In the year 2004, we are still trying to come to terms with legitimate title to land in South Africa. Resistance to colonial and Apartheid domination has at last led to the political party, which itself institutionalised Apartheid in South Africa, finally adopting the Freedom Charter and, almost incredibly, joining the rank and file and even the leadership of the ANC. This political dimension to the new dispensation being worked out in South

Africa today, provides the coherent and, we would like to say, the conclusive backdrop to the land question and its issue through restitution, redistribution and so- called tenure up-grading, in a word, reform.

The Freedom Charter expresses the commonly accepted principle succinctly: The land belongs to those who work it!

Given Locke's labour theory of value and Marx's exhortation to the proletariat and its vanguard, we might be forgiven for thinking that this principle of the Freedom Charter could be interpreted to mean all things to all men (and all women!), that is, to liberals and to socialists alike (though not, perhaps, to the right of the right and to the left of the left, that is, to conservatives, anarchists, and the radical extremes of the political spectrum).

The simple point of agreement for South Africans in general and for the whole world that united in the fight against Apartheid, is that, Apartheid must go! This means that land ownership in South Africa must change.

Why has this not happened in the first decade of democracy in South Africa?

Reliable quantification of the pace of land reform in South Africa is apparently simple. The Ndima comment on the pace of land reform in South Africa is that this appearance is deceptive. Critical appreciation of the pace of land reform in South Africa today requires, it will be argued, in the first place attention to logic, language and law. Although there is some common ground, the land question and its issue really does mean different things to different people, especially rival claimants to the land, referred to by all as OUR LAND.

To do justice to the Ndima comment on the pace of land reform in South Africa, it would have to be presented within the oral tradition, by community land claimants themselves. It is only through such a presentation that the community comment on the pace of land reform in South Africa could be heard in all its subtlety, directness, honesty, articulateness and integrity.

Perhaps it will turn out to be a terrible irony that public hearings in Parliament under the auspecies of the Portfolio Committee on Agriculture and Land Affairs (National Assembly) will effectively exclude presentations by the most marginalized members of the public, who still live, work and play within the oral tradition of human discourse. The grounds for such exclusion we would wish to understand as plainly

logistical. However, critical scrutiny of the processes of communication may actually prove otherwise.

Without now delving into any such scrutiny, it may be worth noting that the means of communicating the invitation to comment on the pace ... to the Portfolio Committee have effectively allowed for the present submission. We must express our profound gratitude for this opportunity.

The humble plea we now have to make as Ndima Community Services, facilitating and supporting community land and development initiatives in the extremely marginalized far north of our country, is that the Portfolio Committee on Agriculture and Land Affairs should consider what options might be available to such community land claimants making their presentation in Parliament at the Public Hearings explicitly within the oral tradition. This would entail, at best, a full busload of community members travelling by road from the far north to the fairest Cape, together with the Ndima project vehicle, if possible. This would enable members of at least one historic community to give their comment on the pace of land reform in South Africa within the holistic parameters required by orature. At least, this would include dance, music and poetry performances, as well as oration and argumentation. Critical balance could be achieved by professional translation services and contextualisation in English by Ndima directors, co-ordinator and research facilitator. In the event that such a large contingent could not be funded, a skeleton equivalent could come with the Ndima project vehicle alone, so long as travelling and accommodation expenses could somehow be catered for.

Reference material

As hinted in the submission above, Ndima works primarily within the oral tradition, which the historic communities themselves largely rely on for their closest, clearest and most valuable recollections.

At the same time, the historic communities continue to keep up with contemporary demands,as well as they can manage, given the disintegration resulting from the dispossession of their land that they have suffered. Thus, considerable material also exists within the written tradition, even in the context of primary sources. Obviously, this can also be complemented with secondary sources of varying reliability and arguable relevance.

In addition to sources in orature and literature, there are material records in the land itself, most significantly, the ruins of people's homes, villages, fortresses, burial grounds, royal courts, shrines, fields, irrigation systems, and associated artefacts, through the ages. Natural features of the land, such as rivers, streams, pools, mountains, hills, outstanding geological formations on macro and micro levels, even trees (especially the long-lived baobabs and mashatu's, as well as indigenous forests) figure prominently and definitively in the formal records, that comprise the orature of distinct and connected communities, dynasties and families. Even today, the name of each and every individual connected to an historic African community itself more or less clarifies that connection. Here it must be acknowledged and remembered that the names of too many South Africans recorded in the written tradition of the colonial and Apartheid past themselves constitute proof of the racially discriminatory laws and practices of that past. Even to this day, many official identity documents reveal written corruptions of the names given through the primary medium of the spoken word. An

interesting extension of this phenomenon may be observed in the naming of the land itself.

One example should suffice to demonstrate the point. One of the communities claiming restitution of their land in the far north of South Africa knows itself and, within the prevailing oral tradition, is commonly known as Mulambwane. As is so often the case with African communities, this is the name of one of the great ancestors of members of the Mulambwane Community. One of the farms which was pegged out on the historic land of the Mulambwane Community was and is registered in the Deeds Office under the name,

"Malapchan[e]". Speaking these two words out aloud renders the connection between them indubitable, and one could hardly conclude that the former is a corruption of the latter!'

In short, it is crucial to recognise that even professional archaeologists agree that the most reliable information composing the history of land ownership and use in the country by prior title holders has to be sought in the living traditions expressed through extant orature.

This is why the Ndima submission constitutes an appeal to the Portfolio Committee on Agriculture and Land Affairs to make it possible that an historic community from the far north, which is in the process of claiming restitution of its land, makes its presentation in commentary on the pace of land reform in South Africa to a Public Hearing in Parliament.

The Ndima Profile is attached for immediate ease of reference.

' This is therefore an argument in favour of the soundness of the claim by the prior title holders to their land.

inwebisi Boltina - LLLpace.l.doc

Ndima Comment on 'The Pace of Land Reform in South Africa', Page 4 of 4

written corruptions of the names given through the primary medium of the spoken word. An

interesting extension of this phenomenon may be observed in the naming of the land itself.

One example should suffice to demonstrate the point. One of the communities claiming

restitution of their land in the far north of South Africa knows itself and, within the

prevailing oral tradition, is commonly known as IVIulambwane. As is so often the case with

African communities, this is the name of one of the great ancestors of members of the

Mulambwane Community. One of the farms which was pegged out on the historic land of the

Mulambwane Community was and is registered in the Deeds Office under the name,

"Malapchan[e]". Speaking these two words out aloud renders the connection between them

indubitable, and one could hardly conclude that the former is a corruption of the latter!'

In short, it is crucial to recognise that even professional archaeologists agree that the most

reliable information composing the history of land ownership and use in the country by prior

title holders has to be sought in the living traditions expressed through extant orature.

This is why the Ndima submission constitutes an appeal to the Portfolio Committee on

Agriculture and Land Affairs to make it possible that an historic community from the far

north, which is in the process of claiming restitution of its land, makes its presentation in

commentary on the pace of land reform in South Africa to a Public Hearing in Parliament.

The Ndima Profile is attached for immediate ease of reference.

' This is therefore an arguinent in favour of the soundness of the claim by the prior title holders to their land.