The highly sensitive name change controversy deepened this week when the Municipal Manager, Ms Faith Muthambi, was formally requested to give her personal attention to a reply by Mr Peter Magwala, which is described as “intolerable, insensitive, hostile, shocking and of great concern”.

The latest development follows a reply by Mr Magwala, as acting municipal manager, to a letter by the Chairpersons Association (CA) about the present status of the legal process surrounding the highly controversial name change issue. The CA says Magwala’s response is clearly in breach of the partnership agreement that Government has with voters.

Ms Muthambi is requested to reconsider the letter dated 21 September by the Chairpersons Association, in the interest of good relations, the creation of wealth and the promotion of reconciliation.

In its first letter, the CA referred to the fact that the whole issue has been taken on appeal and proposed that, in the interim, until the Appellate Division of the High Court has given its judgement, all relevant authorities should desist from carrying out the implementation of the name change from Louis Trichardt to Makhado, to save enormous expenditure, should the court decision be in favour of the CA.

In a reply letter, signed by Magwala in the capacity of Acting Municipal Manager, he bluntly stated that the name change proclamation in the Government Gazette has not been withdrawn and the Court did not rule that the municipality must not implement actions about the name change. Therefore, the municipality will “proceed with all steps to put the name Makhado in effect in all official systems.”

The CA says: “The insensitive, hostile and intolerable response of the Acting Municipal Manager to a very proper and reasonable request of 87 500 of the residents of the municipality was shocking and inappropriate and of great concern under these circumstances. The Acting Municipal Manager should know that the judgement in the Supreme Court will be suspended pending any appeal proceedings. This response of the Acting Municipal Manager is clearly in breach of the partnership agreement that the Government has with voters.”

Against this back-drop, the initial request has been redirected for the personal attention of the Municipal Manager, Ms Faith Muthambi. This redirected request is dated 29 October. It reads: “It is regretted that the Municipality responded in such an uncompromising manner, whilst the CA is attempting to instill goodwill and co-operation with the Municipality. Mr Magwala does not refer to our request that the implementation of the name change should be suspended pending the outcome of the decision of the Appellate Court. He merely refers to the fact that the name change has been published in the Government Gazette and to the fact that the High Court has made the ruling. He does not take cognizance of the fact that this matter is taken on appeal and that extreme costs may be incurred in the future by the Municipality in the event of the CA’s winning the case, to put the implementation of the name into reverse once again.”

The CA then kindly requests the Municipal Manager to reconsider the answer.