Traditional and Khoi-San Leadership Bill – ONAFHANKLIK
Posted on 19 November 2019 19 November 2019 by volksvryheid
Recognition must be given to ALL people like the Khoi San, their different subgroups, if they want to rule themselves. In terms of international law, it is still their choices, as well as to the Afrikaners and Boers to rule themselves, independently. Currently, all the others are discriminating against all white people of South Africa with the B-BBEE and EE legislations.
We as people, all have human rights to rule ourselves, we do not want this chaos, revolution and corruption in South Africa.
We have a right to live our own lives, have our own schools and education in AFRIKAANS and ENGLISH.
We are not going into others’ houses and kill them or interfere with the chiefmen or zulu king.
Who are killing our peoples on a daily basis, on farms, in cities and towns? We do not set alight businesses or burn down schools.
The ANC do not care at all. By the way, as there are different ethnic black groups, are there also different Khoi san groups of people. The Zulu people have also their separate land, Ingonyama trust and there is no problem with that. Same with the Richtersveld and others lands for the Khoi san peoples.
The five groups of the Khoi san were the Nama, Koranna, Griqua, the San and the Cape Khoi. It has been said that the Khoi had been grouped as coloured by the apartheid government, but the Khoi regarded themselves as Khoisan forever and coloured never. The current government was the same as the apartheid government in that respect.
The Khoi were not ‘traditional’, they were ‘indigenous aboriginal’ and the Western Cape Khoi Council wanted the opportunity to speak as the aboriginal voice and make an input into the making of the Bill. The parliamentary buildings stood on sacred Khoisan ground according to aboriginal Khoisan rites. He pleaded that the Committee speak to the Khoisan people and called for the establishment of a concordat amongst all those that were not white. The Khoisan struggle predated any other struggle and it was painful when other people decided on the spirit and blood of his nation and he encouraged the Committee to reach out to the Western Cape Khoisan Council leadership.
Ms Aishia Pinto, personal assistant to the late traditional leader Khomani San Bushmen leader, Mr Dawid Hermanus Kruiper, said the transitional arrangements were troublesome and should be scrapped.
On customary law, she said every community had its own customary laws and provision should be made for that. The national immunity for traditional leaders was wrong and should be changed. On boundaries, she said the Kruiper family stretched across South Africa, Namibia and Botswana and wanted to come home. She asked how the Bill could talk of five houses when talking of land. She said it was asking for trouble when talking of Traditional Councils where a branch head served on the council. She said she would submit a written document for consideration.
2019 – The Sonke Gender Justice in partnership with the Alliance for Rural Democracy are urging President Cyril Ramaphosa to scrap the Traditional Khoisan Leadership Bill and the Traditional Court Bill. The two organisations contend that the two laws would be detrimental to rural communities. They marched to the Union Buildings in Pretoria today, to submit their memorandum. Our reporter Ofentse Setimo has been following the story.
2017 – Parliament is set to pass a bill that will recognise the Khoisan as part of the South African community. The bill is aimed at giving recognition to Khoisan communities, leaders and structures. Traditional and Khoisan Leadership Bill was backed up by all provinces except for the Democratic Alliance-led Western Cape. Now to talk to us about the bill we are joined in studio by Constance Mogale, the leader of the Alliance for Rural Democracy.
Khoi-San communities could soon be integrated into existing Houses of Traditional Leaders. Public hearings have been held in several provinces since last year. This week, it was the turn of the Free State to get input on draft legislation for the Traditional and Khoi-San leadership Bill. Members of the Portfolio Committee on Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs, facilitated today’s hearings in Thaba Nchu, east of Bloemfontein.
Hoeveel erkenning moet en moes gegee geword het, daar is naas “Agtergrond” ook ander artikels waar die Khoi san reeds grondgebiede ontvang het, wat miljoene hektaar beloop, reeds sover terug as 2007, sommige in Thabo Mbeki se tyd. Dit is opvallend dat swart en bruin mense verkondig hulle is grondloos, terwyl dit nie so is nie.
Die administrasie van grondeise, die wetgewing, het basies die ou tuislande vervang, met ‘n paar groter gebiede en het na 1994 ingeskop. Basies geld dit slegs vir bruin en swart gemeenskappe in Suid-Afrika. Meestal is dit ook op gebiede waar hul vir etlike dekades op woonagtig is, selfs voor 1994 al.
