BOTHA GOLD MINE CLARIFIES POSITION AMID MISLEADING REPORTS ON MINING DIRECTIVE

In a formal statement released on Friday, the mine expressed concern over narratives surrounding the directive, emphasising the need for accurate reporting in light of an ongoing legal dispute and the broader implications for public confidence and community stability. Ongoing Legal Dispute at the Centre The developments arise within the context of a long-running boundary dispute between Botha Gold Mine and Freda Rebecca Gold Mine, whose agents reportedly include Navid Incorporated (Pvt.) Ltd. According to Botha Gold Mine, the matter is currently before the courts, including a High Court application under case number HCH1051/26, in which Freda Rebecca seeks a declaratory order regarding ownership of the disputed area loosely referred to as “Mining Lease 21.” The mine maintains that it remains in lawful possession of the area, citing multiple High Court orders and has raised concern over what it describes as repeated attempts to bypass legal processes through “self-help measures” and unauthorised interference on the ground.

Clarification on the Mining Directive Central to the current controversy is a directive issued on 8 April 2026 by the Provincial Mining Engineer. Botha Gold Mine has clarified that the directive is a safety-based suspension order, issued in terms of the Mining (Management and Safety) Regulations (S.I. 109 of 1990).

The company stressed that the directive should not be interpreted as determining ownership, mining rights or control over the disputed area. “Any narratives suggesting that the directive transfers authority, validates competing claims or permits selective continuation of operations are misleading,” the statement noted. Botha Gold Mine confirmed that it has formally engaged the Provincial Mining Director, raising concerns regarding the legality, procedural fairness and enforceability of the directive.

[paywall]

The company stated that its engagement with authorities has been conducted “respectfully and constructively,” while reaffirming its commitment to resolving the matter within the confines of the law. Rejecting Allegations of Disorder The mine strongly rejected characterisations of its operations as violent or unregulated, noting that any reported incidents of unrest have occurred within its operational area due to alleged unauthorised incursions. It stated that any actions taken have been defensive in nature, aimed at protecting personnel, contractors and property within a structured and regulated environment.

[/paywall]