Africa Month presents a ceremonial moment of celebration and an important opportunity for reflection and critical dialogue on what it means to be African and why that identity continues to matter in an increasingly interconnected world.
While these reflections are about affirming pride in African identity, they should also interrogate the distinctiveness, resilience and value of being African within a multicultural and globalised society.
As Africa embraces the world’s diverse cultures and economies, it must equally reimagine itself beyond a passive consumer of global trends, economic systems and cultural expressions.
Central to Africa’s enduring identity and pride is rural land as one of the continent’s most significant natural and cultural endowments, embedded in systems of livelihood, belonging and heritage.
Any meaningful discourse on rural land in the African context remains incomplete without acknowledging the role of traditional authorities as its historical and customary custodians.
However, I argue that, rather than taking stock of the transformative contribution traditional authorities could make in leveraging productive rural land for rural development and livelihood improvement, much of the contemporary reality is characterised by the preservation of entrenched fiefdoms and authority structures for the enjoyment of traditional structures, often at the expense of millions of rural Africans whose socioeconomic prospects remain constrained within customary spaces.
Increasing land use shifts reveal the strain on customary land in SA’s rural municipalities and has become impossible to ignore.
What was once sporadic land encroachment has evolved into a regular and sustained unfolding of contemporary rural land governance, reflecting the growing pressures of population growth, peri-urbanisation, speculative land transactions, and the rising demand for housing and infrastructure.
The shift on customary land use is directly reflective of the shifting configuration of land governance power, traditionally exercised by chiefs and headmen.
Beyond the ecological degradation and socioeconomic disruptions associated with this phenomenon, the continued conversion of customary land exposes the structural limitations of traditional authorities in exercising effective land governance controls to curb the negative consequences of urban sprawl.
The nature of governance exercised by chiefs in relation to customary land therefore requires careful interrogation.
Is it custodianship on behalf of communities?
Is it authority characterised by unilateral land use decision-making?
Or could it be a combination of absolute use of power and occasional custodianship depending on the nature of the land use decisions to be made?
These questions are increasingly relevant in the context of rapid land transformation and shifting governance realities in rural spaces.
As provided for in the Traditional and Khoi-San Leadership Act, one of the core responsibilities of traditional authorities is to protect their communities, including safeguarding communal resources from exploitation by powerful actors.
However, this responsibility becomes vague when those entrusted with protection become the exploiters or the very facilitators of exploitation.
I argue that, among the many social responsibilities chiefs have historically led and adjudicated, customary land governance remains the most tangible function that continues to position them as important actors in rural governance.
Yet even this responsibility appears to be slipping from their hands, leaving them just as vulnerable as the communities they are meant to lead.
This raises an important question on whether the erosion of customary land governance in SA’s rural spaces indicates an existential crisis for traditional rule itself?
An unfolding reality on the ground resonates with what renowned sociologist Lungisile Ntsebeza reminds us of, that “traditional authority, as currently constituted, remains largely authoritarian and unaccountable and sits uneasily with the democratic ethos of the constitution”.
The often-observed exploitative and unilateral decision-making on land matters gives weight to Ntsebeza’s argument.
Historically, chiefly authority under customary tenure systems has been embedded in the custodianship and protection of communal land with focus on agricultural land that sustained rural livelihoods and local economies.
Chiefs were entrusted with the responsibility of regulating land allocation approaches that preserved productive agricultural spaces and ensured equitable access for community members.
However, the intensification of land commodification and the growing informal market for customary land transactions under the watch of chiefs have significantly undermined these traditional governance functions.
Agricultural land, once central to household food security and local economic resilience, is increasingly being subdivided and converted into residential plots, often without adequate planning oversight or adherence to customary principles of land stewardship.
This state of affairs characterises a transformation that represents a reconfiguration of power and authority within rural spaces.
Control over customary land is gradually shifting from indigenous communities and traditional leaders towards private investors, politically connected elites, and speculative land actors who increasingly reshape land access and development trajectories.
In this process, customary land, historically understood as a communal resource held in trust for collective benefit, is increasingly being treated as a market commodity for individual accumulation.
If chiefs cannot protect communal land, what remains of their custodial legitimacy?
A realistic assessment is therefore required regarding the effectiveness of existing customary land governance controls in promoting sustainable land use and protecting rural productive landscapes.
This assessment must critically interrogate whether the current governance architecture is adequate to respond to the pressures of customary land encroachment or whether institutional reform has become necessary.
A possible avenue lies in the exploration of a hybrid land governance system that enables greater collaboration between traditional authorities and local government.
Under such an arrangement, local municipalities could exercise partial planning authority to regulate land use change, enforce development controls and protect agricultural land, while traditional authorities continue to exercise their culturally embedded role in land allocation and dispute resolution.
This would require a conceptual shift in traditional leadership from notions of land ownership towards a stronger emphasis on custodianship, stewardship, and inter-generational equity.
Africa must reimagine customary land governance now, or risk losing the rural land productivity that sustains its rural identity, livelihoods and future.
In SA’s context, this call has become even more urgent in light of recent legislative developments, including the proposed amendment to the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act, which seeks to strengthen the regulation of unlawful land occupation by introducing stricter penalties for land invasions and illegal building occupations.
While the proposed legislation is aimed at curbing land grabbing across municipalities, state-owned land and private property, its successful implementation in customary tenure areas will depend significantly on the co-operation and effectiveness of traditional authorities.
Without their active participation and alignment with statutory planning systems, the regulation of unlawful occupation in customary land areas may remain difficult to enforce.
The future of customary land governance lies in reimagining rural spaces as active economic hubs capable of supporting sustainable livelihoods, agricultural productivity and socially inclusive development.
Protecting customary land from uncontrolled urban expansion therefore remains a critical rural development imperative that speaks directly to questions of economic justice, land sustainability and the long-term resilience of rural communities.
The declining state of chiefly customary land governance forces Africans to confront a complex question about the meaning of African identity in the present age.
If land remains one of the strongest anchors of African belonging, heritage and livelihood, then its erosion through weak custodianship, unabated commodification and governance failure represents a state of affairs that reflects a crisis of identity and collective responsibility.
To be African in contemporary society is more than just inheriting traditions or celebrating cultural symbols, it must also mean protecting the institutions and resources that sustain African communities across generations.
Where traditional authority fails in its custodial duty, the very foundation of communal identity, dignity and inter-generational justice is weakened.
The future of African identity therefore depends both on preserving culture and renewing governance systems that protect land as a living inheritance for present and future generations.
Ayanda Sondara is a doctoral candidate, land governance commentator and accredited candidate town planner. He writes in his personal capacity.