Names council asked to elaborate on extent of consultation

In The Herald on Wednesday May 31, it was reported that the Eastern Cape leads the country in respect of name changes.

The chair of the SA Geographical Names Council stated that the province had demonstrated a “great deal of inclusive consultation and engagement by working with various stakeholders, including communities, academics, traditional leadership, including government structures”.

Can the chair please answer the following questions about inclusive consultation in the case of the name change from Port Elizabeth to Gqeberha?

What is prescribed in the act and in its regulations to constitute inclusive consultation in the case of a city like Gqeberha?

How was this process advertised to ensure a reasonable chance that the majority of citizens of the city would have seen such an advertisement?

Going by the time the decision was announced, it may have been that these consultations took place when partial lockdown regulations still applied.

If so, how was it ensured that these regulations would not have deterred people from attending the consultations?

How many venues were used for such consultations and where were these venues situated?

How many citizens attended these consultations and how many voted in favour of the proposed name change?

Can the number of the votes in favour of the proposal be regarded as representative of the citizens of the city?

What is the motivation for regarding a petition signed by a large number of people as only one objection, ignoring the number of people who had lodged the same objection?

They would most likely have spoken against, if not voted against, the proposal had they availed themselves of a reasonable opportunity to attend the consultations. Charles Wait, Overbaakens