Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
21 September 2023 | Story Motsaathebe Serekoane | Photo supplied
Motsaathebe Serekoane
Motsaathebe Serekoane is a Lecturer and BSocSc Programme Director, Department of Anthropology, UFS.

Opinion Article by Motsaathebe Serekoane, Lecturer and BSocSc Programme Director, Department of Anthropology, University of the Free State.


It is our heritage space; it is my private property: the challenge of access to heritage sites on privately owned land. 

The Free State's sacred valleys represent not only our heritage space but also private property. This dual nature presents a challenge in terms of gaining access to heritage sites situated on privately owned land.

Following the enactment of the country's constitution in 1996, segregation boundaries were abolished, granting public access to spaces that were once restricted. Evidence indicates an increase in accessibility to spaces that were traditionally exclusive. However, despite the ideals of inclusion and participation enshrined in the Constitution, property ownership practices and the right to restrict access continue to render sacred natural sites inaccessible to pilgrims. 

Sacred natural sites hold spiritual significance for people, transcending intrinsic or instrumental value. They are culturally and historically significant for people seeking to reconnect with their ancestors, undergo spiritual cleansing, receive training in spiritual healing and ask for guidance and forgiveness. For the Basotho people, the natural environment is an aspect of material reality through which the sacred is manifested. As such, they have returned to reclaim sacred spaces through spiritual journeys to sites like Mantsopa at Modderpoort, Mautse and Nkokomohi Valley near Rosendal, Motouleng near Clarens, and Witsie’s Cave in Qwaqwa.

Ownership rights and reserved rights vs access rights

The conflict between farm owners and pilgrims began when the former claimed exclusive ownership rights and reserved rights to access, while the latter only sought access rights without contesting ownership. According to Section 27 Subsection 8 of the National Heritage Resources Act, 25 1999 (NHRA), a site of significance can be nominated for declaration by the provincial or national heritage body. All the relevant sites were nominated at various times over the past decade and received provisional protection, but they were never formally declared. As a result, these sites have only enjoyed informal and provisional formal protection. In the case of informal heritage sites like Mautse and Motouleng, the private property owners have the legal right to deny entry to their properties and, consequently, the sacred sites.

Land regulation, particularly the Enlightenment-era separation of culture from nature, and the introduction of private ownership and commodification of nature in what were once  ‘traditional’ landscapes, in the African context, have placed many of the sacred sites under a terminal threat over the years. The complexities surrounding the sites persist, as seen in the closure of Mautse in 2016 due to a change in farm ownership. In 2020, Motouleng was also closed, with police forcefully evicting pilgrims on-site at the start of the hard lockdown of the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak. Furthermore, the structures within Motouleng Cave were destroyed by fire.

In recent years, the recognition of consequences for the affected communities and society at large due to the continued loss of sacred places, along with the role and function of pilgrimage to these sites, and related spiritual practices, has been growing. Urgent action from stakeholders at all levels, from international agencies to the local communities, is increasingly advocated to protect this heritage. The closure or denial of access to sacred sites is spreading rapidly. On 4 August 2023, the following access request was made: 

“We were asking for access to pray by the cave called Lehaha la Makhakha in Bothaville tomorrow. We spoke to the owner, but he refused to give us access. His reason for refusing is that other people are using candles which may cause fire and damage to the property, but we didn’t use candles even on 1 July 2023 we prayed, and no damages were incurred. The neighbourhood watch can attest to that. We have been using the prayer cave since 2016. We ask permission to pray.”

