By Fani Ncaphayi

In South Africa’s rural areas, traditional authorities remain vital to local governance amid a growing debate over whether the community or the state should have a say in their selection. This is the same issue facing the communities of Vaalbank, Jojweni and Ngonyama in the Cacadu area of the Eastern Cape.
Although customs vary among communities, the three communities are part of a tradition in which, long before the democratic era, residents of several villages in Cacadu actively participated in identifying and accepting their local headmen; a tradition that is steadily being replaced by the imposition of headmen without meaningful consultation or community consent.

Years of unanswered appeals for intervention

The current dispute across the three communities did not arise overnight but dates back several years. On 17 November 2025, community representatives from three villages and neighbouring communities wrote to the Office of the Premier and the MEC for Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs, requesting urgent intervention. Their concerns included the alleged imposition of headmen without community participation, prolonged delays in resolving disputes over traditional leadership, uncertainty over acting headmen, and the exclusion of communities from decisions that directly affect their governance.

Despite the seriousness of the concerns, the residents say the matter was simply passed between government departments without decisive action, prompting the community representatives to request an urgent meeting with officials from the Office of the Eastern Cape Premier on 17 June 2026.

Although the meeting did not resolve the issues, it clarified the administrative steps expected of each community.
For example, following the reported resignation of a headman in Ngonyama, the community, more than a year ago, followed its standing practice of electing its preferred candidate and submitted the candidate’s particulars to the Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs. However, despite repeated follow-ups, the residents were told by the traditional council to wait – a situation that affects governance decisions, weakens public confidence, and contributes to stalled development in the area.

At the meeting on 17 June 2026, the officials advised that the Ngonyama community should formally present its position by compiling a complete record of the election process used to identify its preferred headman and submit it to the Royal Family and the COGTA District Office in Komani, with a copy to the Office of the Premier. This will facilitate further consideration of the matter and initiate the recognition of a headman in accordance with the community’s customs.
In Vaalbank, residents have repeatedly engaged with the government and traditional leadership structures through meetings, correspondence and discussions with regional traditional affairs offices. Community representatives claim to have learnt only during engagements with officials that the current headman was merely a caretaker—information that had never been disclosed to residents.

During the meeting, the officials confirmed that the governance dispute in Vaalbank had been referred to the Office of the Premier’s Legal Services division. The community representatives were advised that the matter should remain at that level while officials continued to monitor progress and follow up with the relevant officials until a determination was made.
The people of Jojweni, whose dispute dates back to 2010, maintain that their headman was imposed without community approval, despite the community’s longstanding custom of electing one. According to community members, the consequences have extended far beyond traditional leadership. They say development initiatives have stalled, community meetings have become increasingly scarce, decision-making has become concentrated within a small group, and residents who question the current arrangements often face intimidation and exclusion. Moreover, the dispute has gradually eroded social cohesion, public participation and trust within the community.
The Jojweni representatives were advised to lodge a formal dispute challenging the legality of the current headman’s appointment. The officials explained that more than one hundred traditional leadership disputes were already awaiting determination. Therefore, the community would need to show that exceptional circumstances existed to justify the expedited consideration of its dispute ahead of the existing backlog.

More than a leadership dispute, but a test of democratic governance

The concerns of these communities are firmly grounded in South Africa’s Constitution and policies. Section 33 of the Constitution guarantees everyone the right to lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair administrative action. Furthermore, the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, No. 3 of 2000 (PAJA), requires public authorities to provide written reasons for decisions that materially affect people’s rights. They also cite the Traditional and Khoi-San Leadership Act, which recognises that, when hereditary succession does not apply, communities should identify or elect their leaders in accordance with their customs.
However, the community representatives argue that delayed responses, a lack of explanations from officials, and unresolved governance disputes do not meet these legal standards.

Notably, the issues arising from the Cacadu cases extend beyond the three villages in the Eastern Cape to rural South Africa as a whole. The experiences raise difficult but necessary questions about democratic participation under traditional rule; the genuineness of government institutions in listening to rural communities; and who ultimately decides how customary authority should be exercised—the people themselves or the officials.
As these communities continue to seek answers, one message remains clear: democracy does not end where traditional governance begins. Rather, democratic participation should strengthen customary institutions, ensuring that leadership remains accountable to the communities it serves.