On 20 May 2025, the Minister of Mineral and Petroleum Resources released the Draft Mineral Resources Development Amendment Bill for public comment, with submissions due by 13 August 2025. A further notice, the Correction of Draft Mineral Resources Development Bill, 2025, was published on 9 June 2025 to address certain proposals.
The Bill is intended to amend the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002, commonly referred to as the Mining Act. Its reintroduction is reminiscent of the state-driven reforms pursued more than a decade ago. In 2012, the African National Congress published its State Intervention in the Mineral Sector (SIMS) discussion paper, which called for stronger government control over strategic minerals. This was followed by the Draft Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Amendment Bill, 2012, which sought to impose beneficiation obligations, restrict the export of critical minerals and tighten ministerial oversight over the transfer of mineral rights. That draft was met with strong opposition from the industry and was ultimately rejected by the President on constitutional grounds. The new Bill revives many of those earlier concepts with a renewed emphasis on beneficiation, export controls and the transfer of mineral interests.
The preamble to the Bill sets out its objectives. It introduces provisions relating to small-scale and artisanal mining, provides for the regulation of associated minerals, strengthens consultation with affected stakeholders, tightens compliance obligations and sanctions, and repeals all petroleum-related provisions. These petroleum provisions will in future fall under the Upstream Petroleum Resources Development Act 23 of 2024, enacted in October 2024 but not yet in force. Although a large portion of the Bill is dedicated to aligning the Mining Act with newer legislation, it also proposes significant substantive changes.
With regard to beneficiation and export restrictions, the current Mining Act gives the Minister discretion to promote local beneficiation and requires consultation before minerals can be beneficiated abroad. However, the regulatory framework to give effect to these powers has never been finalised. The new Bill proposes to amend the definition of beneficiation to mean the transformation of a mineral into a higher-value product based on baselines determined by the Minister. The definition is almost identical to that proposed in 2012. It also introduces the concept of security of supply, which refers to the orderly retention of designated minerals to support national development. Yet neither mineral products nor designated minerals are defined in the Bill. In 2012 the draft defined designated minerals as those which the Minister could declare for beneficiation purposes by notice in the Gazette, a power that was criticised by industry at the time.
The proposals must also be considered in light of the recently approved Critical Minerals and Metals Strategy. This strategy identifies coal, platinum, manganese, iron ore and chrome as top priorities. Minerals that are conventionally classified as critical to renewable energy and battery production, such as lithium, copper and graphite, are described as only moderately critical in the South African context. The government has also indicated an intention to declare uranium a critical mineral in order to revitalise the nuclear sector, even though the strategy categorises uranium as moderately critical. The strategy emphasises the need for a balanced export approach that allows some raw materials to be exported in response to market demands while retaining other critical minerals for domestic beneficiation.
To achieve these aims, the Bill amends section 26 of the Mining Act. The Minister will be obliged to promote beneficiation as part of national policy and will be empowered to impose beneficiation-related conditions when granting mining rights. Every mineral producer will be required to make minerals or mineral products available for local beneficiation. These measures will significantly expand ministerial authority to restrict exports and compel local supply, but the Bill leaves important aspects undefined, including the baselines, pricing structures and enforcement mechanisms. This lack of clarity is likely to generate strong opposition, as it effectively limits the rights of mineral owners to dispose of their property freely.
The Bill also introduces far-reaching changes to the rules governing the transfer of ownership of mineral rights. At present, a mining right may not be transferred without the consent of the Minister. This also applies to direct or indirect transfers of control in the holder of a mining right, except in the case of listed companies where ministerial consent is not required. The Bill originally sought to extend the consent requirement to any interest in unlisted companies and to controlling interests in listed companies. Industry commentators immediately raised concerns about overreach, interference with legitimate commercial transactions and the deterrent effect on investment. In response, the Correction of June 2025 removed the proposal to extend ministerial consent to listed companies, thereby retaining the current exemption.
The Bill nonetheless expands the definition of controlling interest to include indirect control and provides that any unauthorised transfer, cession or disposal of a mining right will be void. These proposals resemble the amendments contained in the 2012 draft legislation, which were firmly rejected by the industry as impractical and restrictive. It is likely that similar criticism will be voiced again, particularly with respect to unlisted companies where even the transfer of a single share could fall within the scope of ministerial approval.
Although the legislative process is still at an early stage, the Bill signals a renewed attempt by the state to centralise control over mineral resources. The Correction demonstrates that the government is willing to adjust proposals in response to industry pressure, but the overall thrust of the Bill is clear. While the government views these measures as essential to transformation, beneficiation and national development, the mining industry is likely to challenge them as vague, burdensome and damaging to investment confidence.
Stakeholders should take advantage of the current consultation period to raise concerns before the August deadline. As with the 2012 proposals, the debate is expected to be intense and the outcome uncertain. The future of South Africa’s mining sector may once again depend on the balance struck between developmental ambitions and investment realities.
