Support for property developer angers Khoi leadership

A statement claiming First Nations support for River Club development is rejected by tribal authorities

| By
Photo of people protesting
Civic organisations protest outside Heritage Western Cape offices before a tribunal hearing on 21 November. They want the River Club to be given provincial heritage status as it holds great significance for Khoi peoples. Photo: Steve Kretzmann/WCN

A statement that the “First Nations fully supports the proposed River Club Redevelopment”, released on Monday last week, appears to be the latest salvo by Liesbeek Leisure Properties Trust to overcome resistance to a massive development planned at the confluence of the Liesbeek and Black Rivers in Observatory in Cape Town.

Numerous Khoi leaders have expressed outrage at the statement, likening its author Zenzile Khoisan to a pickpocket, and accusing the author of a First Nations heritage report of the site of ethnicide by attempting to write an entire tribe out of history.

The land in dispute is the 14.8ha River Club, which falls within the proclaimed Two Rivers Urban Park. It was bought for R12 million by Liesbeek Leisure Properties Trust from Transnet in 2015. Transnet is one of the parastatals at the heart of state capture investigations.

The land holds significant historical significance for Khoi tribes. This is uncontested by all parties, including in a report produced in November 2019 on behalf of Liesbeek Leisure Properties - compiled by Rudwaan Arendse, the same consultant who produced a First Nations report for the provincial department of transport and public works just two months earlier.

The Trust currently runs a nine-hole Mashie golf course, conference venue and facilities on the property, and plans to build a R4 billion complex with multiple ten-storey buildings housing apartments, offices, and shops. The development plan is opposed by numerous civic organisations and traditional bodies.

Surprise breakaway

Last Monday’s press release in which Chief !Garu Zenzile Khoisan stated: “On behalf of the Gorinhaiqua Cultural Council and mandated by the First Nations Collective”, the “First Nations fully supports the proposed River Club Redevelopment”, was the result of talks with the developer, Jody Aufrichtig, after a surprise breakaway initiated by Khoisan and Kai Bi’a Hennie van Wyk at a Heritage Western Cape tribunal hearing on 21 November last year.

The tribunal had been called to hear an appeal brought by the Trust against a two-year provisional protection order invoked to provide Heritage Western Cape the opportunity to investigate formal protection of the land.

Before the tribunal hearing, Liesbeek Leisure Properties developer Jody Aufrichtig was seen in the lobby on bended knee consulting with Khoisan and van Wyk.

Jody Aufrichtig from Liesbeek Leisure Properties, who seek to develop the River Club, consults on bended knee with Rudewaan Arendse who authored a First Nations report for the River Club, Zenzile Khoisan (with springbok skin) and Kai Bi’a Hennie van Wyk (wearing head dress) before a Heritage Western Cape tribunal hearing on 21 November last year. Photo: Steve Kretzmann/WCN

Venal motives alleged

At last week’s press conference on the River Club site, Khoisan stated the First Nations Collective consists of “the majority of senior Indigenous Khoi and San leaders in the Peninsula”. These were the leaders of the Gorinhaiqua, Gorachouqua, Cochoqua, Griqua Royal Council, the San Traditional Royal House of Nǀǀnǂe, and the National Khoi and San Council.

Khoisan announced the River Club “redevelopment” would provide an “opportunity” for “the First Nations people” to “reclaim and share their heritage with the public” through a “dedicated Cultural, Heritage and Media Centre” in a City of Cape Town “landmark”.

No such centre was presented on the Pre-Application Basic Assessment Report of July 2019 prepared by SRK Consulting. A cultural, heritage and media centre is now planned at building 9, according to the Basic Assessment Report of January 2020.

Numerous Khoi leaders remain strongly opposed to the River Club development and questioned the validity of the First Nations Collective.

These include Cochoqua leadership, whom Khoisan states are part of the collective.

“Henni (Kai Bi’a Hennie van Wyk) and Zenzile (Khoisan) are out of line. They do not have the backing of the Cochoqua traditional authority,” said administrative advisor to the Cochoqua traditional authority, Danny Bolton.

Bolton said the head of the Cochoqua Indigenous Royal Tribal House is Paramount Chief David Johannes. Khoisan, he said, had obtained the backing of a cultural organisation led by John Jansen. “We must differentiate between traditional leaders and organisations.”

