The Department of Sport, Arts and Culture has received tens of thousands of objections, estimated at 38,000, to the approved name changes of five towns in the Eastern Cape.
The objections were received after Sport, Arts and Culture Minister Gayton McKenzie published 21 new name changes in the Government Gazette in February and allowed the public one month, until March 6, to lodge objections.
McKenzie made the approvals after he received recommendations from the South African Geographical Names Council (SAGNC) after public consultation in the affected areas.
Among the geographic name changes are Graaf-Reinet to Robert Sobukwe Town, East London to KuGompo, Aberdeen to Xamdeboo, Adendorp to Bishop Limba, and Barkly East to Ekhephini.
Responding to DA MP Marina van Zyl this week, McKenzie said the department received an unprecedented volume of complex and varying formats of objections.
“The department is currently undertaking a structured process to record, consolidate, analyse, and consider all valid objections,” he said.
McKenzie also said individual responses have not yet been issued to objectors.
“The objections are presently being processed through an internal data processing system to ensure accuracy, consistency, and procedural integrity,” he said, adding that the process required adequate time to ensure proper consideration of all valid submissions.
McKenzie said the department will communicate the outcomes of the objection, together with reasons for its decisions, to affected parties in accordance with the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA) once the process has been finalised.
“The department remains committed to full compliance with PAJA,” said McKenzie.
In March, McKenzie said in a parliamentary reply to Freedom Front Plus leader Corne Mulder that 821 people took part in the public participation processes on proposed geographical name changes of East London to KuGompo City, Graaf-Reinet to Robert Sobukwe, Adendorp to Bishop Limba, and Aberdeen to Xamdeboo.
Van Zyl said on Friday that the issue at the heart of these name changes was not simply whether names should change, but whether local communities had a say in meaningful public participation.
She said McKenzie’s own reply confirmed that more than 38,000 objections were submitted, with nearly 22,000 objections specifically opposing the renaming of Graaf-Reinet alone.
“Yet, despite this unprecedented level of public response, the department admits that individual responses have not yet been issued and that objections are still being processed. It has been two months.”
Van Zyl also said it raised serious concerns about whether meaningful public participation took place before these decisions were formalised.
“Decisions of this nature must be community-led, transparent, and properly consultative. Place names are deeply personal. They form part of a community’s history, identity, heritage, and sense of place,” she said.
“When the government proceeds with controversial changes despite overwhelming objections, it risks creating unnecessary division and eroding trust in public participation processes.”
However, McKenzie said objections submitted after gazetting of the approved geographic name changes did not invalidate the decisions taken or the procedures already undertaken, but rather form part of the process provided for in the SAGNC Act.
McKenzie indicated that any decision to confirm, amend, vary, or withdraw the original approvals will be taken in accordance with the applicable legislative and constitutional requirements governing lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair administrative action.
“Upon completion of the current administrative processing phase, the matter may be referred to the SAGNC for consideration and recommendations to the minister regarding whether the approved geographical names should be upheld, amended, or withdrawn.”
He stated that parties that remained aggrieved following the finalisation of the administrative process have the right to seek appropriate judicial review relief before the High Court.
According to McKenzie, the name change processes were conducted with oversight by Provincial Geographical Names Committees and the SAGNC.
“Lessons learned from the current process are being applied to strengthen future compliance,” he said.
Van Zyl said McKenzie must ensure that all objections are properly considered and transparently communicated to affected communities.
“Parliament should also carefully review the current legislation governing geographical name changes to ensure that local voices carry real weight in future decisions, rather than public consultation becoming a box-ticking exercise after decisions have effectively already been made.”
Mayibongwe Maqhina
iol.co.za