Open Letter to The Kormorant
Legacy on the Dam (“Legacy”) has noted the sensational Open letter dated 15th August
2024 penned by “Frustrated and heartbroken Harties resident” (“the writer”). We have
noted the letter with the contempt and maliciousness it deserves, and have taken note of
its slanderous undertones bordering on a veiled attempt to swing public opinion and
influence and incite public outrage on our establishment. The writer clutters and
compounds his/her open letter with many issues and innuendos burdening the readers
and leaving one to wander what the essence and heart of the groggy letter is. In its
compounded format, the writer’s letter muddies the waters further by raising various
issues facing the Dam, and bundling and attributing all and sundry to Legacy.
One is persuaded and prompted to ask the writer ‘what exactly is the core of the
complaint?’ Is it the alleged noise and disruption of peace allegedly from Legacy? Is it the
DWS administrative processes which have nothing to do with Legacy? Having regard to
the truism that Legacy is not an administrator and certainly has no voice and jurisdiction
in the said administrative matters. Is it the selling of liquor on state land that forms the
foundation of the writer’s open letter to the Kormorant. Or is this the years-old veiled
campaign to rid the Hartbeespoort Dam shoreline of Previously Disadvantaged
Individuals (PDIs) completely?
We have read your letter over and over and failed to locate your cause and objective save
to say you have left many worrying questions.
In its form, the letter is toxic and it should not be allowed to pass through the lenses of
factual glorification, correctness and accuracy and should not be granted a green flag to
sail into the hearts, minds, souls and chambers of our community unchallenged. One
cannot help but identify with the frustration and heartbreak that the writer feels at the
injustices and unfairness of life in and around Hartbeespoort Dam in general. There is
just so much hypocrisy.
The occupational patterns and demographics dotted along the shoreline of the
Hartbeespoort Dam persist and remain a clear trigger and source of frustration, conflict
and heartbreak for all of us. We all stand together, aggrieved and concerned at what is
obtaining and prevailing around the Hartbeespoort Dam shoreline and community in
general. All this, 30 years after we ushered in a new dispensation that seeks to foster
social cohesion and tolerance powered by our values of ubuntu.
What is obtaining in this tourist town should not be celebrated by any well-to-do and
peace-loving South Africans and visitors to this town alike. The veiled racist undertones
characterizing this letter must be condemned at the highest echelons, levers and corridors
of administrative power and debated in the supreme corridors of the Parliament of the
Republic of South Africa. For how long can we remain in the pre-1994 era whilst living in
2024?
In his/her veiled attempt to capture the minds and hearts of the community, the writer
uses his or her imagination to quote and cite the South African Constitution. The writer
loops various Acts and regulations in his/her endeavour to appeal to and rally support and
sympathy from the readers and community in general. Yet the writer fails dismally to
balance his/her short visit to the Constitution of the Republic, conveniently ignoring and
disregarding the very pillar of equality before the law as espoused in the Bill of Rights.
Once upon a time in 2019, the DWS came out clearly and amplified its position on
selective enforcement of laws, regulations and by-laws in response to Croukamp
Attorneys. We have travelled this road before and we have been here. It is not a good
place to be.
