Shangoni gate plan marred by infighting
The opening of Shangoni gate into Kruger National Park (KNP) via the Greater Giyani Municipality is under threat as the community of Altein village in the new Lim345 Municipality disagree on the 'preferred gate'.
LIMPOPO – During a public meeting at Mopani Rest Camp in KNP on Thursday, the gate was initially planned for Muyexe or Mninginisi village, both of which fall under Greater Giyani Municipality.
This apparently changed when the Development Forum suggested that there be alternative gates, hence the introduction of the ‘Alternative gate 2’ at Altein village, an area that falls under the Lim345 Municipality in Malamulele.
However, when a final feasibility report aimed at paving way for the start of the construction of the gate was presented for final comments by stakeholders before it was presented to the Department of Environmental Affairs for final approval, the community from the Lim345 Municipality argued the ‘preferred gate’ which the report has suggested as viable, was new to them.
They argued the gate should be opened at Altein village because there is already an existing gate which is being used by rangers, while those that fall under Greater Giyani Municipality argued that the preferred gate was correct because it was situated in one of the originally identified areas.
One of the people who was more vocal in the meeting, Hlengani Chauke who represented the Peni Nghotse community in Malamulele, argued there was a proclamation, R11709/90, which states the gates (KNP gates) should be 65 km apart, meaning the old gate currently being used by rangers in Altein village should be the prepared one.
“Unless there is an amendment of that proclamation, the gate should stay where it is otherwise somebody might have to account in the Constitutional Court,” he threatened. Another person from the Lim345 Municipality, Joe Mtititi, also expressed his support for the old gate to be considered.
“This ‘preferred gate’ is new to us. In all the meetings we had it was never considered to be a gate, we only had option one (Muyexe gate) and ‘Alternative gate 2’,” he said. However, this was disputed by other speakers.
“I don’t understand why there are so many complaints about where the gate should be located because that is an old issue. Everybody knows the original locations of the gate, it cannot be changed by this meeting,” responded Muyexe Development Committee Chairperson, Mafemani Maluleke.
The argument carried on so long that the Chairperson of the meeting, Erika du Plessis, from African Stakeholder Engagement Consulting, had to end the meeting for the sake of time, as the argument of where the gate should be intensified.
