Page 17 - Our Land

OUR LAND 17

PASTORAL SPAT In Matiwane’s Kop near Ladysmith in KwaZulu-Natal, the community is refusing to be ruled by Inkosi Ntandoyenkosi Shabalala. They say that,
when their forefathers bought the land in the 1900s, they had no chief and were just a group of 120 ordinary people PHOTOS: TEBOGO LETSIE

A community whose land was stolen during apartheid and reclaimed after

1994 is now fighting its own leader for ownership rights, writes Poloko Tau

he undulating plains at the foot of a community has initiated without him, for example the
mountain range in the village of Matiwane’s sewing machine project, the chief tries to frustrate the
Kop outside Ladysmith, KwaZulu-Natal, projects and threatens to take away the resources that are
provide a picturesque view and a soothing needed for the project. This is because he feels like he has
bucolic feel of the area. But all is not well in no control over the project and the money involved in it,”
Tthis valley. she said.
Paperwork shows that this land was bought by a group of “Some of the project resources that the chief wanted to
people originating from Swaziland more than a century ago. confiscate were donated by the US ambassador’s self-help
The original title deed lists the names of the 120 buyers, and programme.”
the ownership of the land is held by a committee that Shabalala was also accused of infringing on the ownership
represents the buyers. rights of the syndicate committee by allocating land for
From a distance, Matiwane’s Kop looks like any other development without the land owners’ consent.
village, where free-roaming cattle and goats stop for a drink Prisca said they were “not against development, but
at different spots along a network of tributaries from the processes had to be followed and the owners had to be part
Cwembe River, which runs alongside the sprawling village. of this” as the chief was not the sole owner of the land and,
However, the people who live on this piece of land were therefore, could not make these decisions by himself.
dispossessed during apartheid. Their land was reinstated after She also spoke about unfair practices in the traditional
the advent of democracy, but the community members are court under the chief.
now locked in a battle with a local chief. “The conduct at the court is that, if you are a woman,
When the democratic government reversed the apartheid you may not represent yourself ... a man must represent
government’s early 1980s expropriation of this land and you. As a community, we feel that this is against our human
transferred its ownership to the original buyers’ descendants rights and the Constitution, which we fought so hard for
in 2006, it seemed that all would be well. and for which our ancestors died,” she said.
During apartheid, the land was taken by the state and some “In the case of a widow, she is not even allowed to enter
of the now elderly residents remember how the elders in the the premises of the court because it is believed she will
village used to ride their horses to Ladysmith, about 35km INCENSED ‘We’re fighting for our land against one bring bad spirits with her. Justice in the traditional court is
away, in their tireless fight to get their land back. of our own,’ says Prisca Shabalala dependent on who you are, your resources and your status
in the community.”
NOT THE END OF IT Community members further told City Press that the
However, it soon became apparent that there were chief was also penalising the families of those who were
underlying problems in the community. Meanwhile, Shabalala told City Press that the land in convicted of rape or murder.
In July 2010, parliamentarians heard about some of the question was “bought for the chief”. “If your child is sent to jail, the chief will come and fine
issues when a villager and member of the Rural Women’s “During the forced removals, our original land was taken the family a cow or demand cash. This is double pain for
Movement in KwaZulu-Natal, Prisca Shabalala, made a and my forefathers came with them as a chief. It is more the family,” Prisca said.
heartfelt submission to the portfolio committee on rural like people brought the land and chose a chief to protect
development and land reform related to the Black Authorities the chieftainship of the Shabalala clan,” he said. COST OF CHALLENGING THE CHIEF
Act Repeal Bill, which also looks into the authority of As a result of a court case brought by Shabalala, Kubheka
traditional leaders. CHIEFTAINCY VERSUS LANDOWNERS has been ordered to pay more than R50 000 to the chief. In
She gave a detailed submission about how 120 men bought Together with a group of other community members, 2016, Kubheka allegedly publically stated that Shabalala was
the land in the early 1900s and “organised themselves into a Prisca recently told City Press that Shabalala was “imposing “not a chief”. Kubheka was charged with defamation of
syndicate, called the Matiwane’s Kop Management and himself on us as our chief”, and she drew a horrible picture character, and the local magistrate’s court ruled in favour
Syndicate Committee”. of life under him as a traditional leader. of Shabalala.
The current row revolves around whether the traditional One of the community members who also served in the “I don’t owe him anything. The sheriff came to attach my
leader, Inkosi Ntandoyenkosi Shabalala, has authority over syndicate committee, Hamilton Kubheka (91), made it clear belongings and I was shocked because I didn’t say he was
the committee representing the land owners. This is he did not recognise Shabalala as a traditional leader in not a chief ... I said he was a KwaZulu chief, but not here at
complicated by the fact that he is also an owner of the land this area. Matiwane’s Kop,” Kubheka said.
through his family tree. The other prickly issue is whether “We are buyers ... we don’t have a chief and, yes, we “I also wrote him a letter in 2014 saying that we are a
he is recognised as a traditional leader at all. worked together with the late Shabalala, the then chief, but registered trust and that he can’t say that we can’t call a
Shabalala maintains that he was officially installed as the a lot changed with this one,” he said. meeting when he is not a member of the trust.”
traditional leader in the area. “He came in and changed everything and took away all Shabalala said Kubheka “must pay for defaming my
“I am the sixth in lineage from 1820 on arrival here from the powers of the landowners committee. We bought character”. He said Kubheka could not now deny what he
Swaziland. Now they [the community] say there’s never been Matiwane’s Kop and then fought for it. Why must we fight allegedly said. Shabalala said Kubheka asked “his lawyers to
a chief and that I am imposing myself on them. They can’t for this land now, our own land?” write me a letter asking for an opportunity for him to
suddenly say I am not a chief when I was installed in 1997,” Shabalala said: “Chieftaincy has always been part of the apologise unconditionally” and Kubheka indicated that he
he said. 120 buyers. I was installed by KwaZulu-Natal cooperative was “willing to publish an apology in newspapers”.
governance and traditional affairs MEC in 1997. I wonder The chief said Kubheka further “undertook not to
LAND OWNERSHIP why Kubheka is saying there was never a chieftaincy when undermine me or utter harmful words against me”.
Prisca said: “The apartheid government tried but failed to he served in my council.” Shabalala believes those complaining were not happy with
make us leave – we fought against forced removals. We In her submission to the parliamentary committee, Prisca him because he called for change.
thought it was all over when we took back land ownership wrote that the chief “unilaterally controls community He said people such as Kubheka had been members of
through the syndicate committee in 2006, but we’re now resources and access to land”, and was therefore shutting the syndicate committee for a long time, and that he
faced with a new challenge where we’re fighting for our out the syndicate committee. changed all that and had called for a new committee to
land against one of our own.” “In most instances, where there are projects that the be elected.