National Khoi-San Council briefing; Traditional Authorities in Ghana; COGTA Annual Performance Plan discussion

This premium content has been made freely available

Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs

02 March 2016
Chairperson: Mr R Mdakane (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Committee heard from the Centre for Indigenous Knowledge and Organisational Development (CIKOD) on strengthening endogenous development in Ghana by looking at the role of traditional authorities in Ghana’s contemporary development and from the National Khoi and San Council (NKSC) before continuing discussions, held over from the previous day, on the Department’s Annual Report.

CIKOD spoke to the conceptual framework for endogenous development, the difference between endogenous development and participatory development approaches, working with indigenous institutions, resources and cultural heritage and challenges and opportunities. Endogenous development called for ‘development from within’ where external intervention had to support and strengthen that development.

Members said it appeared Ghana was wrestling with the same problems South Africa was struggling with on the role of traditional leaders in society. How did this relate to the Khoi-San which had a different leadership structure? What role should traditional leaders have as opposed to the current role? Members asked how traditional structures in Ghana initiated projects and how did they mobilise the community for these projects. Members asked what authority did the traditional leaders have because in South Africa, the Constitution was supreme. Traditional leaders were not elected, so how did one reconcile a democratic leader and the role of traditional leaders and kings. Did Ghana have a council for traditional leaders? Were there tensions between indigenous systems and local government? Members asked about the utilisation of local resources in Ghana and how these were used in the modern environment.

The National Khoi and San Council (NKSC) gave a historical background to the establishment of the NKSC in 1999. The mandate of the NKSC was to negotiate the constitutional development of the Khoi-San and the aims of the NKSC included claiming primary traditional knowledge on rooibos and buchu products. The NKSC wanted the issue of land linked to the Khoi-San matter. Three key foundations of the NKSC was the need for land, geographical jurisdiction and hierarchical leadership.

The NKSC supported the Traditional and Khoi-San Leadership Bill and called for it to be enacted without further delay. The NKSC supported the recognition of African customary law and institutions and that this should be coupled with democratic principles. It believed in the African policy framework of the African Commission on Human Rights and Peoples Rights.

Members asked if outsiders would have to be moved if the Kranshoek location was deemed Griqualand. Members noted the Department had said that it did not have available data to trace these communities because organisations had been destroyed by the colonisers. Why could it not trace the basis of the Griqua people through the intergenerational transfer of knowledge? How would the issue of geographic location be resolved? Members noted that the Council had been elected in 1999 and asked when it was last mandated. Which area would it want to practice its cultural identity; did it want land in each province? Was the headquarters part of the paramountcy?

Ms Lesle Jansen, a lawyer from Natural Justice and Expert Member of the African Commission’s Working Group on Indigenous Populations, spoke about the inclusion of the Khoi and San into the system so that the law recognised what had historically, socially and politically gone wrong. It would also allow them to be part of the broader African community in South Africa with due consideration that the past had separated them.

The Committee then resumed discussing the Annual Performance Plan of the Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs. Members said the national framework for the remuneration of traditional leaders had been promised to the Committee but no specifics had been mentioned. When would it be standardised? Members were concerned over the timeframe of the Bill. Would the next sitting of the Cabinet approve the policy so that the processing of the Bill could start? Members asked what concrete plans did COGTA have to address the progress report especially regarding slides 11 and 12. When did the Department foresee the debate on the Bill starting so that it could be finalised? Members asked how many paramountcies in Sekhukhune, Gazankulu and Venda received their budgets.

Members said the Department had monitored processes, with regard to plans to eliminate municipal disclaimers. What were the new mechanisms the Department would introduce if municipalities were unwilling to implement action? Members said they had been waiting for two years for the comprehensive report on action based on forensics reports of municipalities. Members asked what interventions the Department had to deal with politicians at municipal level involved in illegal decisions. Which municipalities made councillors pay back monies? Members disagreed on the establishment of a training institute, especially considering the difficult financial situation of the country. There was already investment in the Sector Education and Training Authroity. On the Spatial Development Toolkit, Members asked why there was a need for another toolkit.

