It has been two weeks since the end of the High Court hearings for our interdict application to stop the ongoing construction at the River Club. Judge Goliath has yet to make her decision. We are hopeful that the delay is because, in order to make the best decision possible, she is meticulously considering all the material in the papers submitted, which, we believe, must lead to a decision to protect the living heritage of the site from irreparable harm.

In the interim, the developers continue to build apace. So much so, that one Observatory resident, a performance artist of the spoken and written word, Malika Ndlovu, felt moved to pen a powerful comment on the ongoing violence of the development, in which she spoke of the face of “the land-grabbing ogre.”

She writes:

Normalised triumph regardless of indigenous protest.
The nauseating irony of a brand called Amazon, another site of white Capital evisceration of ecologies, of kin and ways of being in right relation...connected to the land and standing people in ways beyond colonial comprehension.
The penetration and pounding continues unabated.
Now tons of concrete will suffocate the soil, bury all histories, living and dying here before.
Steel, aluminium, brick, plastic, processed wood and glass to dominate the narrative with a promise of benefit and ongoing development, as if primary owner- stakeholder -trillionaire profit is not the obvious motive driving all of this so-called construction.
Twisting metal-neck vultures hovering over the unabashed burial, day after day, hour after hour, till the towermaker's (dehydrated) dream is fulfilled.”

The chilling image of “Twisting metal-neck vultures hovering…” is stunningly precise.

But it seems that metal vultures are not the only kind of predator hovering around this development. In today’s Sunday Times, it was reported that some First Nations Collective (FNC) members are “unhappy with their share of the spoils” because “we should have ownership.” In fact, one informant for the article indicated he would use his access to fishing quotas to “acquire a stake.” What seems evident is that not all FNC members are satisfied with only uplifting the Khoi community as a historically marginalised people. For some, that narrative is now being translated into material benefits to individual Khoi leaders.

This is, of course, contradictory to what has been previously claimed by the FNC. For example, in the First Nations (AFMAS) report for the LLPT Heritage Impact Assessment, a Gorinhaiqua leader says “It’s not that we Gorinhaiqua want the land; that we want to take the land, and we want to throw everybody off. We want that land to be the space for repair and recognition."  

In response to the reports of FNC member dissatisfaction, James Tannenberger, the LLPT spokesperson denied, in the Sunday Times article, that “the Khoi groups had any legitimate claim to ownership of the site.”  He described the ownership stake being asked of LLPT as being asked by “an unknown and limitless body of parties,” an act which he compares to “expropriation without compensation…” Not so long ago, the LLPT was claiming that the FNC was the authoritative voice of the Khoi in the Western Cape but now it seems they are just “an unknown and limitless body of parties” making unreasonable demands.

Most revealing is Tannenberger’s citing of “the social compact with the First Nations Collective” which he indicated “is binding and states what rights and obligations the parties have.” His description makes it clear that what this “compact” represents is not a compact, nor social, but a legal contract, which has removed any agency from the FNC in this matter. They must accept what they have been offered or get off the bus.

So much for respect for Khoi heritage.

We remain anxiously awaiting Judge Goliath’s decision.

As always, please help us fund these legal costs by contributing at our fundraising site. 

Visit our website and follow the Liesbeek Action Campaign on twitter: @LiesbeekAction.

Make the Liesbeek Matter.