Beside the active Shaft 3 of Eswatini’s coal mine, 43 homesteads say blasting is splitting their walls. The blast logs, inspection records and seismic survey that could prove it are held by a Ministry that both polices the mine and owns a quarter of it — and over six weeks of requests, not one was produced.
By Nokukhanya Musi
Inkhosikati LaNdwandwe stands beside a wall she plastered last month. A new fissure runs through it.
“Every day, we live with the fear that our homes might collapse over our heads,” says the widow of the late Chief Tsekwane, who has lived beside the Maloma coal mine for years. “Our houses are not built to withstand tremors; they are simple mud-brick, barely holding together.”
Five minutes away, the blasting at Maloma Colliery’s active Shaft 3 reaches Comfort Ndabandaba’s homestead before the sound does.
“My walls rattle with every blast, and I’m left fearing for the safety of my family,” he says.
Residents of Ndunayithini say the blasting at Shaft 3 — which they report running as late as 10pm and resuming at 4am — is cracking their homes. To prove it, they would need the mine’s blast logs, vibration-monitoring reports, inspection records and the seismic survey of the area. Under Eswatini law, those records must be collected and held by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Energy, the body that regulates the mine.
Over six weeks of written requests in April and May 2026, this reporter could not obtain a single one of them — not a blast log, not a vibration report, not an inspection record, not a complaint entry, not the seismic survey. The Ministry said the records sit with the mine. The mine said it submits them to the Ministry every quarter but cannot release them without the Ministry’s written permission. The Eswatini Environment Authority said to ask the mine. The seismic survey, the mine said, was carried out by a Ministry engineer — who in turn denied his department had done any such survey or held any such records.
As a result, no blast logs, vibration reports, inspection records, complaint register, Environmental Impact Assessment, Environmental Compliance Certificate or seismic survey were produced by anyone.
That closed loop sits on top of a structural conflict written into Eswatini law. The Ministry of Natural Resources and Energy both regulates Maloma Colliery and co-owns it. Through the Ministry, the Eswatini Government holds a 25 percent stake in the mine; Tibiyo Taka Ngwane, the investment fund held by the King in trust for the nation, holds another 25 percent. The same official who would judge a resident’s damage claim — the Commissioner of Mines — sits inside the Ministry that owns a quarter of the company that resident would be claiming against.
Residents say they are trying to use the legal pathway open to them. With the Commissioner’s Ministry holding a stake in Maloma, they say they do not trust that complaints will be handled impartially. The law gives them the right on paper. What this investigation set out to test is whether that right works in practice — and what would have to change for it to.
Who owns Maloma, and who runs it
Company records filed with the Registrar of Companies show that since December 2020, Maloma Colliery Limited has been wholly locally owned, ending an era in which foreign investors — among them Carbonex, Koch Industries, Xstrata Alloys and, later, Chancellor House Holdings, the investment arm of South Africa’s African National Congress — held half the mine.
Today the mine has three partners. Minex Mining Services (Pty) Ltd — the vehicle of Inyatsi Group Holdings, chaired by Michelo Shakantu — holds the 50 percent controlling stake and the main say in operations. The Eswatini Government holds 25 percent. Tibiyo Taka Ngwane holds the remaining 25 percent.
The lines between operator, owner and regulator run close. The mine’s chief executive, Jabulile Shabangu, also sits on the board of Inyatsi Group Holdings. Maloma’s executive board chairman, Michelo Shakantu, is also the chairman of Inyatsi Group Holdings. And the government’s 25 percent flows through the very Ministry charged with policing the mine’s safety and environmental compliance.
A conflict written into the statute
The conflict is not the result of a single negotiated deal. It is the statutory price of holding a mining licence in Eswatini. Under the Mines and Minerals Act No. 4 of 2011, Section 133(1) allows the iNgwenyama and the Government each to take 25 percent of every large-scale mine “without any monetary consideration,” and sub-section 133(5)(a) provides that a mining licence “has no effect” until that combined 50 percent state and royal participation is in place.
The same Act creates both the duty to compensate residents and the body that decides their claims. Section 120 requires holders of mineral rights to compensate “owners and lawful occupiers” for damage to buildings and other property — a duty that covers Ndunayithini residents even though they occupy Swazi Nation Land rather than hold title. Where compensation is disputed, Sections 120(4) and 121(11) make the Commissioner of Mines the arbiter, with “the jurisdiction of a magistrate’s court.”