Members said revenue enhancement had to be implemented faster. Members said managers had been appointed who had no skills leading to billing not being done correctly and hence people were not paying. In addition municipalities had no Local Economic Development (LED) strategies and were struggling to identify job creation opportunities. Members called for enforcement of compliance on regulations to be pursued with vigour. Members urged that letters be written to the MECs as soon as possible. Members said the question of alignment needed to be sorted out quickly. On partnerships with the private sector, Members said they did not have a clear sense of the ‘adopt a municipality’ initiative. Members were encouraged by the increase in talk of long term planning. Members noted that the last meeting on preparations for the elections had been 12 June and they did not see the Department treating this as a priority. How was the partnership with the private sector doing?
 

Meeting report

Role of traditional authorities in Ghana: briefing by CIKOD
Mr Wilberforce Laate, Deputy Executive Director of the Centre for Indigenous Knowledge and Organisational Development (CIKOD), gave a presentation on strengthening endogenous development (development from within) in Ghana by looking at the role of traditional authorities in Ghana’s contemporary development. He spoke to the main concepts of endogenous development, African world views and the forces undermining endogenous development.

He moved on to speak to the traditional authority system in Ghana, its composition and role and duties, the interface between traditional authorities and state institutions and the relevance and effectiveness of traditional authorities.

The challenges facing traditional authorities were that tribal chiefs were perceived as unaccountable, corrupt, undemocratic and selfish. He also spoke to good practices of traditional authorities.

Discussion
Mr K Mileham (DA) said it appeared Ghana was wrestling with the same problems South Africa was struggling with on the role of traditional leaders in society. How did this relate to the Khoi-San which had a different leadership structure? What role should traditional leaders have as opposed to the current role?

Mr E Mthethwa (ANC) asked how traditional structures initiated projects and how did they mobilise the community for these projects.

Mr Laate gave the example of government initiating a borehole for a community but the community refused to use the water because the site was close to old burial grounds. In Ghana they were engaging the district assemblies to consult with the traditional authorities who were gatekeepers.

He said that the traditional authorities were well established in Ghana and everybody belonged to one, but bylaws had to be respected. His focus however was on endogenous development where the youth were not so interested in Ghanaian culture.

Mr B Bhanga (DA) asked what authority did the traditional leaders have because in South Africa, the Constitution was supreme. Traditional leaders were not elected, so how did one reconcile a democratic leader and the role of traditional leaders and kings. Did Ghana have a council for traditional leaders?

Mr C Motsepe (DA) asked if there were tensions between indigenous systems and local government?

Mr A Masondo (ANC) asked if Mr Laate had experiences of the utilisation of local resources in Ghana and how these were used in the modern environment? He said there appeared to be a big tension between religious groups in many countries. Could he comment on the alienation of the youth and harmful religious practices like eating of snakes and drinking petrol experienced in Ghana and how was this being tackled.

Regarding Mr Masondo’s question, Mr Laate said that religion belonged to the Council but not all belonged to religion. It was not about who shouted the most or was most quiet who was in touch with God but it was who was most sincere in his interactions with God. He said he believed churches were not doing too well, there was a hunger in the churches and one would not go and look for food if the mother was providing food. So people went in search of other things.

On the alienation of youth, he said that young girls had a puberty ritual but were not coming because of the nudity involved in the ritual. Paramount chiefs played an important role to assist in allowing the cover up of parts of the body because the education imparted during the ritual was important for the girls.

He said Boko Haram was not in the country and there was a good relationship between the priests and imams.

He said the district assembly was responsible for the district while the traditional authorities were responsible for the traditional governance of the people.

The youth were working together in bands in different places. Festivals were keenly supported and was where cultural education occurred.

National Khoi and San Council (NKSC) briefing
Mr Cecil Le Fleur, Chairperson of the National Khoi and San Council (NKSC), said he was representing the executive of the NKSC. He gave a historical background to the establishment of the NKSC in 1999. The NKSC was established by former President Mandela though the Status Quo reports and the NKSC was made up of five peoples, the San, Griqua, Nama, Cape Khoi and Koranna. For 17 years the Council had comprised of 21 members. In 2011 it had agreed to ask the Minister to extend the Council from 21 to 30. Presently there were people who still claimed they were not represented.

The mandate of the NKSC was to negotiate the constitutional development of the Khoi-San. The aims of the NKSC included claiming primary traditional knowledge on rooibos and buchu products.

