The Department of Mineral Resources (DMR) is likely to lay charges against Kumba Iron Ore next week following revelations by Advocate Willie Vermeulen in the North Gauteng High Court on Wednesday that such charges were being prepared.

Details were not immediately provided as to the nature of the probable charges. But it is understood that they relate to alleged manipulation of DMR officials to ensure that Kumba’s lodgement for rights to 21.4% of the Sishen mine, previously held by ArcelorMittal South Africa, were received ahead of any other possible application.

In an answering affidavit arising from a Sishen Iron Ore Company-initiated review of the DMR’s granting of a prospecting licence to Imperial Crown Trading 289 (ICT), former DG Sandile Nogxina stated that Kumba sought to “deliberately subvert” the provisions of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) to “gain unfair advantage” over other applicants.

The DMR noted that Monday, May 4, 2009, was the first day on which any applicant could “validly” have lodged an application, rather than May 1, 2009, which was a public holiday and fell on a Friday.

Nevertheless, the department alleges that Kumba officials went to great lengths to manipulate the process, as well as certain officials at its offices in Kimberley and Centurion, in order for its lodgement to reflect a May 1, 2009, submission date.

Engineering News Online has learned that DMR had initially planned only to press charges following the outcome of the review, which is currently being heard by Judge Raymond Zondo.

However, following the July 27, 2011, search-and-seizure raids by the Hawks of the DMR's offices in Pretoria and Kimberley, as well as the offices of ICT and even the State Attorney, the department reportedly decided that it would move ahead with charging Kumba.

A Kumba spokesperson said that Kumba was not commenting on any arguments in court.

However, in documents before the court, Kumba also describes the allegations of manipulation as “incorrect and irrelevant”, adding that the claims are mostly speculative and based on unsubstantiated hearsay.

It further argues that ICT’s application was not lodged on May 4, 2009, as asserted by both ICT and the DMR.

It notes, for instance, that the prospecting right application form was signed on May 5, 2009, as was the prospecting work programme, while plans forming part of ICT’s application were dated May 8 and May 9, 2009.

The date of lodgement is viewed as important as the MPRDA states that, if applications are received on the same day, they must be regarded as having been received at the same time. The Minister should then give preference to the applications from “historically disadvantaged persons”.