Madiba’s daughter says SAHRA, government trying to rob her of private property

Nelson Mandela’s eldest daughter, Dr Makaziwe Mandela-Amuah, has accused the South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA) of using criminal allegations as window dressing for what was in fact a bid to seize control of her private property, in the form of various pieces of memorabilia linked to her late father.

Last week, SAHRA, together with the Robben Island Museum and the Department of Sports, Arts and Culture launched an urgent application to repatriate 30 objects and artefacts – including the key to the former president’s prison cell, as well as various artworks, signed books, and clothing items that belonged to Mandela – from the United States.

According to SAHRA the items were illegally exported without the requisite permits ahead of their planned auction at New York-based Guernsey’s, to raise funds for a memorial garden in Qunu, which was arranged by Mandela-Amuah.

Guernsey’s said this week it had “no plans to oppose the application” at this stage. Mandela-Amuah, however, does and in papers filed earlier this week charged that “the applicants appear to use the so-called criminal activity as a smokescreen in which to gain access to or control of those items”.

News of the auction sparked controversy, and it was ultimately cancelled following engagements between SAHRA – which maintains the items in question are “heritage objects” – and Guernsey’s.

Also Read: Nelson Mandela prison cell key to be returned to SA, auction suspended

SAHRA in its papers said the items had still not been returned to the country, though. It further said once they were returned, they would have to be handed over to the Hawks, because they were now part of a criminal investigation.

No permit required

But Mandela-Amuah said in her papers that the items in question were in fact not ‘heritage objects’ and had not been lawfully declared as such. As a result she maintained no permit was required to export them and the criminal allegations were “baseless” as well as “reckless and vexatious”.

She cited section 32(5) of the National Heritage Resources Act, which bars SAHRA from declaring something a ‘heritage object’ unless “it has served on the owner a notice of its intention and has given him or her at least 60 days to lodge an objection or suggest reasonable conditions regarding the care and custody of such object, under which such declaration is acceptable”.

She accused SAHRA of playing politics and having “lent itself as a tool to the partisan interests of central government”.

“I am aware of several wealthy South African businessmen who own several items of Nelson Mandela memorabilia and official artwork. They are allowed by [SAHRA] to deal with their private property as they see fit,” she said.

She also laid into the Robben Island Museum’s claims that the prison key had been “illegally and unlawfully removed from the national estate of the Republic of South Africa”.

The key was donated to the auction by Mandela’s jailer-turned friend, Christo Brand, at Mandela-Amuah’s request. He subsequently asked for it be withdrawn. It has since been returned to an international exhibition hosted by the Durham Museum at which it was previously on display, though.

“The conduct of [the Robben Island Museum] borders on the bizarre. It is aware, because it is a partner to the Durham Museum’s exhibition, that the key is lawfully there,” Mandela-Amuah said.

She asked that the application be dismissed with costs, a portion of which she wanted Malgas ordered to pay in her personal capacity.

A matter of personal rights

Dr Ndukuyakhe Ndlovu – an anthropological expert – described the question at the heart of the case as being strongly linked to an individual’s personal rights.

“At what stage does that which belongs to me – whether I’ve inherited it from my parent or anyone else – fall under the control of the state because it’s associated with someone deemed to be an icon? At what point do we say the family no longer has the right to act as they deem fit?” he said.

While he emphasised he was not a legal professional, Ndlovu’s opinion was that SAHRA would have a tough time persuading the court.

“I can’t see any sections in the act that support the case. You can argue you are not allowed to export an object material without a permit from SAHRA … But that object or material must have been declared of national importance,” he said.