He said Khoisan had never been appointed by “any” traditional council, and van Wyk was appointed by the Gorachouqua Paramount Chief as an interim leader in the absence of any “acknowledged bloodline”.

The proposed Cultural, Heritage and Media Centre, he said, appeared to be incorporated for Khoisan, who he described as “a media person”. Khoisan has variously referred to himself as a journalist, poet, and cultural activist, and claims he was “senior investigative journalist” at Independent Newspapers “some years ago”.

“That media centre looks like it’s for Zenzile,” said Bolton. “This whole development has not got our approval. It benefits a small group who claim they are traditional leaders.”

Conflict of interests

That Rudewaan Arendse should work as a provincial government consultant and hire himself out to the developer while the development approval process was not complete, was a clear conflict of interest, said spokesperson for Western Cape Department of Transport and Public Works minister Bonginkosi Madikizela, Ntomboxolo Makoba-Somdaka.

In response to questions from GroundUp, Rudewaan Arendse did not admit to any conflict of interest, and stated both reports “objectively articulate the aspirations of the First Nations who participated in the engagement process”.

“Khoi are not divided”

Kai Koran Transfrontier leader, Khoebaha Melvin Arendse, who in October 2018 signed his support for a heritage protection order on the River Club, and opposed the appeal against it, likened Khoisan to a pickpocket, assigning land he had no rights over.

“In no African culture can you in any way dispose of something that is not yours to dispose of,” said Arendse, accusing Khoisan of “pickpocketeering”.

“The exclusivity of interests he claims for himself is ludicrous. Any resident living in proximity to that site has more legitimacy,” said Melvin Arendse.

“We are completely against the site being developed in this manner. No-one has the right to impose economic interests on that space.”

Tauriq Jenkins, Supreme High Commissioner for the Goringhaicona Khoi Khoin Traditional Indigenous Council under Paramount Chief Aran, said media reports that the First Nations were divided over the River Club development were a “false narrative”.

“The Khoi are not divided. It’s one chief and his friend who via telephone got a couple of other chiefs who have never really met, to form the First Nations Collective, which features for the first time in Rudewaan’s report.”

He said the report had tried to write the Goringhaicona out of history by relying on van Riebeeck’s diary entry that there were only about 18 of the tribe residing in the southern peninsula. The report states that Khoisan had warned the Goringhaicona that refusal to participate in the First Nations Collective would be “akin to self-imposed exile”.

A statement has also released by the Gaoba Martinus Fredericks of the !Aman Traditional Authority pledging their “unwavering” support to the Goringhaicona in defending the River Club against further development.

First Nations Collective defended

Asked about the origin and standing of the First Nations Collective, Zenzile Khoisan said it emerged from the Gorinhaiqua Cultural Council which was “not a moegoe organisation” and had been part of “every major initiative” to seek recognition for the Khoi and San in South Africa’s democracy. The structure of the First Nations Collective, which he said had first emerged within Rudewaan Arendse’s report, was yet to be determined.

Khoisan said following “deep consultation” with Kai Bi’a van Wyk and John Jansen of the Griqua Royal House, he had been engaging with the River Club developers for the past two months.

He said engaging with the developers was “an act of figuring out what do we want”.

“We’re exercising our cultural agency.”

He said the Cultural, Heritage and Media Centre would be run by a collective, and he would be involved.

Further questions sent via email requesting response to allegations contained in this article received no response by the deadline for this article.

According to IOL, on 17 December last year, more than 20 civic organisations and various First Nation paramount chiefs and indigenous groups announced their combined application for the site’s provincial heritage status.

In response, Aufrichtig was quoted in the article as saying: “We can only infer that it’s an attempt to block concerted efforts by the developer to responsibly address the continued injustices of apartheid spatial planning, under the [guidance] of heritage concerns.”

Government backers

The River Club development has been backed since inception by the Western Cape Department of Transport and Public Works, provincial Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, and the City of Cape Town.

A new Local Spatial Development Framework appears to have been commissioned in order to accommodate the River Club development within the Two Rivers Urban Park.

Final hearings on the appeal by the developers against provisional protection of the site, which civic organisations and traditional councils seek to be afforded provincial protection, take place this week.

TOPICS:  Housing Land River Club development

Next:  Residents tell Eastern Cape Premier they have lost all faith in their municipality

Previous:  JP Smith claims success for railway security unit but cable theft goes on

Write a letter in response to this article


Dear Editor

The article published on 7 February 2020. Is somewhat factually incorrect and doesn't display both sides of the story.
Only one tribe the Gorinaicona are protesting against the River Club The First Nations Collective comprise the majority of senior Indigenous Khoi and San leaders and their councils in the Peninsula. This includes the:
1. Gorinhaiqua (Chief !Garu Zenzile Khoisan, Mr. Ron Martin)
2. Gorachouqua (Kai Bi'a !Kora Hennie van Wyk, Bi'a Jeannette Abrahams)
3. Cochoqua (Chief John Jansen, Chief Tania Kleinhans-Cedras)
4. Griqua Royal Council (High Commissioner and Deputy Secretary General of the
Congress of Traditional Leaders of South Africa [Contralesa], His Excellency,
Aaron Martin William Messelaar.
5. San Traditional Royal House of Nǀǀnǂe (Queen Katriena Esau, Prince Titus3)
6. National Khoi and San Council (Chief Cecil le Fleur)
Only Tauriq Jenkins and his followers are protesting. However., Tauriq Jenkins is also part of the Observatory Civic Association and it is therefore questionable as to his motives and aspirations. Perhaps the author should interveiw some of the other leaders and write a follow up article.

GroundUp Editor's Response

The article in question includes interviews with representatives, and statements from, three tribes and/or groupings other than the Gorinhaicona, who remain opposed to the River Club Development.

These are: Administrative advisor to the Cochoqua traditional authority, Danny Bolton, who disputes that the Cochoqua leadership supports the First Nation Collective and its alignment with the developer; Kai Koran Transfrontier leader, Khoebaha Melvin Arendse; Gaoba Martinus Fredericks of the !Aman Traditional Authority.

Interviewing the persons noted in the press release in support of the River Club is unnecessary, as their position has already been publicly stated.

Furthermore, although not reflected in the article, Chairperson of the Western Cape House of N!!ne, Prince J Titus, and National leader of the Witboois Traditional Council, Captain JC Witbooi, are on record - in submissions to the Ministerial Appeals Tribunal - as supporting provincial heritage protection of the River Club site.

That Tauriq Jenkins is a representative of the Goringhaicona, and of the Observatory Civic Association is openly admitted and known to all parties.

Dear Editor

The First Nations Collective, consisting of the majority of Khoi and San leaders in the Cape Peninsula, is extremely disappointed in the final comments of Heritage Western Cape (HWC) on the proposed redevelopment of the River Club, Observatory.

HWC appears to have completely ignored how this project would preserve and celebrate the relevant First Nations heritage, rehabilitate and indigenise the local ecology while providing thousands of jobs which will benefit thousands of unemployed first nation descendants and contributing R4 billion to our economy.

Staggeringly, in “Heritage Western Cape slams River Club development plan” HWC CEO Xolisi Dlamuka states that any development of property in the Two Rivers area “ is in danger of being compromised” unless the baseline study involves “meaningful consultation” with the First Nations and incorporates their understanding of the significance of the site into the study.

Yet, this is exactly what has happened over the past few months.

Leaders of the First Nations Collective held numerous meaningful and constructive engagements with the River Club owners. These centred on how to sensitively and respectfully memorialise the historical significance of the area and celebrate the history and culture of the First Nations.

The result is a development proposal that includes world-class facilities where the First Nations will be empowered, to permanently collate and curate our heritage, to meaningfully practice our culture and tell our own stories while training our own people. Through this project our voice will have a platform to find resonance across South Africa - and with indigenous communities across the world.

Yet, despite representatives of the First Nations Collective appearing before HWC and informing them of the outcomes of these engagements, and the fact that we fully support the proposed redevelopment, this was completely ignored by the committee.

Our support for this project has been extensively pondered. Our decision is primarily a strategic act of indigenous cultural agency where we, as an integral part of the Khoi and San resurgence, act in our own interest to secure a legacy for us and for seven generations into the future for which we are responsible.

