In a recent court ruling Stellenbosch Municipality was ordered to grant young men undergoing traditional initiation unrestricted and uninterrupted access to the Idas Valley Nature Reserve in Stellenbosch. This ruling upheld an earlier one, the initial decision, mandating such access after an appeal was lodged against it.
The municipality, the respondent, initially denied the applicants access to the site, which the court rejected, providing full reasons for its decision, dismissing the respondent’s denial that the applicant and others were occupying the property.
In his ruling on 14 April, Judge Daniel Thulare said the issue at hand was not initiates’ access or child protection, but access of the principal, parents, caregivers, medical personnel (including traditional healers and herbalists) to the initiates undergoing training, monitoring, evaluation and assessment in December last year.
“The definitions in the Customary Initiation Act did not stretch far enough to reach these individuals, but the court found that denying them access was a betrayal of the dignity of blacks and a violation of their cultural practices.”
The court also noted the “lackadaisical attitude of the respondent towards court papers, especially the answering affidavit and expressed its displeasure.”
Stellenbosch Municipality was criticised for its actions, the court noting that its quest to obliterate the initiation of young African men amounted to a betrayal of their democratic and constitutional rights they enjoyed, emphasising that respect for one another’s dignity is a material condition for the common good.
Thulare found that the conduct of the Acting Municipal Manager, Anneleen de Beer, went beyond the pale as understood by the court, acquiring a court interdict against the initiates to prevent them from entering the nature reserve, also involving municipal law enforcement.
For this reason the court held it was that for Stellenbosch Municipality to claim ubuntu in its actions in its papers was simply dishonest.
The court ultimately dismissed the application for leave to appeal with costs.