It wanted the issue of land linked to the Khoi-San matter It supported the bill and called for it to be enacted without further delay. It commented on the 2005 Report of the UN Special Rapporteur on indigenous people which included the situation of the Khoi-San in South Africa.

The NKSC supported the recognition of African customary law and institutions and that it should be coupled with democratic principles. It believed in the African policy framework of the African Commission on Human Rights and Peoples Rights.

Three key foundations of the NKSC was the need for land, geographical jurisdiction and hierarchical leadership. He said the biggest threat was not having ownership of the land which was important for the Khoi-San’s culture and identity. He said the Khoi-San had not been revived in 1994; it had survived for a long time prior to that. The first Griqua national conference had been held 1904.

Discussion
Mr Motsepe asked if outsiders would have to be moved if the Kranshoek location was deemed Griqualand.

Mr Bhanga said the Department had said that it did not have available data to trace communities because organisations had been destroyed by the colonisers. Why could it not trace the basis of the Griqua people through the intergenerational transfer of knowledge? How would the issue of geographic location be resolved?

Mr Mthethwa said the Council had been elected in 1999. When was it last mandated? Which area would it want to practice its cultural identity; did it want land in each province? Was the headquarters part of the paramountcy?

Mr Le Fleur replied that the places listed were where it had branches of the National Council. The Griqua headquarters was where the paramountcy resided. The National Council could sit anywhere.

Ms Lesle Jansen, a lawyer from Natural Justice and Expert Member of the African Commission’s Working Group on Indigenous Populations, said the inclusion of the Khoi and San into the system was necessary so that the law recognised what had historically, socially and politically gone wrong. It would allow them to be part of the broader African community in South Africa with due consideration that the past had separated them.

Regarding Kranshoek, she said the issue was about culture, about customary law and being able to manage or have a say on how their sacred sites were managed. The Griqua leaders burial site was on a commercial farmer’s land and the Griquas had a yearly pilgrimage where 4 000 people paid homage to the leader at the burial site, which was a sacred site they had no access to. It was about managing their customs, culture and their spirituality. It was not about disconnecting them from the rest of South Africa.

Mr Le Fleur said the NKSC was re-elected in 2005. In 2010 the process to extend membership started and the current leadership was re-affirmed together with new members elected in 2011. Being on the verge of the introduction of the Traditional and Khoi-San Leadership Bill, it was felt there was no use for an election. He said there were many people who opposed the Bill but the NKSC supported the Bill.

Department of Traditional Affairs
The Committee moved on to discuss the presentations the Department of Traditional Affairs and the Department of Cooperative Governance had given the previous day.
 
Discussion
Mr Bhanga said the national framework for the remuneration of traditional leaders had been promised to the Committee. He had not heard any specifics on this in the previous day’s briefing. This was unfair and divided South Africa because certain traditional leaders' remuneration was different to others. When would it be standardised? He was concerned over the timeframe of the Bill. Would the next sitting of the Cabinet approve the policy so that the processing of the Bill could start?

Mr E Mthethwa (ANC) asked what concrete plans the Department had to address the progress report, especially slides 11 and 12. When did the Department foresee the debate on the Bill starting so that it could be finalised?

Mr Charles Nwaila, Director General of the Department of Traditional Affairs, said the remuneration framework had been developed. There was a distinction between remuneration and allowances. Remuneration had been standardised while allowances for tools of trade had not. In 2011 the Remuneration Committee had made recommendations on tools of trade. On the 26 May 2013 more detail had been given to these recommendations to get to a norm and standard. The provinces had to develop their own handbook.

Mr Masondo said the information had already been made available. It was the same payments and provinces had the leeway to make top ups.

Mr Bhanga reiterated that kings had raised the matter of kings not being treated equally.

Mr Nwaila replied that all kings were appointed in 2010 after the Nhlapho Commission’s findings, however in KwaZulu Natal the kings had been there already for 40 years. The norm for a king was one house but in KwaZulu Natal the king had 12 houses assigned over the years and that was just part of history. Going forward, the Department was leveling the playing field upward regarding salaries

He said the policy would be presented to Cabinet at the next cabinet meeting. The delay had to do with an impact assessment study.

On Mr Mthethwa’s question, he said the presentation had indicated how the Department would deal with the items it had not achieved.

Mr Motsepe asked how many paramountcies in Sekhukhune, Gazankulu and Venda received their budgets.

