Vaalgras motion rejected by community
DISGRUNTLED NATIVE WRITES:
We had our 5th unsuccessful chieftainship succession community meeting at Vredefontein, the seat of the Vaalgras Traditional Authority on Saturday, 21st October 2023. The meeting was well constituted, but not that well attended, although announced widely. We, the broad community of Vaalgras must remember that succession was long along based on acclamation and consensus and elections started with the late chief only for reasons best known to the “white apartheid regime” only.
There are counter-accusations of well-orchestrated “delay tactics”, apparently being employed by both the community and the Traditional Authority. The community is not explicitly informed for some practical reasons about their primary role in the designation of a chief. However, Section 4 (1a) of the Traditional Authorities Act No. 25 of 2000 clearly states that the traditional community “may designate” a chief from the “royal house”, which we don’t have. The Vredefontein group has tabled a motion of no confidence into the sitting council, but it was rejected with an almost 98% majority vote by the members of the traditional community present at that meeting. If you know about the meeting and elect not to attend, then that’s “boycotting” and/or you show no interest in the affairs. The Traditional Authority's collaboration with the former breakaway Concerned Group, the question of Biwa siblings, and the distorted High Court judgment of judge Collins Parkers were cited as grounds for the motion of no confidence in the leadership.
As a direct result, the unrecognized customary law in terms of Article 1 (1.2) states that “all the candidates for the chief’s position must belong to the chief’s family”, which - in this case of the Vaalgras community - is the Stephanus family. Once again, in terms of Article 1 (1.5), the “chief councillor will assume the same powers as the chief in the unavoidable absence of the chief and will be co-responsible for the functions and duties of the chief”. It goes on to state that “when the chief passes away, then only a rightful contender can be nominated and designated by the community members as chief unless the community decides otherwise as a result of cogent reasons”.
I think we are at that crossroads right now. Unfortunately, the Traditional Authorities Act No. 25 of 2000 is silent on the issue of an acting chief, headman, and/or captain. The honourable minister of urban and rural development should, perhaps, look into it to amend this law. I submitted several proposed areas to be looked into to Hon. Peya Mushelenga during his tenure but to no avail. There was equally confusion about the appointment of a secretary, whilst Section 10 (3) of the same Act provides that the “chief shall appoint a secretary” from amongst the community members from time to time.
Furthermore, it seems the traditional community attending meetings isn’t explicitly sure what to do right now. There is a lot of confusion about whether to endorse the candidate designated by the late chief or to go over to nominations and elections. We spoke at length about the “eligibility criterion for a chief candidate” at that meeting. There was a dispute about whether such a candidate should reside in Vaalgras or not, but Section 3 (2) (d) clearly states that “such a candidate must be an ordinary resident in the communal area of the traditional community, which he/she leads”.
Furthermore, I would herewith like to clarify the issue of the chairmanship of the traditional authorities in terms of Section 9 (3) of the same Act. The other visible thing is that some of the sitting traditional councilors have vested material interest, self-satisfied demeanour, complacencies, etc, although they are in denial if it comes to that. Now, the question begs, if the traditional councilors themselves are so widely divided how are they going to unite the widely divided traditional community?
We have tried everything within more than a year to replace the late chief, but all in vain, because of the infighting, distortion of the succession race and personal economic gain etc. The ministry, if not the government, should perhaps step in to expedite the exercise to resuscitate and recuperate the looming impasse amicably once and forever in mutual interest. I don’t know why community meetings are being procrastinated for two to three months. Is that not an integral part of delay tactics? We have only two options without wasting time and resources and that’s to either endorse the late chief’s choice and/or to go to fresh democratic elections.
* Rubrieke, meningstukke, briewe en SMS’e deur lesers en meningvormers weerspieël nie noodwendig die siening van Republikein of Namibia Media Holdings (NMH) nie. As mediahuis onderskryf NMH die etiese kode vir Namibiese media, soos toegepas deur die Media-ombudsman.