Gerieflik in sommige gevalle, wat die Bruin of Khoi san volke vergeet, is dat die Britse meesters, terwyl daar kolonialisme plaasgevind het onder Britse kroon, is baie van die Bruin en Griekwas se gebiede “verander” na Britse kroongebiede en dan word dit aan ons sogenaamde “apartheidsdeur” vasgeheg. Is nie ons Afrikaners of Boere wat dit annekseer het en nog minder het ons dit “kroongebiede” of reservate (1854) gedoop. Hier was slegs kommunale regte van toepassing – geen titelaktes nie, omrede dit ook nie Britse grondgebiede was nie, het niemand eintlik enige titelaktes besit nie.
Al die swart volke wat van die noorde afkomstig was ongeveer 1800, het geen grond gekoop nie en nog minder enige titelaktes besit. Khoi san is en was nog al die jare “rondtrekkend” en ook daar is, behalwe boesmantekeninge, nie infrastruktuur of stede gevestig nie. Daar was nerens bewyse hiervoor nie.
Die Britse “kroongebiede” word ook in die ou Britse kaarte aangewys dat die Richtersveld was ‘n Britse kroongebied, die Griekwas het ook op Britse kroongebiede gebly, en voor dit het die Britte dit afgeneem, nie Afrikaners of Boere nie.
In die Unie van 1910 (1913) dokumente, word dit ook vervat as Britse kroongebiede of reservate, en het hierdie gebiede niks te doen met die “swart tuislande” van 1961 nie.
Dit was ook onder Britse bewind ingestel, in 1854, terwyl Lord Shepstone , (volgens artikels) en swart leiers aparte gebiede geskep het, wat hul of lokasies, reservate of kroongebiede genoem het. Hoekom aparte gebiede? Hoekom bly swart en khoisan nie ook deurmekaar op Ingonyama trust en Richtersveld nie? Dit was net na die Mfecane oorloe geskep om hul uitmekaar te hou. Waar kom al die rewolusies vandag vandaan? dis dan in ‘n sogenaamde demokratiese land en daar is 50+ moorde per dag.
Die Shepstone beleid van die Britse heersers bevat slegs reservate/lokasies wat net kommunale gebiede is, nes die CPA wetgewing (grondeise onder die ANC bewind) (of die CPA van London bewind).
Indien hierdie 30 miljoen bruin , swart of khoi san net kommunale regte (lewensreg) verkry vanaf die ANC, is dit ook nie ons blankes se skuld nie. Alles word voor “apartheid” se deur geplaas, maar dis omdat die spul heeltyd met mekaar en ons baklei. Ons gaan nie in hul stede in of gaan val hulle aan nie. Wie rand ons Boere en Blankes aan? Hou maar die howe en polisie ondersoeke dop en kyk wie die aanvallers is.
Wie het dus na 1994 toegestem tot die CPA (kommunale regte) of die Trustgebiede (Ingonyama trust voor 1994), waar dit slegs kommunale regte bied?
Dit is tyd dat die ANC wegdoen met hul diktatorskap in die land, hul korrupsie en guptas wat ons leeg steel, ons maatskappye wat vir etlike jare opgebou is , is in 25 jaar tot op die grond afgebreek. Wat is oor van Eskom? SAL? Denel? Telkom? en vele ander?
Dit is tyd dat die regering van die dag stopgesit word om te diskrimineer teenoor blankes met hul swart bemagtiging en regstellende aksie wetgewings. Letwel, nie beleid nie, maar WETGEWING.
Ons wil onsself regeer in ons eie gebiede soos ons dit voorheen gedoen het. Gun elke ander volk dieselfde regte.
En nee, dit het absoluut niks met apartheid te doen nie, om onafhanklikheid te verkry is soos Botswana, Suid-Sudan en vele ander wat dit gekry het. Ons het almal daardie regte, dis ‘n internasionale reg en moet ons nie blindstaar wat ons kan of mag doen nie.
Botswana opereer ook onafhanklik en daar is baie ander lande, wat klein is, soos Switzerland wat ook geen hawe het nie, maar tog, die ondersoeke van ons gebiede, wys dat daar wel gebiede is waarop ons kan en mag aanspraak maak.
Ons as Afrikaner en Boer volk (blankes) wil ook nes die ander volke, ons eie gebiede, eie skole, eie leiers he, onsself regeer, totaal onafhanklik van die etniese volke wat steeds apart van mekaar bly.