Mr Nwaila replied that two paramountcies and the Modjadji queenship had not been finalised. He said the Bill would assist in establishing a king’s council. The Department had consulted 60% of the kingships on a formula to establish a king’s council.

Mr Vusi Madonsela, Director General of the Department of Cooperative Governance (DCOG), said that only two provinces recognised kings in their provincial constitution. KwaZulu Natal was one but the Eastern Cape and Limpopo did not recognise kings. It would be important to ascertain what provinces planned to include kings. This was similar for the Western Cape province with regard to the Khoi-San.

Department of Cooperative Governance DCOG
Mr Bhanga said the Department had monitored processes, with regard to plans to eliminate municipal disclaimers. What were the new mechanisms the Department would introduce if municipalities were unwilling to implement action? He had asked for two years for the comprehensive report on action taken against those implicated in forensic reports of municipalities. He asked what interventions the Department had to deal with politicians at municipal level involved in illegal decisions. Which municipalities made councillors pay back monies? He said he disagreed about the establishment of an institute, especially considering the difficult financial situation of the country. There was already investment in SETAs. Why could they not do it as the institute would be a duplication? Regarding the Spatial Development Toolkit, he asked why there was a need for another toolkit.

Mr Mthethwa said revenue enhancement had to be implemented faster. He said managers had been appointed who had no skills leading to billing not being done correctly and hence people were not paying. In addition municipalities had no LED strategies and were struggling to identify job creation opportunities

Mr Masondo called for enforcement of compliance with regulations to be pursued with vigour. He urged that letters be written to the MECs as soon as possible. He said the question of alignment needed to be sorted out quickly. Regarding the partnership with the private sector, he did not have a clear sense of the ‘adopt a municipality’ initiative. He said he was encouraged by the increase in talk of long term planning.

Ms M Mthembu (ANC) pointed out that the last meeting on preparations for the elections had been 12 June. She did not see that the Department was treating this as a priority. How was the partnership with the private sector doing?

Mr Madonsela said the point was taken on the need to move with more speed.

On human resource capacity, Mr Madonsela said the Department had focused on section 56 and 57 managers, CFOs, municipal managers and technical managers and they had to meet minimum requirements. Where people had not complied, MECs had to ensure that the relevant municipalities complied. The Department had set up regulations dealing with lower level categories of staff and had identified areas of intervention.

Regarding local economic development (LED), he said it was receiving increased importance. It became clear that LED was not happening in some municipalities because the responsible people knew very little about economic development. The Department had engaged with municipalities to professionalise LED. The Department had sent letters to municipalities requesting information on the qualifications of managers.

On revenue enhancement, he said the Department would focus on improving the financial health of municipalities and the rating of property. There was a need to cultivate a culture of payment.

On partnerships, Mr Themba Fosi, Policy, Research and Knowledge Management Executive, said the program had been initiated as part of the local government turnaround strategy where the private sector had been encouraged to support municipalities. Santam and Sanlam had supported Mafikeng, Old Mutual had supported five municipalities, and Mercedes Benz had also made a contribution.

He said the toolkit was linked to long-term planning

Mr Madonsela said, regarding slide 19, that letters had been written to the MECs.

On the question of new mechanisms emanating from the forensic reports, Mr Muthotho Sigidi, DDG: Governance and Intergovernmental Relations, said the Department had observed that some reports had been only noted. However all reports were also submitted to the Department for assessment. The Department had found that matters could be referred to law enforcement agencies. The Department had met with law enforcement agencies who had agreed to a request for a unit that focussed on municipalities. 18 cases had been referred to the Asset Forfeiture Unit, 10 cases to the Special Investigating Unit and some cases to the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (DPCI). The report on all forensics would be available at the end of the financial year.

On mechanisms for councillors who had worked in contravention of advice given to them, he said that apart from the code of conduct, the only lever the Department had, was the gratuities for non returning councillors. If the councillor owed money, the gratuity was used for people owing SARS.

On the Institute, he agreed with the Committee that it was a duplication of services and the Department was engaged with SALGA and the SETAs to come up with a Councillor program and were also engaging with the School of Government.

Mr Madonsela said that after June the Department had had two other meetings on the transition.

The meeting was adjourned


 

Share this page: