CAPE TOWN - As the court battle over the River Club development site in Observatory continues, the Liesbeek Action Campaign say their efforts for conciliation with opposing parties have been rejected by developers, the City and province.
Judge Patricia Goliath on Thursday heard four applications for leave to appeal the interdict she granted on March 18 to stop the construction at the River Club, where tech giant Amazon is an anchor tenant. Judgement in the matter was reserved.
In March she had awarded the interdict citing evidence of irreparable harm to the culture and heritage of First Nations People should the construction be allowed to continue. The interdict would remain in place pending a review of the relevant environmental and land use authorisations by the City and the provincial Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning.
Goliath also ordered that given the inadequate consultation process that led to decisions permitting the development, there should be meaningful consultation with all Khoi and San groups with an interest in the intangible heritage of the site.
The Liesbeek Action campaign, a coalition including the Goringhaicona Khoi Khoi Indigenous Traditional Council (GKKITC) and the Observatory Civic Association (OCA) who are the applicants in the case, said their lawyers Cullinans and Associates approached the parties last week with a proposal for a conciliation process to run in parallel with the review proceedings.
“We asked all the parties to agree to an order that they participate in a conciliation process led by a conciliator appointed by the Director General of the National Department of the Environment – as is provided for in section 17 of National Environmental Management Act (Nema),” the Liesbeek Action Campaign said.
“Sadly, the respondents all rejected our approach. Being the location of the first land theft in South Africa and the origin of the displacement and attempted extermination of San and Khoi peoples, the site is a profoundly important one for the indigenous peoples of the region and offers a site for deep healing and reconciliation for the people of our country.”
The Liesbeek Action Campaign said they would insist that the final review orders meaningful participation for all Khoi and San groups, those consulted and those not consulted, but not under the control of the respondents.
Local Government, Environmental Affairs and Development Planning Minister Anton Bredell said he rejected the applicants’ offer as he did not believe the option for consultation was available in this instance.
“The minister does not believe that this proposed option is available in this instance, due to the fact that the Judgement requires consultation with parties who are not party to the current litigation. As such, the minister awaits the outcome of the leave to appeal as applied for,” Bredell’s spokesperson Wouter Kriel said.
The Liesbeek Leisure Properties Trust (LLPT) said the respondents rejected the proposal for a number of reasons including that “they proposed that paragraph 145.1 (a) of Judge Goliath’s order, be replaced with a conciliation process in terms of section 17 (3) of the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA).
“They also requested that while this conciliation process is under way, the interdict should remain in place and that all the respondents withdraw their appeal against the interdict judgment. Their letter also included the threat that if the respondents refused this proposal (having been given 24 hours to respond), the applicants would move ahead with the notice to abandon 145.1 (a) of the interdict order.”
“Any consultation after the conclusion of the environmental authorisation process that granted approval for the redevelopment would have no validity until review proceedings have been concluded and that court makes its ruling on this process. All the respondents have argued in their appeal papers that the allegation of excluded First Nations groups are false and the applicants have failed to demonstrate any intangible cultural heritage resource which had not been identified and assessed by the respective decision-makers; and the inadequacy of the wide-ranging protection mechanisms included in the respective conditions of approval of the redevelopment.”
The City did not respond to requests for comment by deadline.
Cape Times