The result is that the official who judges residents’ claims sits in a Ministry that the same Act compels to co-own the mine. Ownership does not, on paper, block a community from lodging a complaint; the law gives that right regardless of who holds shares. What matters is what happens after a complaint is filed — whether it is logged, investigated and followed through, or ignored and never recorded.
The paper trail that led nowhere
On April 15, 2026, this reporter sent a written request to Richard Bong’sipho Magagula, senior mining engineer in the Ministry’s Minerals and Mines Department. The request was specific: blast logs and vibration-monitoring reports for Shaft 3 from August 2023 to April 2026; mine inspection reports and compliance notices for Maloma from 2020 to 2026; and the Ministry’s complaint register for mine damage over the same period.
Seven days later, on April 22, Magagula replied by WhatsApp that the Ministry does not conduct blast logging or vibration monitoring — that, he said, is the operator’s duty. He said the Ministry had not attended to any complaints and was not aware of any: “The ministry hasn’t done or attended to any complaints or aware of such. Please liaise with the company on such issues.”
Magagula did not provide the records. He referred this reporter to Maloma’s chief executive officer, Jabulile Shabangu, who did not respond to repeated calls and messages. He then referred the matter to plant manager Thubelihle Sikonela, who said information could be provided only if the reporter visited the mine “for proper introductions and an understanding of the scope.”
A parallel request went to the Eswatini Environment Authority. Its chief executive officer, Gcina Dladla, delegated it to the director of environmental assessment and compliance, Mxolisi Maphanga, and to the head of EIA monitoring and evaluation, Belusile Mhlanga. Mhlanga first routed the request to a consultant, Mavela Sgwane, who referred all questions to the mine. Mhlanga then sent the same instruction: contact the mine.
“The mine submits them quarterly”
At the mine, Sikonela — identified at this meeting as chief operating officer — declined to release the requested documents. His reason: the regulator, the Ministry, had not given him written authorisation to assist. Then he added a detail that closed the loop.
“It baffles me as to why the ministry or the authority wouldn’t furnish you with these documents,” he said, “because the mine submits them to them quarterly.”
Sikonela went further. The seismic survey of the area, he said, had been carried out by Richard Magagula — the same Ministry engineer who had told this reporter that logging and vibration monitoring were the operator’s duty and that the Ministry had attended to no complaints. Asked whether the mine had received complaints from the community since that survey, Sikonela first said it had not. Pressed, he said he had been with the mine since 2021 and that “there were some complaints lodged,” but he could not say when, by whom, or how they were resolved.
He described the mine’s complaint structure as running through the chairperson of the Eswatini National Ex-Miners Association (ESNEMA) and through chiefdom representatives and acknowledged the mine would turn away anyone who approached “in a disorderly manner.” Asked whether a rural community that could neither interpret the seismic survey nor afford an expert to do so was being treated fairly, he suggested that the technical nature of the released results had deterred villagers from pressing further.
Confronted with Sikonela’s account, Magagula reversed course. Reached again after several attempts from May 8, he responded on May 11 by WhatsApp. The records, he said, were the mine’s concern, not the Ministry’s: he did not know what documents the Ministry held, beyond quarterly reports on explosives used. He denied his department had conducted any seismic survey: “The ministry has not conducted any seismic surveys; maybe other departments have done so. Not our department.”
That denial collides with the Ministry’s own statutory duties. Sub-section 14(1)(c) of the Mines and Minerals Act makes the Commissioner of Mines responsible for “the collection, processing and storage of information and statistics relating to prospecting and mining operations.” Section 85 empowers the Commissioner to inspect mines and enforce compliance with safety and environmental provisions, including blasting impacts. Sikonela’s claim that the Ministry conducted the seismic survey and receives quarterly blasting reports cannot be reconciled with Magagula’s denial that the Ministry holds such records — yet the law places the duty to collect and keep that data squarely on the Commissioner’s office.
Commissioner of Mines Dr. Noah Nhleko refused to answer questions. After deferring to the Eswatini Environment Authority on environmental compliance, he cut off the interview and declined to address any other query, including how much Maloma had paid into the environmental bond fund the Act requires — a figure that could not be established.
What the blasting does — and what no one will measure
The records matter because the Ministry’s own engineer has described what is at stake. In an interview in 2025, Magagula explained that underground blasting at roughly 120 metres in soft coal — capped by sandstone roof and floor — generates low-energy vibrations that, in theory, should not damage well-built structures. But he conceded that substandard rural housing and local conditions can amplify those vibrations, and that “rigorous vibration monitoring and regular crack surveys” were needed to assess the impact accurately.
