creates a permit system for artisanal and small-scale miners. It lets the minister designate areas and invite applications, with some provisions aimed at historically disadvantaged applicants. Formalisation is overdue given the scale of illegal mining on abandoned gold workings. However, Miningmx reported that the draft allows parcels as small as 1.58 hectares, which may be too small to be viable. It also creates potential for disputes where artisanal areas border established mines. The practical test is whether the permits will be simple enough to attract people who now work outside the law.

5. Turnaround times

The department says the bill will streamline administration and improve turnaround times for rights and permits. Industry lawyers expect prescribed timeframes for processing applications. The department granted 358 prospecting rights and 32 mining rights between February 2025 and January 2026, according to Business Day. The online cadastre promised for mid-2025 had still not been rolled out nationally in May 2026. It went live first in the Western Cape, a province with little mining, and the Minerals Council says it has not been given a working demonstration. Legal deadlines will have little effect if the system behind them cannot process applications.

The better parts of the bill

The draft has provisions the industry supports. It strengthens penalties for illegal mining and gives police wider powers. It clarifies that a company mining platinum group metals from UG2 ore holds exclusive rights to the chrome recovered as a by-product. That would settle a long-running source of disputes on the western and eastern limbs of the Bushveld. Separately, a Mine Health and Safety Bill is before Parliament.

Our view

The department has already shown it will reverse course when the evidence is clear, as it did on exploration BEE and listed-company consent. The second draft should apply the same approach to three issues. It should limit ministerial consent to genuine changes of control. It should protect existing rights to historic dumps rather than subject them to a fresh licensing round. And it should settle the "once empowered" question in law, in either direction, rather than leave it to future regulations.

Legal certainty in either direction would be better than prolonged ambiguity. The previous failed amendment spent more than 2,000 days in the legislative process before it was abandoned. Stats SA data now show exploration spending has fallen for seven consecutive years. A bill that is legally clear, even if demanding, can be priced by investors. A bill that leaves key terms to later regulation will add to South Africa's risk premium and weaken the case for new mines.

Sources

Photo: The Houses of Parliament in Cape Town, South Africa. Discott, Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0.

Was this useful?

Discussion

Loading comments…