It was alleged in a Croukamp Attorneys letter to the Department that Mathibedi OTN
Holdings should comply with certain building regulations as relates to the construction of
a gate at Bubbles Champagne Garden on the Schoemansville shoreline. This followed
high on the heels of a sustained campaign mounted by some majority white community
members seeking to remove Mathibedi OTN Holdings from state land. It was alleged and
claimed that Mathibedi OTN had occupied Portion of Portion 28 illegally, with some
community members demanding that they should go back to Soweto. In their letter dated
14 September 2018, community members who had appointed Croukamp Attorneys
appeared to have appointed themselves as the policers of state land users and
preoccupied themselves with the following;
Furnish this office with all relevant information in respect of the development and
more specifically a full and detailed description of the development with reference
to the factors listed in paragraph 3.4 above;
b) Furnish this office with any authorization to commence and continue with the
development including any environmental authorizations issued by READ and/or
any authorization issued by the Department Water Affairs and Sanitation and/or the
approval of the building plans and the development by the Madibeng Local
Authority;
c) Furnish this office with any lease contract or any other permission that permits
the company/developer to take possession and/or be in possession of the
property;
It appeared that community members instructing Croukamp Attorneys had been selective
in their demands to the Department to act on Mathibedi OTN. The Department responded
that in addressing the complaint it would need to apply the laws uniformly and identify all
similar transgressions on portion 28. In the Departments response signed by the Director
General M Ntshangana on the 12th March 2020, part of the letter read as follows;
“The contravention notice issued by the Madibeng Municipality to the Department
of Water and Sanitation in terms of Portion 28 of the Farm Hartbeespoort JQ 482 is
not case specific and refers to the farm as a whole. To the Department knowledge,
not a single state land user of Portion 28 complies with the Peri Urban Town
Planning Scheme of 1975 and the National Building Regulation and Standards Act,
1977 (Act No 103 of 1977), therefore the Department will have to act against all state
land users occupying a portion of portion 28 of the Farm Hartbeespoort 482 JQ.
The Department will then also comply with your request to act against all illegal
activities.
Therefore, the Department is obliged to ensure that all current State land users of
Portion 28 of the Farm Hartbeespoort JQ 482 comply with the above-mentioned
requirements of the municipality by providing the approval received from the
Madibeng Municipality to erect buildings and that all plans and specifications have
been drawn and submitted to the municipality for approval to the Department.
It is common cause (and indeed the writer of the open letter will know) that all permanent
structures built around the Hartbeespoort Dam do not comply with the said demand by
Croukamp Attorneys and those who procured their service. It would appear that when the
Attorneys and their clients realized the resultant implications of their demand, they quietly
dropped their penchant for selective application and enforcement of laws. This demand
by Croukamp Attorneys died a natural death, because it meant many things to different
users of state land. None of the permanent structures around the Hartbeespoort Dam
were approved by the Madibeng Municipality Town Planning. Many if not all the
permanent structures around the shoreline are illegal structures.
For far too long, Legacy has been the subject of various selective enforcement of laws
and by laws bordering not only on unfair discrimination but what may appear as bullish
racism and sustained campaign to shut the establishment down.
When introducing itself to the Department in 2019, after the Hartbeespoort Community
Development Initiative, lodged a com-plaint of unfair discrimination around the
Hartbeespoort Dam, the South African Human Rights Commission said and we quote.
“The Commission will conduct its investigation through the prism of the
Constitution, applicable legislation and the equality jurisprudence of the
Constitutional Court. The Commission will also take into consideration South
Africa’s unique historical context as summarized in the matter of Prinsloo v Van
der Linde and Another (CCT4/96) [1997] ZACC 5; 1997 (6) BCLR 759; 1997 (3) SA
1012, where the Constitutional Court stated that:
“Our country has diverse communities with different historical experiences and
living conditions. Until recently, very many areas of public and private life were
invaded by systematic legal separateness coupled with legally enforced advantage
and disadvantage. The impact of structured and vast inequality is still with us
despite the arrival of the new constitutional order. It is the majority, and not the
minority, which has suffered from this legal separateness and disadvantage”.
1) Sections 9(1) and (2) of the Constitution entitle everyone to equality before the
law.
Section 9(3) of the Constitution precludes and inhibits unfair
discrimination on the grounds of, amongst others, race and language or social
origin.
2) The Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000
(‘the Equality Act’) was enacted pursuant to the provisions of section 9 of the
Constitution. Section 7 of the Equality Act states that subject to section 6, no
person may unfairly discriminate against any person on the ground of race,
including—
(a) the dissemination of any propaganda or idea, which propounds the racial
superiority or inferiority of any person, including incitement to, or
participation in, any form of racial violence;
(b) the engagement in any activity which is intended to promote, or has the
effect of promoting exclusivity, based on race;
(c) the exclusion of persons of a particular race group under any rule or
practice that appears to be legitimate but which is actually aimed at
maintaining exclusive control by a particular race group;
(d) the provision or continued provision of inferior services to any racial
group, compared to those of another racial group.
3) Section 14 of the Equality Act lists factors that must be taken into account when
determining whether a conduct amounts to unfair discrimination (our
emphasis). One of the most important factors to be considered is “the position
of the complainant in society and whether he or she suffers from patterns of
disadvantage or belongs to a group that suffers from such patterns of
disadvantage. Another important factor is whether discrimination impairs or is
likely to impair human dignity.”
Flowing from the above a case in point is that certain estates around Kosmos area came
together and colluded openly to support the liquor license application of a white state land
occupier/user on Farm JQ 478 Portion of Portion 5. The comparative followed when
Legacy submitted its own liquor license application the same estates and other parties
colluded to mount a fierce opposition to the application for a liquor license lodged by
Legacy.
The writer appears to imply that selling of liquor on state land is undesirable or unholy if
not unlawful, but dismally fails to support this assertion by citing a relevant and specific
law. Not only does he or she display a selective approach and glaring discrimination of
equally situated state land users, the writer clearly displays his/her bias and preference.
As a matter of fact, the following establishments sell alcohol on state land:
1. Portion of Portion 29 Ifafi Aquatic
2. Portion of Portion 28 TYC Restaurant
3. Portion of Portion 28 operator at Schoemansville Oewer Club
4. Portion of Portion 29 Harties Party Boat
5. Portion of Portion 5 Beach Bar and Harties Boat Company
6. Portion of Portion 6 Legacy on the Dam. Caribbean Beach, HBK and Kosmos Marina
The isolation and targeting of Legacy is not a coincidence but a well sustained action to
push out any semblance of previously disadvantaged state land users as has been with
PDI lease applications at the Hartbeespoort Dam shoreline. This bullish action is not new.
In 2018, a resident wrote an email to Mathibedi OTN introducing herself as follows;
“Ever since you started to claim a piece of shore, in the middle of our town, I’ve
wanted to write to you. It is difficult for me, as I’m Afrikaans speaking and a white
woman. I want to try and explain to you why we as a community feel such a
heightened sense of emotion regarding your proposed development.
As I’ve said, I’ve been living here for 15+ years and my one neighbour for 30+ years,
my other neighbour for 40+ years. My neighbours at the back has been here for 30+
years.
All the other diverse cultural groups of people that have moved into our town, did
so for the character and essence. They respect and agree to this way of life. It is in
line with their own needs. They have successfully integrated into our community
on all levels. You DO know this is a predominantly white Afrikaans community? I
feel, THAT is the reason you chose this location. With all this said, I want to show
you, how we as a community are experiencing this whole attack on our way of life”.
Around 2010 the community of Hartbeespoort signed a petition to rid the DWS state land
of a certain previously disadvantaged party from Kommandonek and Oberon arguing that
the two state portions were the only remaining public access areas. The same statement
was echoed in Parliament by the then Minister who read a well-conceptualized-well
designed and well-crafted statement supporting that position.
The petition was successful and subsequently, the PDI was removed from both
Kommandonek and Oberon. Of course, the narrative was false bordering on misleading
the Minister to lie to the nation in Parliament. In a shock twist of events and soon after the
PDI removal, a white person took occupation of Kommandonek. There was no public
outcry at all and no petition, the reason given when signing the petition were no longer of
relevance.
The same white man still occupies that portion of land. Does the writer know of this history
of Hartbeespoort Dam, and that black lease applicants are openly discriminated against?
Does this writer know that there are investigations by the DWS, the South African Human
Rights Commission and the Public Protector and lately the Public Service Commission
bordering on a wide array of complaints? If “Frustrated and heartbroken Harties resident”
knew this his or her heart would freeze and stop.
For months on end, bullying has continued unabated, Legacy has been visited by SAPS
on noise allegations. The writer should contact SAPS to check their findings each time
they arrived there unannounced. For months on end there has been secret meetings by
various community groups focused on shutting Legacy down, as well as Bubbles
Champagne Garden.
In November 2023 a pure criminal incident occurred at Legacy resulting in the death of
one and injury of another. This incident was used to campaign for the establishment’s
closure. A week or so later a white man shot dead his wife and step daughter at Kosmos
Village where most of the complaints are rumoured to be engineered and emanate from,
however, there was no single voice that demanded closure of Kosmos Village or no
slightest outrage and condemnation of this heinous criminal activity.
‘Frustrated and Heartbroken’ appears not to have been frustrated and heartbroken by this
heinous criminal act, enough to write an open letter to this newspaper.
Farm JQ 482 Portion 59 has been altering the banks of the Hartbeespoort Dam in a clear
violation of the National Water Act. The Schoemansville Oewer Club has done the same,
so has Boaters World and many more clear transgressions by other users. Yet the writer
displays hypocrisy and perhaps would argue ignorance of these facts in his/ her selective
campaign.
Few years ago, portion 6 in De Rust was a hive of mining activities until the Hartbeespoort
Community Development Initiative NPO lodged complaints with the DWS and also the
same complaint to MP Leon Basson who had shown a keen interest in the removal of
Mathibedi OTN Holdings in 2018. Basson ignored the issues being raised, but was quick
to react to the Mathibedi OTN issue.
On the southern tip of the dam, one occupier was selling a portion of Portion 4 of Farm
JQ 478. This selling of state shoreline land was through reputable estate agents yet the
‘Frustrated and Heartbroken’ resident remained silent throughout. Still on Portion 4 the
users of that portion wrote to the Department demanding that a PDI should be allocated
another portion and not the one that they have been using for free for many decades.
Big boats sail past Legacy all the time with loud music yet the writer turns a blind eye and
reserves his/her vent, frustration and heart break.
Chapter 9 of the Bill of Rights is instructive in that all are equal and should enjoy the
protection and benefit of our laws. The bill of rights clearly advocates against unfair
discrimination which the writer blatantly displays and demonstrates.
Dear writer, you who is a “Frustrated and heartbroken Harties resident”, have you taken
time to visit Legacy, to come and have a sit-down and present your concerns before
running to create a media frenzy? If not why not? What is the purpose of your letter?
Have you ascertained that the alleged noise comes from Legacy out of all the
establishments around the dam? Have you driven around the dam and recorded the noise
levels for you to say with precision that Legacy is responsible for the said alleged
disturbance of peace.
Recently an estate agent based at Kosmos Village Cheryl Grobler has taken it upon
herself to police and monitor Kommandonek portion 155 bought and owned by a certain
PDI, Mr. Sello Mogodiri. She has gone to the extent of creating a WhatsApp Group to give
regular updates on her WhatsApp Group yet she does not do the same to a portion facing
portion 155 belonging to a white owner Mr. Deon De Beer also on the Magaliesberg
Mountains. When asked why she was doing this unfair and discriminatory action, she
responded as follows;
“There are some people who just cannot grasp the fact that the Magaliesberg is a
proclaimed (by law) Protected Environment, and has been declared an international
Biosphere Reserve. There are limitations as to how it can be used and developed.
You would think that people owning property in the area would actually find out
more about their obligations and responsibilities before hacking down trees,
destroying grasslands and wildlife habitat, and putting up fences without getting
the required authorisations. Then people who know even less start invoking
unrelated subjects to justify failure to adhere to the processes in place. It is
unbelievable.”
These are the same people who will stand on the Pecanwood side of the dam, gaze
across at the mountain and be in awe of the fact that houses all seem to go up to a
certain point and no further. They are probably amazed at that fact. Never thinking
WHY.
When asked why she directs her energies to the black owner of portion 155 and not the
other similar situated white owner, she mumbled.
Selective enforcement of laws is also discrimination in its own very nature. Perhaps the
writer’s letter has brought about unintended outcomes and consequences. Is it not time
that Hartbeespoort had a conversation about race relations and social cohesion?
Surely this is not healthy coexistence.
References to the letter attached herewith
1. Copy of Croukamp Letter
2. Response by the Department
3. Photos of alterations of banks of the Hartbeespoort Dam
4. Written Reply to Parliament Mike Ellis
5. Selling of state land by portion 4 user
6. Sherry WhatsApp Group
7. Letter to Mathibedi
8. Communication between Legacy and Caribbean beach