Customary Land Rights and the Mining Regulation
In the Republic of Aldonia, Article 12 of the Constitution recognises customary law 'subject to statutes', Article 9 gives ratified treaties 'the force of law', and Article 15 guarantees property. The Mining Act 2019, s 4, empowers the Minister to make regulations 'for sustainable mining'; s 22 requires a licence applicant to negotiate a community consent agreement with affected customary landowners. In 2023 the Minister issues Regulation 7, which imposes a 30% local-equity requirement and provides that any customary land claim not registered within 60 days is extinguished. Kestrel Minerals holds a licence over land used by the Toma community under long-standing, unregistered customary tenure. Aldonia ratified the Indigenous Land Rights Treaty 2018, which requires effective consultation and recognition of customary tenure. Kestrel begins clearing land without a consent agreement, relying on Regulation 7. The Toma community seeks judicial review and a declaration that its customary rights remain enforceable. The Minister argues that the regulation is a valid exercise of s 4 and that the treaty creates only political obligations.
1. Does Regulation 7 fall within the Minister's enabling power? Explain the hierarchy-of-law analysis and the effect of the conflict with s 22.
Read the worked answer
Issue. Whether Regulation 7 is valid, given its extinguishment of unregistered customary claims and its conflict with s 22.
Hierarchy. The Constitution is supreme; Art 12 makes customary law enforceable 'subject to statutes', but a statute does not authorise a minister to extinguish constitutional property rights without clear words. A regulation is subordinate legislation: it is valid only if authorised by the parent Act and consistent with it, with the Constitution, and with applicable treaty obligations. Section 4 authorises regulations 'for sustainable mining', not the retrospective destruction of customary tenure. Section 22 presupposes negotiation and consent; Regulation 7 removes the very subject matter of that negotiation by extinguishing claims after 60 days.
Application. The 60-day extinguishment is not incidental to sustainable mining; it is a substantive property-law rule. It also conflicts with s 22 and with Art 15. The local-equity requirement may be within s 4 if reasonably related to sustainable mining, but the extinguishment provision is severable and invalid. The Minister's subjective view cannot cure ultra vires action.
Conclusion. Regulation 7's extinguishment clause is ultra vires and of no effect; the remainder may stand if severable. Kestrel cannot rely on it to clear land.
2. What is the status of the Indigenous Land Rights Treaty 2018 in Aldonian law, and can the Toma community rely on it directly?
Read the worked answer
Issue. Whether the 2018 Treaty is a direct source of rights for the Toma community.
Rule. Article 9 gives ratified treaties 'the force of law'. In a dualist system, ratification alone may not incorporate a treaty; but Art 9 is a constitutional reception clause, so the Treaty becomes part of domestic law on ratification. It ranks below the Constitution but above subordinate legislation; as between treaty and later statute, the later statute prevails if clearly inconsistent, unless the Constitution gives the treaty higher status. Courts also interpret statutes consistently with treaty obligations.
Application. The Treaty requires effective consultation and recognition of customary tenure. It does not itself create a registered-title system or override s 22. It reinforces the interpretation that s 22 requires negotiation. Regulation 7, which extinguishes claims without consultation, is inconsistent with the Treaty and invalid on that additional ground. The community can rely on the Treaty directly because Art 9 makes it enforceable, but its strongest claim is still under the Act and Constitution.
Conclusion. The Treaty is a directly enforceable source; it supports invalidity of Regulation 7 but cannot override a clearly inconsistent later statute.
3. If the court finds Regulation 7 invalid, what remedies and practical consequences follow for Kestrel's clearing operations?
Read the worked answer
Issue. What relief follows if Regulation 7 is invalid.
Analysis. Judicial review remedies are discretionary. A declaration that the extinguishment provision is invalid and an order quashing it are the primary remedies. Because Kestrel is about to clear land without the s 22 consent agreement, the court can grant an interim or permanent injunction restraining clearing until negotiation occurs. The licence itself is not automatically void; it remains subject to s 22 and any lawful conditions. Damages are not available in judicial review against the Minister, though a separate action might lie if a public-law breach causes loss; that is uncertain. The court should consider suspension of the quashing order to allow the Authority to regularise, but because fundamental property rights are affected, immediate relief is likely.
Practical. Kestrel must negotiate with the Toma community; unregistered customary tenure can still be proved by evidence of long use. The 60-day registration deadline cannot be used to defeat the claim. The community should also seek a stay of clearing operations.
Conclusion. Declaration, quashing, and injunction; Kestrel's clearing should stop pending compliance.