What sparked your interest in mining law? It’s a mostly male industry after all…
I began as a corporate commercial lawyer at one of the big five firms, then left to do an MBA in Paris because I wanted to understand business, not just the law. While abroad I kept asking myself how I could be relevant back in South Africa—I always knew I was coming home. My parents’ background shaped that thinking: my mother ran ANC elections from the early 1990s and my father, high up in legal circles, helped write the Constitution and Labour Laws. He acts for our current President, so I grew up around senior government people and learned early that relationships matter as much as rules.
When I returned around 2010, there were very few women in mining law, so I chose to focus there. I joined a newly formed mining firm as a junior, spent nine years, and then co-founded what became NSDV. My approach—relationship-driven, pragmatic, connected with communities, unions, industry and government—helped build a platform in South Africa and now across Africa. That network is central to how we get things done.
So, your philosophy is to resolve disputes outside of court?
Absolutely. We usually get faster, better outcomes by engaging directly. You’re dealing with people inside under-resourced departments; most officials are genuinely trying to do their jobs under severe capacity constraints. If you connect with the right person, explain a complex application clearly, stay contactable for questions, and track where it sits in the workflow, you can move it instead of letting it sink to the bottom of a pile.
We have first-world mining legislation—the MPRDA (Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act) —but we’re still an undeveloped country in terms of resourcing at regional offices. There are hundreds or thousands of rights, environmental authorisations, appeals and only so many officials. Face-to-face time—drawing the transaction, walking through the steps, locating the next desk—often makes the difference between statutory timelines becoming aspirational and clients actually getting on the ground.
How often do you succeed in not going to court?
In my experience, if I look at ten clients, I’ve probably gone to court with one. For the other nine, outcomes came via relationships and discussions. Litigating every delay might win a battle but lose the war—you’ll hurt future dealings with the department.
Our approach extends beyond applications: for example, we recently helped get a regulated biofuels price published—co-ordinating industry and government over months—because there was no regulated price for the sale of biofuels. Yes, delays and some corruption exist, but in my experience, the majority of officials aren’t corrupt; with the right networks from the regional to ministerial level, you can get good things done.
Is your optimism about South Africa a long-term strategy—or a sober read of reality in mining?
A bit of both. Under the previous Minister, Mosebenzi Zwane, I would have told youto probably close shop. Under Minister Mantashe—who has real union and mining experience—the Department is far more open to discussion and collaboration. The bureaucracy is still “quite something,” but there is a genuine will to help, which makes me optimistic.
Our Government of National Unity (GNU) has also introduced checks and balances that improve policy and investor sentiment. Yes, big “old-school” houses are reassessing—Anglo disaggregating, Rio Tinto looking to move out—but that’s not doom and gloom. It creates space for juniors and the next tier of technical expertise to run smaller, more flexible operations, adopt new technologies and mine differently (including shallow reefs the majors don’t access). We needed a disruptor; the Anglo disaggregation is that, and the rest of the mining trends are adjusting accordingly.
What’s your take on the new MPRDA/MPRD bill, given the criticism—notably with regards to BEE (black economic empowerement)—and how willing is government to negotiate?
I think it’s been blown up dramatically. There’s no way this bill passes in its current form; the Department knows it. It feeks like a knee-jerk response to global attention on critical minerals—classic resource nationalism. We’ve seen this across Africa: eyes turn to lithium, and overnight a state tightens export rules or pushes beneficiation.
This draft was essentially two versions old; much of the stakeholder engagement hadn’t been incorporated. Proposals like requiring ministerial approval to sell a single share in an unlisted company won’t fly. Expect a focus on beneficiation and cleaning overlaps between environmental, mining and petroleum laws. Engagement is active; I’m commenting specifically on the junior sector, which the draft overlooked. I actually like our current legislation—with tweaks and some regulatory fixes—rather than a wholesale rewrite.
Even if it doesn’t pass, doesn’t the draft send a bad signal to investors?
Yes, the signal is unfortunately devastating. At the London Indaba in June, officials were put on stage to defend something they knew may not be the near final draft version. But inside the department the sentiment appears clear: this won’t be the final version.
That’s why it’s important to communicate that active engagement is underway. We should say plainly that this is not what will be published. I’ve been asked to put forward detailed junior-sector comments; in my view, sections from previous versions were dropped inadvertently.
We should relax parts of the regulatory regime for juniors—especially exploration—so they can get a spade in the ground and move up the value chain. Majors can fund early phases, take stakes, or buy out juniors later. That model gets capital and agility where it’s needed.
What are the typical challenges juniors face here—and across Africa?
Money. We have the people, the skills, and the rocks in the ground; unlocking them is the issue. In greenfields exploration, you don’t yet know what’s in the ground, so investors are hesitant. The Council for Geoscience often helps by supporting early exploration, but juniors eventually need to raise capital once there’s a resource to point to.
I’m seeing significant funding from the UK, US and Canada for exploration—but very targeted. Right now there is a surprising focus on coal. Renewables are taking longer and are expensive, so coal looks attractive.
Why your optimism on Namibia, given signs of resource nationalism like a proposed 51% local stake?
Namibia is smaller, relatively untapped, and rich in critical minerals—and it has a functioning cadastre. On your phone you can see property, claims and rights; the environmental commissioner and mining commissioner are accessible. There’s a new mining minister, and yes, it appears he’s pushing for 51%, but I don’t see industry accepting that unchallenged.
For South Africa’s cadastre, they’re uploading data starting with “less complex” jurisdictions like Western Cape, then Northern Cape, etc.—so we’re not there yet. But in Namibia, fundamentals plus transparency make it easier than South Africa in many respects, even with current policy noise.
Finally, why should juniors come to South Africa from a legal perspective?
Because the opportunity set is large. There’s an untapped market, rocks in the ground, and local skills to develop them. If you partner with the right people—firms and individuals who know how to get things done within our systems—the country really can be your oyster.
Yes, we get a bad rap for delays and bureaucracy. But with the right partners, relationships and on-the-ground knowledge, it’s far from impossible. Work with great people who understand the pathways, and juniors can absolutely thrive here. I genuinely believe that.
