“Nobody is more invested in ensuring Tata’s legacy endures in the way he would want to be remembered than those who carry his name.” 

These are the sentiments of late former president Nelson Mandela’s daughter, Dr Makaziwe ‘Maki’ Mandela, following the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) ruling which turned down an appeal by the SA Heritage Resources Agency (Sahra) and others to stop the sale or export of various assets that belonged to her and Mandela’s Robben Island prison warder, Christo Brand.

The possible auctioning of the artefacts associated with Mandela led to a legal battle two years ago in the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria.

The auction was advertised by Guernsey’s Auction House as ‘The Nelson Mandela Auction’ scheduled for January 28, 2022.

According to SAHRA, on December 23, 2021, it was alerted to a media article published in the United Kingdom titled ‘Key that locked up Nelson Mandela is set to sell for more [than] £1 million’.

The international auction was expressly intended to raise funds for the creation of a memorial garden at the late Nobel Laureate’s final resting place at his homestead in Qunu, Eastern Cape. 

Sahra, as well as the Robben Island Museum and the Department of Sport, Arts and Culture, asked that Mandela’s daughter and his former prison warder be interdicted from selling the items.

The artefacts collection is owned by Dr Mandela, her daughter Tukwini Mandela, and Brand. The collection includes a broken key Brand found decades earlier in a desk drawer while serving as a warder on Robben Island, and a copy of the 1996 Constitution signed by Mandela before the final version was formally executed.

Sahra contended that the artefacts are heritage resources as contemplated in the National Heritage Resources Act 25 of 1999 (the Heritage Act). The SCA, however, rejected Sahra’s interpretation of the Act. 

Reflecting on the SCA ruling in which Sahra was taken “to task for grossly overreaching its mandate”, Dr Mandela said she was relieved by the outcome but was “confounded by the motivation for launching this marathon legal battle in the first place”.

“It is arrogant of an entity such as SAHRA to presume to know my father’s last wishes better than those who were beside him at the end – his family. His legacy is ours as well. It is not, and never will be, a political football,” said Dr Mandela. 

She said nothing had yet been decided about the objects that were to go under the hammer four years ago. 

“Our intention has always been to create a fitting living Garden of Remembrance where Tata is buried – a pilgrimage destination to remind the world of his social justice legacy – but how that will be achieved is yet to be determined.” 

SCA Judge Pieter Meyer in his judgment said: “I conclude that Sahra failed to establish that the assets owned by Dr Mandela and by Mr Brand respectively, are heritage objects. It was incumbent on Sahra with the extensive resources available to it as an organ of state, and where it is in effect suggesting that Dr Mandela and Mr Brand have committed criminal offences in ‘exporting’ their privately owned assets, to allege in detail, with reference to each and every item in the schedule to the notice of motion, why it contended that the Heritage Act should find application. 

“It failed to do so, leaving only speculative arguments as to what might be the basis for its application. That is not how serious litigation of this nature should be conducted.” 

Enquiries for further comment from Sahra were not answered by the time of publishing.    

chevon.booysen@inl.co.za

Source link