Thousands of former gold miners across southern Africa could lose access to long-promised compensation following a controversial proposal by the Tshiamiso Trust, according to a press statement issued on 16 April 2026 by Justice for Miners (JFM).
The group warns that the planned amendment would effectively block many sick, elderly, and deceased miners’ families from pursuing claims, raising urgent questions about the future of one of the region’s most significant post-settlement compensation schemes.
The statement, titled “Tshiamiso Trust moves to strip thousands of sick and dying miners of their only route to compensation”, accuses the Trust of attempting to introduce an amendment that would exclude many of its most vulnerable beneficiaries, including elderly and terminally ill claimants as well as the families of deceased mineworkers.
The Tshiamiso Trust was established as part of a landmark legal settlement with South Africa’s gold mining industry to compensate miners who developed silicosis or tuberculosis after prolonged exposure to dust underground. Its beneficiaries are drawn from across the region, including large numbers of migrant workers who travelled from neighbouring countries to work in the mines and returned home with debilitating occupational diseases. For many, the Trust represents the first and only opportunity for financial redress after years of hazardous labour that generated immense wealth for mining companies.
At the centre of the dispute is Amendment No. 9 to the Trust Deed, a proposal that must be approved by the Master of the South Gauteng High Court before it can take effect. According to JFM, the amendment would remove the right of claimants to rely on ODMWA certificates — official documents issued under South Africa’s Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Act — as valid proof of disease for compensation purposes. These certificates, issued by the Medical Bureau for Occupational Diseases, have long been recognised as formal state confirmation that a miner suffers from a qualifying illness.
In its statement, JFM argues that ODMWA certificates were historically sufficient to declare miners unfit for work, often resulting in their retrenchment and return to rural communities across the Southern African Development Community. The organisation questions how a document once deemed adequate to end a miner’s livelihood can now be considered insufficient to secure compensation for the same illness. Jo Seoka, chairperson of JFM, described the proposed change as “a profound injustice dressed up as a procedural adjustment”.
Under the proposed amendment, claimants would instead be required to undergo a Benefit Medical Examination, or BME, as part of the Trust’s internal assessment process. For living miners, this introduces significant practical barriers. Many are elderly, in poor health, and living in remote areas with limited access to transport or healthcare facilities. Travelling to designated examination centres may be difficult or impossible for those suffering from advanced respiratory conditions.
JFM also raises concerns about the reliability and fairness of BMEs conducted under the Trust’s framework, alleging that such examinations have frequently resulted in lower disease classifications than those recorded in ODMWA certificates. This, the organisation claims, has led to reduced compensation payouts, effectively undermining the value of claims that had already been medically certified by the state. In this sense, the amendment is not merely replacing one form of evidence with another but introducing a process that could systematically diminish compensation awards.
The implications are even more severe for the families of deceased miners. A dead claimant cannot undergo a new medical examination, leaving ODMWA certificates as, in many cases, the only surviving proof that the individual suffered from a compensable disease. Without these certificates, widows and dependants may be required to assemble extensive documentation, including employment records, medical histories, and compliant death certificates. JFM argues that such requirements are often impossible to meet, given poor record-keeping practices in the mining sector and the passage of time.
The organisation warns that the removal of ODMWA certificates as valid evidence could result in the effective collapse of thousands of legitimate claims. Many families, already waiting years for compensation, may find themselves excluded entirely from the scheme. In its statement, JFM describes this as a “quiet mass exclusion” that disproportionately affects some of the most vulnerable people in the region, particularly older women in rural communities who depended on deceased miners.
Legally, JFM contends that Amendment No. 9 may violate the Trust’s own governing provisions. The Trust Deed explicitly recognises ODMWA certificates as valid for claims processing and includes safeguards against amendments that would adversely affect the rights of beneficiaries. By removing a recognised pathway to compensation, the organisation argues, the proposed change directly undermines those protections.
JFM has formally written to Beatrice Desiree van Wyk, the Master of the South Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg, urging her to reject the amendment. The Master’s office is responsible for overseeing trusts under South Africa’s Trust Property Control Act and must approve any amendments before they come into force. In its submission, JFM has called not only for the rejection of Amendment No. 9 but also for scrutiny of the Trust’s administration, raising concerns about potential maladministration.
The issue has also taken on a regional dimension, reflecting the cross-border nature of the mining workforce. Significant numbers of affected miners originate from countries including Lesotho, Mozambique, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Malawi and Eswatini. JFM has appealed to governments across the Southern African Development Community to intervene, arguing that they have both a moral obligation and a direct interest in ensuring their citizens receive the compensation they are owed.
Letters have been sent to ministers responsible for health, mining, and compensation in several countries, urging coordinated action before a decision is made. JFM has also requested in-person meetings with officials to present its case and advocate for a joint response. The organisation maintains that the Trust was created to address a historic injustice and that any move which restricts access to compensation risks compounding that injustice rather than resolving it.
The controversy surrounding Amendment No. 9 comes at a critical moment for the Tshiamiso Trust, which has been under pressure to process claims efficiently while managing finite resources. Critics, however, argue that efficiency cannot come at the expense of fairness, particularly when dealing with a population that has already borne the brunt of systemic neglect.
For many former miners and their families, the outcome of the Master’s decision will have life-altering consequences. Compensation payments are often used to cover medical expenses, support dependants, and provide a measure of financial security in communities where economic opportunities are limited. The potential loss of access to these funds raises broader questions about accountability and the extent to which post-settlement mechanisms are fulfilling their intended purpose.
As scrutiny intensifies, the decision on Amendment No. 9 is likely to resonate far beyond the confines of the Trust itself, shaping perceptions of justice and redress in one of the most significant occupational health settlements in southern Africa. For the thousands of claimants whose futures hang in the balance, the stakes could scarcely be higher.
Discussion about this post