We had our 5th unsuccessful chieftainship succession community meeting at Vredefontein, the seat of the Vaalgras Traditional Authority on Saturday, 21st October 2023. The meeting was well constituted, but not that well attended, although announced widely. We, the broad community of Vaalgras must remember that succession was long along based on acclamation and consensus and elections started with the late chief only for reasons best known to the “white apartheid regime” only.
There are counter-accusations of well-orchestrated “delay tactics”, apparently being employed by both the community and the Traditional Authority. The community is not explicitly informed for some practical reasons about their primary role in the designation of a chief. However, Section 4 (1a) of the Traditional Authorities Act No. 25 of 2000 clearly states that the traditional community “may designate” a chief from the “royal house”, which we don’t have. The Vredefontein group has tabled a motion of no confidence into the sitting council, but it was rejected with an almost 98% majority vote by the members of the traditional community present at that meeting. If you know about the meeting and elect not to attend, then that’s “boycotting” and/or you show no interest in the affairs. The Traditional Authority's collaboration with the former breakaway Concerned Group, the question of Biwa siblings, and the distorted High Court judgment of judge Collins Parkers were cited as grounds for the motion of no confidence in the leadership.
As a direct result, the unrecognized customary law in terms of Article 1 (1.2) states that “all the candidates for the chief’s position must belong to the chief’s family”, which - in this case of the Vaalgras community - is the Stephanus family. Once again, in terms of Article 1 (1.5), the “chief councillor will assume the same powers as the chief in the unavoidable absence of the chief and will be co-responsible for the functions and duties of the chief”. It goes on to state that “when the chief passes away, then only a rightful contender can be nominated and designated by the community members as chief unless the community decides otherwise as a result of cogent reasons”.
I think we are at that crossroads right now. Unfortunately, the Traditional Authorities Act No. 25 of 2000 is silent on the issue of an acting chief, headman, and/or captain. The honourable minister of urban and rural development should, perhaps, look into it to amend this law. I submitted several proposed areas to be looked into to Hon. Peya Mushelenga during his tenure but to no avail. There was equally confusion about the appointment of a secretary, whilst Section 10 (3) of the same Act provides that the “chief shall appoint a secretary” from amongst the community members from time to time.
Furthermore, it seems the traditional community attending meetings isn’t explicitly sure what to do right now. There is a lot of confusion about whether to endorse the candidate designated by the late chief or to go over to nominations and elections. We spoke at length about the “eligibility criterion for a chief candidate” at that meeting. There was a dispute about whether such a candidate should reside in Vaalgras or not, but Section 3 (2) (d) clearly states that “such a candidate must be an ordinary resident in the communal area of the traditional community, which he/she leads”.
Furthermore, I would herewith like to clarify the issue of the chairmanship of the traditional authorities in terms of Section 9 (3) of the same Act. The other visible thing is that some of the sitting traditional councilors have vested material interest, self-satisfied demeanour, complacencies, etc, although they are in denial if it comes to that. Now, the question begs, if the traditional councilors themselves are so widely divided how are they going to unite the widely divided traditional community?
We have tried everything within more than a year to replace the late chief, but all in vain, because of the infighting, distortion of the succession race and personal economic gain etc. The ministry, if not the government, should perhaps step in to expedite the exercise to resuscitate and recuperate the looming impasse amicably once and forever in mutual interest. I don’t know why community meetings are being procrastinated for two to three months. Is that not an integral part of delay tactics? We have only two options without wasting time and resources and that’s to either endorse the late chief’s choice and/or to go to fresh democratic elections.
* Rubrieke, meningstukke, briewe en SMS’e deur lesers en meningvormers weerspieël nie noodwendig die siening van Republikein of Namibia Media Holdings (NMH) nie. As mediahuis onderskryf NMH die etiese kode vir Namibiese media, soos toegepas deur die Media-ombudsman.
Kommentaar
Republikein
Geen kommentaar is op hierdie artikel gelaat nie