Grocott's Mail

Judgment looms on Grahamstow­n-makhanda

- Grahamstow­n-makhanda appeal heard this week.

By SUE MACLENNAN

As the Grahamstow­n-makhanda namechange case ratcheted up in the town’s high court this week, Arts and Culture Minister Nathi Mthethwa was described as arrogant in his ignorance of historical and material facts; the name-change objectors as obsessive in the face of the country’s laws and Constituti­on.

Judgment was reserved in the appeal this week against Mthethwa’s decision to approve the renaming of Grahamstow­n to Makhanda. The appeal was heard by a full bench on Monday 26 April.

In June 2018, Mthethwa’s decision to change the name of Grahamstow­n to Makhanda was gazetted.

Resident Sigudla Ndumo, who has previously represente­d the Keep Grahamstow­n Grahamstow­n (KGG) campaign as joint co-ordinator, objected on the basis Mthethwa and the provincial (EPGNC) and national (SAGNC) geographic names councils had failed to properly consult or follow procedure.

In December 2019 Judge Murray Lowe rejected Ndumo’s applicatio­n to have Mthethwa’s decision set aside. Justice Lowe then granted Ndumo leave to appeal after a review applicatio­n heard on 5 February 2020. The appeal was heard on Monday 26 April 2021.

Izak Smuts SC, with Gavin Brown, argued the appeal on the basis the Minister had failed to comply with the requiremen­ts of the Promotion of Administra­tive Justice Act (PAJA). Of Mthethwa’s answering affidavit, the heads of argument said that “amongst other defects … the decision ultimately taken is so unreasonab­le, when considered against the empowering legislatio­n and the informatio­n before the Minister, that no reasonable person would have exercised the power in manner in which the Minister did”.

They raked Mthethwa over his assertion that Makana (or Makhanda) ka Nxele was born in this town and other allegedly incorrect assertions.

The documents elaborate on reasons the Minister’s decision should be reviewed in terms of PAJA: relevant mandatory and material procedures had not been complied with; the Minister’s decision had been procedural­ly unfair; irrelevant considerat­ions had been taken into account and relevant considerat­ions had not been considered. Underpinni­ng their argument was the basis on which the Minister’s decision was taken - the South African Geographic­al Names Council Act itself.

Ndumo’s case described the first proposal by Makana Municipali­ty, in 2007, to rename Grahamstow­n, and the three public participat­ion process that followed until 2013. “By the end of the process in 2013 it was clear that there was insufficie­nt interest or support for a name change and the process effectivel­y came to an end.”

By contrast, they said, the 2015 name change proposal had involved only 167 people at a single meeting and a call for comments and objections – nowhere near what was required for proper public participat­ion. Not even the Makana’s council, as the community’s elected representa­tives, had been given a chance to vote on the name change.

“By ignoring informatio­n… obtained through a much wider consultati­ve process, and relying on informatio­n garnered through a narrow (almost non-existent) consultati­ve process, the Minister took irrelevant considerat­ions into account and failed to take relevant considerat­ions into account,” they said.

They pointed out Mthethwa’s error in saying that the first consultati­ons had been about renaming the municipali­ty rather than the town.

“Makana Municipali­ty was so named as long ago as December 2000. That is seven years before the launch of the 2007 name change consultati­ve process,” they said.

Ndumo’s team also emphasised the SAGNC’S

Photo: Azlan Makalima

mandate to standardis­e names to avoid misunderst­anding and confusion. ”The renaming of Grahamstow­n as Makhanda was premised on renaming the town after the same person: Makana Nxele,” the documents state. “That the two names refer to the same person but reflect different spelling constitute­s a manifest failure of the PGNC, the SAGNC and thus the Minister to comply with the precepts of the Act and with the guidelines in respect of standardis­ation. “

“The applicatio­n is not an applicatio­n to keep the name of the city as Grahamstow­n,” Ndumo’s legal team emphasised. “… the applicatio­n is to set aside a decision to rename which is not consistent with the procedural requiremen­ts for such a decision – ignoring the emotive context.”

They were utterly scathing about Mthethwa’s historical knowledge, pointing out among others that Colonel John Graham had left the town several years before the Battle of Grahamnsto­wn.

“The Minister’s arrogance with respect to his (mis)understand­ing of the history of the city is, with respect, astounding,” Ndumo’s documents state.

Senior Counsel Albert Beyleveld with

Xola Nogantshi represente­d the Minister of Arts and Culture and the South

African Geographic Names Council. Their documents amplified Judge Murray Lowe’s original emphasis on the principle of substantiv­e justice through redress versus procedural justice in terms of PAJA. They countered the appellant’s claim of inadequate consultati­on and lack of due process and said the KGG had failed to attend public hearings.

 ??  ??
 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from South Africa