The National Land Committee (NLC) is to vote on the closure of its national office. The relationship between the office and the NLC board, says its chairperson, has disintegrated.
The national office is responsible for the advocacy and coordination of the committees involved in land rights issues. The NLC board will vote on the dissolution of the national office next Wednesday.
This comes after a breakdown in trust between some board members and staff. At the root of the distrust is the office’s links to the Landless People Movement (LPM).
The dissolution motion is viewed by land activists as an attempt by the board to counteract the influence of the LPM, which is seen as overly militant and political.
The Mail & Guardian has documents, written by an NLC member and submitted to the board, arguing that the NLC should be dissolved and replaced by a ”more effective national network” and that the ”descent into organisational confusion has been taking place over a protracted period”.
Board chairperson Wayne Jordaan told the M&G that the decision had not yet been taken and required 80% majority vote. ”The relationship between the national office and board members has disintegrated,” he admitted, ”but we are still willing to restore it.”
The document sets out the breakdown of relations since since the dismissal of CEO Zakes Hlatshwayo in July. It details board members’ attempts to negotiate with the LPM, but says the latter has intimidated the board, disrupted meetings and assaulted board members.
”Our national office in Johannesburg, and more specifically its management committee, has refused to respect the authority of the board” and the office has ”deliberately undermined the integrity and credibility of the board in public forums”, says the document. It also alleges financial mismanagement on the part of the office and diversion of funds to the LPM.
LPM national organiser Mangaliso Kubheka told the M&G the organisation opposed the dissolution of the NLC’s national office and would continue to struggle for the rights of the landless. The board, he said, was ”taking funding from donors for the landless people, but they are not representing the poor”.