Die politici sowel as hierdie tradisionele leiers, skop bohaai op oor “aparte” gebiede van tuislande of “apartheid”, maar hulle bly dan steeds apart in of trustgebiede of cpa’s. Ons verbied nie een van hierdie volke hul hul ruimtes nie. Maar hulle bly net wetgewing opstel teenoor die blankes in hierdie land, om teen ons te diskrimineer en ons uit te wis. Hulle leef op hierdie gebiede sedert die Britte hul van hul grond vervreem het voor 1900. Al is dit aparte kroongebiede of cpa vandag.
Ons het geen belang by hierdie aparte trustgebiede, of aparte cpa’s of aparte 8840 tradisionele leiers of selfs meer nie en hoekom moet ons hulle onderhou wat daagliks met swart bemagtiging teen ons diskrimineer?
8840 traditiona leaders (Khoi san, coloured and blacks)
It was recently declared that the South African traditional leaders cost the taxpayer over R250 million a year. but it is much more than that. Traditionally, the zulu or xhosa leaders (queen/king) are only rulers of their own people and tribes, not the traditional leaders of the Khoisan, Indian or Afrikaner/Boer people. Khoisan and Griqwa do have their own leaders as well lands. There are 8840 traditional leaders at the moment – living on Trustland or CPAs (old homelands and landclaims). Therefore, it is not the “Government” that pay the bills, but the “taxpayers”. But who are those 8840 black and coloured traditional leaders? All of them, were “appointed” after 1994 in their own separate lands.
Segregation was created in 1854 by the traditional leaders and Lord Shepstone (policy) in London. The great media and other propaganda lies told against apartheid countermanded: In 1988, a German book (The lie of apartheid and other true stories from Southern Africa) reported how benevolent the “White Giant of Africa’ actually had been under so-called apartheid.
The Sonke Gender Justice and the Alliance for Rural Democracy are expected to march against the signing into law of the Traditional and Khoi-San Leadership Bill and the passing into law of the Traditional Courts Bill. The organisations argues that the Bills are unconstitutional as they will effectively bring back apartheid homelands by subjecting people to different laws in different parts of the country. Our reporter, Ofentse Setimo is covering the march and he joins us.
Khoi san have different groups of people under them, that also live apart, some on CPAs. They are not the same people as blacks. The Zulu people are also different from the Tswana people and they have all different traditions, chiefmans or kingdoms, etc. The Zulu people also have access to millions of hectare of land in Ingonyama trust in KZN since 1994. What is so difficult to give recognition to each people’s traditions, languages, history, cultures and identities. Most of the ethnic blacks do still live apart in their own areas, call it today CPA or trustland. Khoi san people also received land during the Mbeki era. They all have different leaders that receive salaries and benefits from our Tax money.
On whether all coloured people were Khoisan, Ms Jansen replied that former President Nelson Mandela’s administration with the Status Quo reports clarified who the Khoisan were in South Africa.
There were five historical Khoi and San communities, each of which had subgroupings. The Khoisan were not included in the integration process of the TGLFA and President Nelson Mandela then established a Khoisan Council to ensure that leadership claims could be recognised. International law accepted the right of people to self identify with a community. She said a significant amount of coloureds stemmed from the Khoi community but such an identity could not be forced on people.
During January 2019 the Traditional and Khoi-San Leadership Bill has been passed by the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) and now awaits the signature of President Cyril Ramaphosa to make it law. In the NCOP, only the Western Cape did not support the Bill. The province’s chief whip, the Democratic Alliance’s Cathleen Labuschagne, said: “The Bill is discriminatory because it treats traditional Khoisan leaders differently and applies different criteria for recognition. The opinion is also that the Bill puts too much power and authority into the hands of traditional Khoisan leaders and council’s to enter into agreements and partnerships with insufficient input from the affected communities.”
– to consolidate the existing national legislation relating to traditional leadership and to address the shortcomings of such legislation in order to improve the implementation thereof.
– to make provision for the first time ever for the statutory recognition of the Khoi-San communities and leaders.
– to provide for Khoi-San structures similar to those of traditional communities and for recognised Khoi-San leaders to become members of the houses of traditional leaders which will in future be known as houses of Traditional and Khoi-San Leaders.
HANSARD 19 SEPTEMBER 2018
The Committee heard submissions from Natural Justice, Institute for Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS), Land and Accountability Research Centre (LARC), Legal Resources Centre (LRC) and the Finance and Fiscal Commission (FFC).
There were also oral inputs from the Commission for Gender Equality, Western Cape Legislative Khoisan Council, a representative of the Khomani San Bushmen, the Jan Arrie Royal House and the Griqua Royal Authority Council at public hearings on the Traditional and Khoi-San Leadership Bill.
