Cape Town - The Liesbeek Action Campaign (LAC) has vehemently denied that it had "abandoned" the First Nations Group in the legal matter over the controversial River Club development.
The developers, Liesbeek Leisure Properties Trust (LLPT) alleged that the leaders of the Goringhaicona Khoi Khoin Indigenous Traditional Council and Observatory Civic Association had proposed to "abandon" consultation with the First Nations groups they represented to stall court proceedings.
But the parties rejected this and accused the LLPT of being opposed to a "meaningful consultation", and instead continued with "insults, exclusion and rejection" of a transparent and consultative process.
When granting an interim interdict against the development on March 18, the Western Cape High Court ordered that given a previous inadequate consultation process of all indigenous people, there should be "meaningful consultation" with all interested Khoi and San groups.
Judge Patricia Goliath also noted the "irreparable" harm to the culture and heritage of indigenous people if the construction work was to be allowed to continue.
She also acknowledged the rights of indigenous peoples and ordered that economic benefits “can never override the fundamental rights of First Nations Peoples."
When the court resumes to hear Part B of the case at a date yet to be determined, it would hear legal arguments challenging the authorisations granted by the provincial Department of Environmental Affairs and the City of Cape Town.
The LLPT, First Nations Collective, City of Cape Town and provincial Department of Environmental Affairs have appealed the interim interdict.
The Liesbeek Action Campaign said its legal representatives approached the parties in support of the development, including LLPT, with a proposal for a conciliation process to run in parallel with the court 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.
"Further, in the spirit of expediting the review, we suggested that the exchange of pleadings in the review continue in parallel to the conciliation so as not to delay the review," the LAC said.
However the proposal was rejected, added LAC.
The organisation said it opted for the conciliation approach as its leaders were "subjected to abuse and slander".
"How can we consult under circumstances when we are threatened? We will certainly insist that the final review orders meaningful participation for all Khoi and San groups, those consulted and those not consulted, who are the majority of Khoi and San group – but not under the control of the respondents," the LAC said.
On the other hand, the LLPT said the move was an attempt to stall court proceedings.
The developers said the LAC wanted them to "withdraw the appeal" against the interdict judgment.
"Any consultation after the conclusion of the environmental authorisation process that granted approval for the redevelopment would have no validity until the applicants’ review proceedings have been concluded and that court makes its ruling on this process," said LLPT.
The Western Cape High Court reserved judgment on the developer's application, seeking to overturn the interim interdict.