MAKHADO (LOUIS TRICHARDT) – The fight against the official name change of this town is on.

"Change for the sake of change, is a somewhat dubious motivation," is stated in the complaint on behalf of three groups and interested residents. The complaint and documentation, comprising 205 pages, were delivered on July 1 to the office of the Minister of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology, Dr Ben Ngubane. On June 6, the name of the town was officially changed from Louis Trichardt to Makhado after it was promulgated by the minister and gazetted. There is a thirty-day period, expiring on July 18, during which objections can be raised.

Adv Tommy Ntsewa, National Chairperson of the South African Geographical Names Council, made light of the objection period during a press conference at the Makhado Municipality on June 10. He purported that no objections were expected. Contrary to Adv Ntsewa's expectation, the complaint by a well- known laywers' firm was lodged on behalf of the Hlanganani Concerned Group. This group represents 5 000 people, the Soutpansberg Chamber of Commerce, other interested residents of the town as well as the Chairpersons Association, an a-political organization representing 41 organizations and 21 000 people in Makhado Municipal area.

The groups represented call on Minister Ngubane to revoke his decision to change the name of Louis Trichardt to Makhado. In the event of an interested group calling for a name change, the Minister is asked to ensure that proper administrative procedure be followed before a name is chosen.

"Neither the South African Geographical Names Council nor the Limpopo Geographic Names Committee has properly applied its mind to the intended name change. The administrative decision to change the name to Makhado, is reviewable in the High Court," says Mr André Naudé, the Chairman of the Chairpersons Association.

The essence of the complaint delivered to the minister centers around a few fundamental issues, namely the absence of proper consultation, the name "Makhado" and the cost implications.

Proper and authentic consultations with interested parties, particularly the local population, were not held. It was never established that there was a need or a local demand for the town's name to be changed. Where consultations were purported to have been held, the designated venue was advertised neither timeously, nor extensively enough. In this regard the secretary of the Chairpersons Association, Mrs Inga Gilfillan said, "Only ten of the 35 wards were consulted and in effect only 400 people were consulted. On the other hand a petition with 7 000 signatures against the name change had already been sent." The complaint against the name "Makhado" concerns the process applied to determine the name, as well as the name itself. The process was neither legitimate nor properly accountable. It is a name that already belonged to another town, it is the name of a person, with no common element to unify people and it is historically unacceptable and in some circles even regarded as offensive. Mr Jeremiah Gohell, secretary of the Hlanganani Concerned Group, has repeatedly said over the past months that the name "Makhado" is tribalistic, since it is a name associsated with a certain ethnic group, the Venda people. The Hlanganani Concerned Group also sent a separate objection to the Minister, wherein they stated that they are determined to "expose the Makhado Municipality for what they are - tribalists who do not respect the democratic right of the majority." The current name, Louis Trichardt, is clearly well established internationally, therefore the cost and expenditure required to re-establish a new identity for the town will amount to millions of rand. An estimate of R18million was mentioned. From an economic viewpoint the Limpopo Province and the town itself can definitely not afford this kind of expenditure.

Mr Naudé said that the complaint had been lodged in terms of Section 10(3) of the South African Geographical Names council Act, Act 118 of 1998. He said that even the procedures provided in the act went against the long established legal principle that no one is fit to be judge in his own cause.