Those surveys, if they exist, are not public. No independent structural assessment of the Ndunayithini homes has been produced, and residents have no access to the vibration data that could establish whether the blasting is responsible for the cracks they live with. The likely harm they describe — unpremeditated structural damage, the physical and psychological strain of blasting at night, and the cost of repairs they fund themselves — cannot be measured against records no one will produce.
A promise, and a shaft that was never built
The expansion was announced as a benefit to the community on August 25, 2023, when Chief Prince Gasa WaNgwane formally handed over Ndunayithini land for what Maloma called “Shaft 4.” The then-acting chief executive, Jabulile Shabangu, thanked King Mswati III for “cultivating an environment that allows the growth of businesses” and committed the company to “following the Environmental Regulations in the whole mining operations process.” If there were concerns, she said, Maloma was open to resolving them through “the relevant structures.”
More than two years later, Shaft 4 has never been built. The Ministry of Natural Resources, the Eswatini Environment Authority, Maloma Colliery and Ndunayithini residents all confirm it. The blasting that rattles Ndabandaba’s walls and widens LaNdwandwe’s cracks comes from Shaft 3.
The channel that collapsed
The community’s most direct route to the mine ran through a Memorandum of Understanding signed on June 12, 2019, between ESNEMA and Maloma’s then-chief executive, Jacobus du Plessis. It was meant to coordinate community feedback and guide complaint handling; Maloma was to disclose its corporate social investment plans and ensure legislative compliance. The agreement ran for two years and expired. When the ESNEMA liaison left, the safeguards fell apart. ESNEMA now says it is waiting for a new health-and-safety team to be named before re-engaging with the mine.
For LaNdwandwe, that means walking the dusty road to the mine’s security gate, only to be turned away. “They come, they take notes, and then they disappear while our homes continue to fall apart,” she says. “For how long are we supposed to put up with this?”
The only door left
With the MoU defunct and the Commissioner of Mines conflicted as a shareholder, the Act’s remaining route — referral for settlement — is already being tested in court by other landowners. Court records show the Henwood–Maloma dispute over Farms 422 and 481 reaches back to a 1992 mining lease and a 1994 High Court ruling.
In the current matter before the High Court, plaintiffs Randolf Henwood and the estate of the late H.H. Henwood are suing Maloma Colliery Limited, the Commissioner of Mines, the Master of the High Court and the Attorney General. The summons pleads an alleged oral agreement made in June 1999 and claims Maloma was obliged to pay compensation under the Mining Act 1958, including market value for expropriated land and other damages. The plaintiffs say they demanded payment on July 21, 2025, and that the mine “neglected and refused to pay.”
The claim, as pleaded, totals more than E155 million: E57.6 million for financial loss on the two farms, E33 million for surface rental, E250,000 in legal fees, E60 million for full rehabilitation and environmental restoration, and E5 million in punitive damages, plus nine percent annual interest from the date of summons. These are claims advanced in court, not established liabilities; the plaintiffs argue they are entitled to cancel the agreement and reclaim the full sum.
When the shareholder is the sheriff
ESNEMA records and pictorial evidence document homes with visible cracks, caving floors and collapsing structures; residents report blasting as late as 10pm and as early as 4am. With some 600 mine workers, “40 percent from Lavumisa Chiefdom,” according to a 2023 Eswatini Financial Times report, Maloma is a major regional employer — and host residents say they continue to absorb the safety costs while the compensation and community-investment commitments made at the 2023 sod-cutting, for a shaft that was never built, have not materialised.
The reason residents have no remedy is on the balance sheet. An Africa Press report quoted chairman Michelo Shakantu saying in 2024 that Maloma had paid “over E350 million to government in dividends, royalties and other taxes.” Because the Eswatini Government holds 25 percent through the Ministry of Natural Resources and Energy, a portion of those dividends flows back to the same state entity that regulates the mine. The company has not published a breakdown, so the exact amount reaching government as a shareholder remains unclear.
The Mines and Minerals Act 2011 promises compensation for damage, security for restoration and an accessible route to settle disputes. In Ndunayithini, the records that would make those promises real cannot be obtained from the Ministry, the mine or the Environment Authority. What would have to change is plain: the Ministry could either produce the records the law requires it to keep or relinquish the stake that makes residents doubt it ever will.
Until then, the regulator and the regulated entity remain business partners — and for the families beside Shaft 3, the records stay out of reach, the gate stays closed, and the courthouse is the only door left.