MAKHADO - The Chairpersons Association will take a decision this week whether or not they are going to appeal against the judgment delivered in the name change High Court case.

Judgment was delivered on September 8, the same day that the unveiling ceremony of the statue of king Makhado took place. Judge MK Legodi of the Pretoria High Court dismissed the Chairpersons Association’s application to set aside the name change of the town to Makhado with costs.

The Mayor of Makhado, Councillor Rhulani Nkuzana, in his address at the unveiling ceremony described the coinciding of the two events as a confirmation that King Makhado was the greatest of all the kings.

“We want to assure you that the name and the brave deeds of our king will be written on every stone so that even the future generations will be reminded of such noble work,” Nkuzana said.

Concerning the name change case, Mr André Naudé, Chairperson of the Chairperson's Association, said on Monday that he personally is of the opinion that the chances to succeed with an appeal is fairly good, seen from a legal viewpoint.

“However, it will depend on the members of the Chairpersons Association whether they want to go through with appeal,” Mr Naudé said. He indicated that the meeting where the decision will be taken is to be held on September 15 at 18:00 at the church hall of the Dutch Reformed Church Soutpansberg, opposite the High School.

This week, the full judgment on the name case became available. A 47-page document judgment was delivered in the matter between the applicant, which is the Chairpersons Association and the three respondents, the first respondent being the Minister of Art and Culture (the then minister Ben Ngubane), the second respondent being the Chairman of the South African Geographic Names Council and the Makhado Municipality as the third respondent.

The judge summarized the important issues raised during the proceedings:

* Whether or not the second respondent recommended to the first respondent for the change of the town name Louis Trichardt to Makhado.

* Whether or not the first respondent was under obligation to consider consultation as a requirement for the purpose of deciding whether or not to approve the proposed town name.

* Whether or not the first respondent applied his mind properly to a requirement for consultation, or to put it differently, whether or not there was consultation? And if so, whether consultation was proper and sufficient.

* Whether or not the applicant can attack the first respondent’s decision on consultation without asking for review of the decisions of the second and third respondents.

Judge Legodi was satisfied that the Names Council did make a recommendation to the Minister with regard to the only name, Makhado, which was proposed in the application forms by the Makhado Municipality.

Concerning the obligation to consult, counsel for the defence, advocate Sam Maritz, said that there is nothing in the Act to suggest consultation as a requirement. Adv Maritz argued that councillors elected into office by the people, were entitled to take a decision on the name change without any consultation with or participation by the people.

“I was particularly not impressed with this submission,” the judge stated in paragraph 23 of the judgment.

“Whilst the Act may not specifically be stating consultation as a requirement, the subject matter being the change of a town name, is a national and sensitive matter … I do not think … that the first respondent could or would have been expected to take such a decision without considering the issue of consultation … Whilst the councillors of the third respondent might have been elected into office by the people, on a national issue like the change of name of a town, one would expect them to consider the sensitive nature of the matter and to revert to those who had elected them into office for a proper mandate.”

The Chairperson of the Chairpersons Association emphasised this week that only 0.3 % of the people were consulted.

“The CA stands for correct governing procedures. We don’t want a process where only 0.3 % are consulted, but good and transparent governing processes, with an equal playing field. A good example is the name Limpopo which is not dividing and in that case proper consultation took place,” the Chairperson said.

The judgment appeared to be based to a large extent on the last issue, the technical point that the applicant attacked the first respondent’s decision on consultation without asking for review of the decisions of the second and third respondents.

Before concluding the judgment, the issue of making a country uncontrollable by acting against the government was touched upon.

“The court will always be reluctant to invalidate administrative action on procedural grounds and has in this context frequently indicated the importance of not impeding the efficacy of government," reads par 37.

Minister Ngubane was cited where he stated “There is no valid reason why the people of the area should remain saddled with a name such as Louis Trichardt which is of no value to them at all and which is foreign to them, merely to be continuously reminded of the acute suffering endured by them for over a hundred years.”

Mr Naudé said that negative energy should not be used to divide the community but that positive energy should be used to embrace all the cultures, because that would bring prosperity.

“Name changes shouldn’t be a window-dressing to disguise poor corporate governance,” Naudé said.