ConCourt postpones Moutse case - The Citizen
JOHANNESBURG - Threats to boycott next year's general election followed the ConstitutionalCourt's postponement of the Moutse demarcation row on Tuesday.
"We won't vote," said a frustrated Abraham Mahlangu, echoing similar calls by Khutsongresidents ahead of the last election over their own incorporation into theNorth West from Gauteng.
Mahlangu,the chairman of the Sehlakwane Demarcation Forum, was among the Moutse residentswho had arrived at the court in at least 25 minibus taxies. They were there tohear an application to repeal laws that facilitated the move of Moutse 1, 2 and3 from Mpumalanga into Limpopo.
Last week it was reported that people in the area, which had once formed part of theapartheid "homelands" Lebowa and KwaNdebele, were refusing to register for theelections.
They were objecting to the demarcation of their area on the grounds that they weren't adequately consulted, and contend that the move led to a deterioration of theservices they received. Because of this, it was irrational, their heads ofargument read.
On the ground, it also made no sense, with neighbours falling into different provinces. They had opted to stay in Mpumalanga, but would accept a move toGauteng.
Theirright to be consulted formed part of their right to choose where they live andto participate in political processes, their lawyer intended arguing for them.
Residents of Khutsong in Merafong, oppose their move to the North West. Residents of Matatiele do not want to be part of Eastern Cape, preferring KwaZulu-Natal, insimilar demarcation disputes.
But at thestart of Tuesday's proceedings, counsel for Local Government Minister SiceloShiceka, and the speaker of the Mpumalanga legislature, who had intendedopposing the matter, said there had been a new development.
Shiceka,one of the new ministers installed after the resignation of former president Thabo Mbeki, had indicated through news reports that he intended consultingagain with all three affected communities to resolve the matter.
"The minister wants to go back and consult with them again," said Vincent Maleka,and submitted that this might make judgment on Tuesday's hearing moot.
In the government's heads of argument, Maleka submitted that the community had not taken up the offer of a referendum on the matter, as suggested around the timeof the 1994 election. Contrary to their statement that consultation on the proposed change was not advertised, public hearings were advertised on several radio stations and in newspapers and the hearings were held.
At these hearings, some wanted to stay in Mpumalanga and some wanted to go to Limpopo. The judges on Tuesday were concerned about Maleka's statement that he was instructed to goahead and argue the case anyway if the judges wanted him to. Justice Albie Sachs said the intention to go back to the residents questioned the valueof the original consultations.
Said Deputy Chief Justice Dikgang Moseneke: "How can you then with a straight face argue that the duty of consultations were complied with and decisions wererational?" But Maleka said Shiceka was a new minister and wanted to consultagain.
After anadjournment, the court postponed the matter and ordered that Shiceka file anaffidavit saying what he had done with regard to this new intention.
It would return to court on March 17, 2009, when the country was expected to be in thefinal stages of election campaigning.
At an impromptu feedback session after the court had adjourned, Lawyers for HumanRights director Jacob Van Garderen invited questions from Moutse residents present.
"The 17this too far for us," said Seun Mokgotsi, secretary for the SA Communist Party inMoutse.
CasselMasilela, of the SA National Civics Organisation asked: "Can the department ofprovincial and local government resolve this before the next election?"
JENNI O'GRADY
- Sapa
Printed from www.citizen.co.za on 3/17/2009 at22:11:34