The significance of this area and the adjoining Oude Molen site, has been the subject of intense engagement between ourselves and numerous senior state officials. This includes Premiers of the Western Cape government, Provincial Ministers of several Western Cape government administrations, Mayors of the City of Cape Town, the Chief Land Claims commissioners, several ministers of the National government and even the apex of governance, namely the Presidency.

All our efforts in this regard have fallen on deaf ears, have been subjected to ridicule and, or bludgeoned with the arrogant silence of invisibility, which means being treated as never having spoken and not worthy of being heard.

It is with the knowledge of having been trivialised, silenced and bludgeoned into invisibility that we as the Gorinhaqua Cultural Council elected to directly engage with the owner of the River Club, Mr Jody Aufrichtig on the redevelopment proposal.

What we have discovered during this engagement process is that the developer has been open and empathetic to our concerns, which were placed on the table in a frank exchange of views.

Through this lengthy process, two pertinent results of our discussions have persuaded us to take a position in support of this proposed River Club development.

The first is that we believe that the developer has grasped the intense pain that has been associated with the bludgeoning of our narrative. As such, this developer, unlike any other government, corporate, or social entities with which we have engaged, has made a firm commitment to ensure that the footprint of the Khoi and San’s history of resistance, and its modern-day resurgence, is incorporated into the development plan.

Of the many commitments that the developer has made, one of the most significant has been to allocate an area in the centre of this development, which is of great cultural significance to us, for the building of a Heritage Centre, a functional indigenous garden and cultural praxis site and a World-First International Indigenous Media and Communication Centre.

In doing so, the developer, unlike any other government department, including HWC, has honoured one of the central planks of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (UNDRIP). It calls for indigenous peoples to have the capacity to record, report on, as well as print and broadcast matters and events of concern to them.

The second point that has swayed us to give our unambiguous support to the development proposal, is that the developer has committed to cleaning up and indigenising the ecology of the area and to ensuring that the spiritual and cultural symbols of the Khoi and the San finds resonance within the proposed development plan.

We have arrived at this position after much consideration and consultation with many of the senior indigenous leaders and their councils in the Peninsula, and also with prominent national leaders of the Khoi and the San.

We are aware, without a doubt, that there will be detractors, including those who believe that indigenous people stand diametrically opposed to development. They believe the First Nations are rather best served by being relegated to an anthropoid fetishised state where they roam perpetually in antiquity without the tools to navigate the modern world.

Others, for their own reasons, will try to maintain the area as a golf course and the riverbanks as rustic, undeveloped spaces, where women and children can be attacked at will.

Our position is that they are entitled to their views, but we must emphasise that indigenous people are not the perpetual children that the colonist and colonial mentality would have us be. On the contrary, it is our view that such paternalistic notions must by themselves be put to the sword. This is because we, the ones who had been at the frontline of fighting for recognition, restitution and restoration, have elected to exercise agency in our own interest and our progeny.

Kei gan gans

(Chief !Garu Zenzile speaks on behalf of the First Nations Collective includes the following houses and leaders: the Gorinhaiqua (Chief !Garu Zenzile Khoisan, Mr. Ron Martin); Gorachouqua (Kai Bi'a !Kora Hennie van Wyk); Bi'a Jeannette Abrahams; Cochoqua (Chief John Jansen, Chief Tania Kleinhans-Cedras); Griqua Royal Council (High Commissioner and Deputy Secretary General of the Congress of Traditional Leaders of South Africa [Contralesa]; His Excellency, Aaron Martin William Messelaarl San Traditional Royal House of Nǀǀnǂe (Queen Katriena Esau, Prince Titus) and National Khoi and San Council (Chief Cecil le Fleur, Princess Chantal Bruckner), Western Cape Legislative Khoisan Council (Chief Aushumoa, Chief Timo, Headman Joe Damons). Even as this response is being scripted numerous indigenous structures have joined and now include, Overberg Heritage Committee, the Foundation Nation Restoration and the KhoiSan Labour Forum and engagements with many other cultural structures are at an advanced stage, to ensure that there is an overwhelming critical mass of support for the position we have taken.)

© 2020 GroundUp.
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

You may republish this article, so long as you credit the authors and GroundUp, and do not change the text. Please include a link back to the original article.