Group’s objection seeks to maintain the status quo
● Grahamstown renamed Makhanda
The article titled “Grahamstown name change ‘was not legal’ ” (September 6) follows a number of articles on the legality of the renaming process leading to Grahamstown becoming Makhanda.
SA is emerging from a long history of colonial and apartheid domination whose impact we are still dealing with as a country.
As it relates to geographical place naming, this was a deliberate process undertaken by our colonisers to ensure that they imposed their hegemony on those they had conquered.
It is on this basis that the Eastern Cape Provincial Geographical Names Committee (ECPGNC) was established in terms of the SA Geographical Names Council Act.
Its major responsibility is to facilitate the standardisation of geographical names, ensure the implementation of standardised geographical names and advise the minister of arts and culture on names to be standardised. The standardisation of geographical names (or geographical place naming) should be viewed and understood as part of the government’s broader deliberate transformation in line with the relevant legislation.
The Keep Grahamstown Grahamstown (KGG) group has complained about the legality of the process to standardise or rename Grahamstown to Makhanda.
First, it should be noted that the ECPGNC’s procedural guidelines state that, after receiving an application to rename a feature, the ECPGNC must call a meeting of stakeholders to explain the process and request stakeholders to tell their constituencies of the process and encourage them to take part in the processes to be followed.
This is one of the important aspects of ECPGNC’s consultation process.
The application for renaming of Grahamstown was received in 2014.
When informed about stakeholder engagements, KGG (as one of the key stakeholders) objected to the proposed renaming and the process to be followed, citing processes conducted by the Makana Municipality for the reaming of Grahamstown Local Municipality to Makana Municipality.
The process referred to by the KGG is governed by a separate set of legislation.
The ECPGNC explained to the group (in a number of emails) that this was a separate process as it fell outside of the ECPGNC’s jurisdiction and that it was in everyone’s interest that it participated in the process.
Public hearings proceeded, and KGG indicated it would not attend and would discourage its constituency from attending such public engagements.
Though indication from KGG was it would not attend, the argument it advances suggests that it was part of these processes as it was fully informed of what transpired at the public meeting.
The process requires that the outcomes of the public engagements be publicised in local newspapers, and comments and objections be invited from any individual or groups.
The ECPGNC received more than 200 objections based on the legality, economic considerations and other aspects. What was very interesting was that the content of more than 150 objections was the same as that submitted by the KGG.
All objections were dealt with by the ECPGNC subcommittee on objections which then made its recommendations to the ECPGNC for a decision to uphold the results of the public engagements.
The ECPGNC confirmed the recommendation of the public and that of the objections committee to rename Grahamstown Makhanda.
This decision was communicated to all objectors (including the KGG).
The process further gives an opportunity to objectors to appeal to the minister should they wish to do so.
A further invitation was extended to the objectors (including KGG) by the SA Geographical Names Council to present their cases at a meeting held in February in Makhanda.
In its response KGG indicated it would not attend such a meeting, but in fact did attend and was afforded an opportunity to make a presentation.
Having considered all presentations and evidence, the council made its recommendations to the minister.
The objection by KGG should be understood for what it is, an attempt to maintain the status quo at all costs.
It was never about the procedural correctness and legitimacy of the process, but to fight for the retention of the name Grahamstown.
KGG was formed even before the processes began, so it would be naive of us to think that these people would accept anything except keeping Grahamstown Grahamstown.
KGG threatened legal action long before the process was finalised.
It continues to make statements that also question the legitimacy of other processes it was not even part of, for the sole purpose of camouflaging its resistance to democratic transformation processes.
In all these processes KGG has not presented any new material evidence that would suggest that this process was flawed.
If such evidence does exist the minister must be given space to consider such evidence and not be bulldozed by groups such as KGG who are behaving like spoilt brats to get what they want.
The narrative that is being peddled is both misleading and against transformation, and cannot be left unchallenged.
I am confident that should the matter be taken to court we will emerge victorious as we followed every legal process to its logical conclusion.
Zukile Jodwana, deputy chairperson, Eastern Cape Geographical Names Committee, writing in an individual capacity