We need to dialogue

The conflict between the right to ownership and the right to access is a complex challenge, not only from the legal point of view but also considering South Africa’s complicated history and the cultural differences and contestations that exist. To address the past inequalities, the NHRA provides for the expropriation, subject to compensation, of private property ‘for conservation or any other purpose under this Act if that purpose is public or is in the public interest’, as outlined in Section 46(1). This aligns with Sections 25(2) and (3) of the Constitution (1996), which specify various conditions and circumstances to be considered regarding compensation amounts. Subsection (4) defines public interest to include “the nation’s commitment to land reform, and to reforms to bring about equitable access to all South Africa’s natural resources”. There is no doubt that the sacred sites serve a public interest, aligning effectively with the theory of commons. This has two implications: firstly, sacred natural sites are a kind of commons that cannot be privatized as they cannot have one exclusive owner. Secondly, sacred natural sites need to possess some kind of public property status to be accessible to all potential visitors who may have relational values regarding that site. 

What does this mean for promises of the Constitution and the National Heritage Resources Act? While we are enjoying a braai, let us also remember we need to dialogue on matters that continue to undermine the realisation of the idealism of heritage as cultural capital. This can help South Africa define its cultural identity, build the nation, affirm our diverse cultures, facilitate healing and material and symbolic restitution, and in doing so, shape our national character. 

News Archive

Pansalb’s Language Rights Monitor Project launched at the UFS
2007-01-25

 

 Attending the launch of the Language Rights Monitoring Project were, from the left: Mr Edward Sambo (acting head of Pansalb), Prof Engela Pretorius (Vice-Dean of the Faculty of the Humanities at the UFS), Prof Theo du Plessis (Director: Unit for Language Management at the UFS) and Mr Vusi Ntlakana (head of the Free State provincial office of Pansalb).

 
 Pansalb’s Language Rights Monitor Project launched at the UFS
 
The Unit for Language Management at the University of the Free State (UFS), in collaboration with the Pan-South African Language Board (Pansalb), today launched the Language Rights Monitor Project on the Main Campus in Bloemfontein.
 
In accordance with the Pansalb Act of 1995, Pansalb is responsible for the promotion and protection of language rights in South Africa, and is the chief funder of the project.          
 
The Language Rights Monitor Project was initiated in 2002 for a trial period of three years, with the aim of reporting to Pansalb, on an annual basis, on language-rights issues in South Africa, as reflected mainly in the printed media.
 
Since then, three reports have already appeared, covering various aspects relating to language rights, including, inter alia, language-rights complaints, language-rights issues, language litigation, as well as research on language rights in South Africa. Profs Johan Lubbe and Theo du Plessis, as well as Dr Elbie Truter, all associated to the UFS, were responsible for the compilation of the first three reports.
 
During 2006, Pansalb decided to establish the project for an unspecified period of time at the Unit for Language Management at the UFS. It is precisely for this reason that the project is being launched. The South African Language Rights Monitor will henceforth appear annually as a prestige publication of Pansalb, compiled by staff associated with the Unit.
 
However, Pansalb has also decided to further consolidate the project, as a result of the need for a more immediate report, as well as the need to include records drawn from newspapers published in the African languages. It was therefore decided that, as from September 2006, a monthly South African Language Rights Bulletin would also be launched. 
 
Such a bulletin would provide an overview, on a monthly basis, of developments in South Africa concerning language rights, and would enable Pansalb to become more actively involved in crisis situations in which mediation is urgently needed. Two monthly bulletins have already appeared, and were favourably received by Pansalb. During the launch of the project, this bulletin was also introduced to the public for the first time.
 
With the official launch of Pansalb’s Language Rights Monitor project in the Free State, emphasis will be placed on the leading role played by this province, and more specifically by the UFS, in the development and implementation of a multilingual policy.
 
In future, more information on the situation regarding language-rights issues in South Africa will be made available from Bloemfontein, for the benefit of South Africa’s language-rights watchdog, Pansalb, but also for the benefit of other institutions involved in language-rights issues.
 
A constructive contribution will thus be rendered to the cultivation of language justice, an important element of the democratisation process in South Africa.
 
Issued by:
Prof Theo du Plessis
Unit for Language Management, UFS
 
 
Media release
Issued by: Lacea Loader
Media Representative
Tel: (051) 401-2584
Cell: 083 645 2454
24 January 2007

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept