Mutshamaxitulu na Yindlu ya wena, ndzi yima laha mahlweni ka n' wina ndzi lava ku kombisa erivaleni vuxaka na ntirhisano exikarhi ka vurhangeri bya ndhavuko na vurhangeri kun'we na vuyimeri bya masipala kumbe mimfumo ya xikaya.
A swi kanakanisi Mutshamaxitulu leswaku eka tindhawu tin'wana ta tiko ra hina, ku suka hi lembe ra 2000 loko ku tumbuluxiwa mimfumo ya xikaya kumbe timasipala, ku kwetlembetana, ku pfumaleka ka ku twisisana na ku tsandzeka ku tirha swin'we exikarhi ka vukosi na vamasipala ku ve kona. Sweswo swi endle leswaku vukorhokeri eka vanhu byi nga vi kona. (Translation of Xitsonga paragraphs follows.)
[Mr D W MAVUNDA: Chairperson and the House at large, I stand before you to illustrate the relationship and co-operation between traditional leadership and representatives of the municipalities or local governments.
There is no doubt, Chairperson, that in some parts of our country since the establishment of local governments or municipalities in 2000, infighting, lack of consensus and failure to work together between traditional leadership and municipalities has always been there. That has resulted in the lack of service delivery for the people.]
In a true sense, there is no structure or leadership in our rural communities that does not want development in their respective areas. Traditional leaders, church leaders, or democratically elected leaders are always concerned about their status and the status of the communities where they live.
Secondly, the two components that I have mentioned, the local municipalities and the traditional leadership institutions, were both established by legislation, they are entrenched in the Constitution of our country and have the same common purpose, which is to serve the needs and interests of the previously disadvantaged communities.
The unfortunate situation between the two components has caused and perpetuated a nightmare for the underdeveloped rural areas and the rural communities. Interestingly, Chairperson, this House has promulgated laws and Acts to distinguish between the roles of the two institutions, their respective duties and functions, as well as their legislative mandate for operating and servicing the previously disadvantaged and underdeveloped rural communities.
For example, section 5(2) of the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act of 2003 provides for the partnership between municipalities and traditional councils, where those partnerships must be based on the principles of co-operative governance.
However, the two parties chose not to abide by those Acts; instead, they fought for power to rule over the same previously disadvantaged communities. This has posed a very serious challenge for our municipalities as there is a lack of legislative compliance.
This was because the two parties did not have insight into the legislation or a proper interpretation of the Act - something that needs to be looked into. There is no sign of a serious commitment to consultation between the two components.
Community development has since been paid lip service in most of our rural communities because, in reality, there are no clear policies or programmes to deal with this.
We, therefore, call for the publication and immediate implementation of the Communal Land Rights Act of 2004, which provides, amongst other things, for the establishment of the land administration committees by the local people themselves.
Their functions, amongst other things, are to ensure the allocation of new- order rights to all persons, including women, people living with disability, youth and all vulnerable community members.
The fast-tracking of the Land Management Bill, which also provides for working together with our people in the rural areas, will ensure a comprehensive rural development strategy linked to land, agrarian reform and food security, as alluded to by the President of the country in his state of the nation address.
Consultation by councillors with community members on key strategic policies and decisions is a great necessity, for example, on the revision of the Integrated Development Plan, IDP, tariffs, indigent programmes, and so on.
Again, section 81 of the Municipal Structures Act states categorically that any municipality that wants to bring any development to an area within the jurisdiction of a particular traditional leader, must have proper consultations with the said traditional leader and other relevant stakeholders.
However, councillors in some other municipalities chose not to have such consultations, and such practices have led to confrontation and retarded the needed development in those communities. In order for proper and comprehensive rural and community development to take place in our rural communities, there must be peace and stability at the level of community leadership.
The fact that Chapter 6 of the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act 2003 makes provision for the establishment of a commission to deal with dispute resolution concerning customary laws and customs in our communities and with traditional leaders, speaks for itself. It is something that should be very desirable.
Community development programmes and strategies can only be conducted and implemented in communities where there is peace, no infighting between the leaders of various stakeholders of that community and where co-operation and working together prevails. We therefore call upon the Ministry to speed up the process and pave the way for the Department of Community Development and Land Reform to operate with ease in the best interests of our communities.
We also call for the speedy establishment of the department of traditional affairs as already discussed and agreed upon. This will serve a better purpose in the smooth running of community development programmes and local economic development.
Ku dya ngopfu a hi ku hlula ndlala. Ndza khensa. [These few words will suffice. I thank you.]