Ms Jansen said it was important to have this Bill because Nelson Mandela had expressed view that no attempt should be made to abolish African culture and tradition and that an amicable solution based on democratic principles be found, allowing traditional leaders to play a meaningful role at all levels of government. Secondly, Africa was rebooting its legal policy and institutional framework to resuscitate traditional values and institutions and also because Carl Jung spoke of the mutilation of a people who lived without myth/history.
She spoke of the criteria for the recognition of the Khoisan community and spoke about the former homelands and apartheid boundaries.
The Land and Accountability Research Centre (LARC) said it had an explicit concern over power relations and the impact of laws and policy on rural women and men as they struggled for change. LARC was concerned that the Bill would be detrimental to the full recognition of ‘living’ customary law and the democratic rights of citizens of the former homelands.
It felt that the Bill entrenched colonial and apartheid geographic boundaries. These boundaries locked people into territorial jurisdictions used to justify unaccountable authority by traditional leaders. This resulted in the imposition of tribal identities and the suppression of countervailing forms of resubmission and these flaws were not sufficiently mitigated by the weak transformative mechanisms provided. It called for the Bill to be rejected and proposed that the government use ‘living’ customary law, self identification and consensual legitimacy rather than colonial and apartheid tribal boundaries. The Bill’s treatment of the Khoisan set a precedent for the recognition of customary identification through affiliation rather than territory.
The Jan Arrie Royal House asked why the Khoisan were not free as its people had gone through Dutch, British and apartheid revolutions. There could not be reconciliation without restitution. Why were the Khoisan left out of the 1913 land claims?
The Bill as it stood would result in many of the Khoisan chiefs going to jail. Could there rather not be restorative or corrective measures put in place? The Bill stripped the Khoisan naked and they would fight because the Khoisan could not be submissive, the Khoisan were here to stay.
The Griqua Royal Authority Council said the Bill gave no recognition of kings and queens, only of chiefs and headmen which were in any case colonial titles. The Bill did not make provision for the Khoisan to get land which meant that there is no real authority when the Khoisan have no land or resources.
They had made recommendations but no one was forced to accept these recommendations. The Bill was not acceptable to the Khoisan people and they could not say anything good about the Bill. They might be politically free but they were not economically free. The government should not do things for them but rather with them.
Members said the submissions spoke to the dichotomy between the Khoisan criteria and the African traditional leaders criteria. If the land criteria were to be taken away, how would that affect the current status quo, especially of African traditional leaders?
Was Ms Jansen calling for a land based system?
Members asked whether all coloureds were Khoisan or were some Khoisan labelled coloureds?
Were the Status Quo reports available? With regard to recourse and accountability, Members asked what the link was to make a bold statement that ‘young South Africans do not take kindly to authoritarian rule as the universities had discovered’. The tendency was to look at traditional leaders and not the institutions within which they worked.
Members said they could not understand why the Khoisan could not be part of the broader African community. Members asked how a restorative aspect would be put as a criterion in the Bill. Members said that the introduction of wards in municipalities meant that there was a two in one form of government which had come into effect together with traditional leadership. How did one come out of that conundrum because the geographic nature of it posed a problem?
The LRC complained that a lot had not been done in the past that needed to be corrected, what were the crucial things that needed to be looked at by the Committee? Comments made about boundaries required some scrutiny. The OAU position was wise when it said that it would abide by colonial boundaries because not doing so would have resulted in numerous wars.
The Khoisan leaders have rejected the proposed Traditional and Khoisan Leadership Bill (TKLB) once more. This follows a protest by the Alliance for Rural Democracy (ARD) a few weeks ago. The protesters called on President Cyril Ramaphosa not to sign the Traditional and Khoisan Leadership and Traditional Courts bills calling them “Bantustan bills”. We all have a right to rule ourselves. Not by political parties and multi-culture political parties.
There are various kinds of minerals in South Africa – we all know that and we all know that there were different WARS about this minerals and there are still today the same WARS, between the people and those “elites” that wanted everything for themselves. Richtersveld area was also a land claim from the Khoi san people and that changed the property (ies) as a registered CPA (s).
KHOISAN and LANDCLAIMS
Previous Post Milankovitch cycles
Next Post Platinum – Bushveld Complex
Een gedagte oor “Traditional and Khoi-San Leadership Bill”
[…] Aparte wetgewing – separate legislation Traditional and Khoi-San Leadership Bill […]