UP Expert Opinion: Heritage Month and the unfinished business of restitution

Having recently commemorated Heritage Month, with its braai celebrations and familiar refrains of Rainbow Nation rhetoric, the following question arises: whose heritage is being celebrated? For the millions of South Africans forcibly removed from their homes under apartheid's spatial engineering, this month carries a different weight: one of loss, incomplete return and the ongoing struggle for restoration - this despite the quest for social justice as purported by the Restitution of Land Rights Act (1994), as amended.

Academic research and documentary work have revealed both the impact of forced removals and the realities of implementing restitution policy. Memory work demonstrates the violence of forced removals and the ironies of restitution. Three key moments define this experience: the forging of lives before removal, the receipt of eviction notices, and the eviction itself. From the perspective of the Commission on Restitution of Land Rights, policy implementation meets the realities of claimants, revealing both the achievements and challenges of South Africa's restitution programme.

The case of Elandskloof illustrates the possibilities and limitations of the restitution process. As the first successful land restitution case in South Africa, families who were "uitgesmyt" (cast out) in 1962 watched their homes and belongings being burned and bulldozed by the apartheid state. "Our dream has come true today - today, I am very happy," a woman declared in 1996 as hundreds returned to their ancestral land. From the Commission's perspective, this represented an achievement: the restoration of land to its rightful owners after decades of injustice. In 2025, the community expressed joy when the Western Cape High Court lifted the administration order placed on the community in 2005. The restitution process had been punctuated with community tension and financial constraints. The return masked an unanticipated reality: the farming community that once cultivated buchu and sustained themselves through generations had been returned to land stripped of infrastructure, support and possibility. This irony exemplifies the gap between policy intention and experience. Despite being heralded as a success story, Elandskloof demonstrates how a return without post-settlement support perpetuates cycles of dispossession.

In urban contexts, the challenges become more complex. Research into forced removals in Cape Town areas reveals how the forging of lives was systematically destroyed through the bureaucratic violence of apartheid. The "pain" continued with eviction notices, often arriving without warning, marking not just the loss of property but the destruction of social worlds, resulting in fractured societies.

The Commission's experience confirms what academic research reveals about rural dispossession. Communities rooted in tradition - with agricultural knowledge, sustainable farming practices and indigenous practices - were violently severed from lands that had sustained them for generations. The sale of land under the Group Areas Act (1950) was not merely a transaction; it was an act of cultural, spiritual and economic destruction. Decades later, restitution came with limited infrastructure, support systems or economic opportunities that might have enabled restoration.

The statistics tell a story of achievement and challenges. Between 1995 and 2024, South Africa settled about 83 067 land claims, involving 2 3900 23 beneficiaries; this represented about 94% of old-order claims. While these numbers are indicative of progress in addressing injustices, they mask a complex reality. The Commission's experience reveals how limited budgets shape the scale and rollout of restitution efforts. Financial constraints have created an imbalance between land and cash settlements, with most claimants receiving monetary compensation rather than land restoration. However, it should be noted that claimants are offered options, which include land restoration, alternative land or financial compensation.

Urban areas that once housed neighbourhoods have been transformed, developed into suburbs, shopping centres or industrial zones that cannot be undone. The spaces of belonging have been erased from the landscape, making physical return impossible

and compelling families (many mired in debt) to accept financial settlements that can never restore what was lost: place, community networks and generational continuity. This budgetary reality means that for many families who wish to do so, a return to specific locations remains impossible.

While South Africa's restitution programme has garnered significant achievements, its limitations should be confronted without abandoning the pursuit of justice. Limited state resources, urban development that has made return impossible, and the scale of dispossession create constraints on what the government can achieve alone. Both academic research and Commission experience point towards the same conclusion: these limitations need not spell defeat. Instead, they highlight the necessity of partnerships that can pool resources, expertise and commitment across sectors.

A more effective path forward requires collaboration between the government, civil society organisations, faith-based institutions and affected communities. Churches and mosques, which were central to many communities before removal, could play roles in healing and restoration processes. Civil society organisations bring knowledge of trauma, community development and advocacy that complement state resources. The Commission's work has shown that the most successful restitution cases involve community leadership and multi-sector support. Affected communities must be centred as partners in designing solutions rather than recipients of interventions. The voices of those who have experienced forced removal and incomplete restitution must be heard. Restitution should take a whole-society approach, involving an array of partners.

Such partnerships could address post-restitution support: combining government land grants with NGO skills development programmes, faith-based counselling services and community-led economic initiatives. They could also tackle the heritage dimension, ensuring that memory work becomes integral to restoration rather than an afterthought. Sustainable restitution requires coordinated support that extends beyond the settlement of claims. Both academic research and policy implementation experience point to the need for better coordination between sectors, and approaches that combine material restoration with healing, economic development with memory work and policy implementation with community ownership.

During Heritage Month, we must resist the temptation to reduce the past to narratives that sanitise the trauma of dispossession. The visual and oral archives created through documentary projects serve as acts of resistance against amnesia. When former residents share testimonies of what was lost, they insist that the violence of removal be acknowledged as foundational to understanding present inequalities. Commemorations should engage with the unfinished business of freedom, 70 years since the adoption of the Freedom Charter.

Heritage Month must become more than a moment of reflection: it must catalyse partnerships that are committed to the work of building a society that can honour the dignity and dreams of all South Africans. The wounds of forced removal run deep, but they also reveal reservoirs of resilience and wisdom that, properly supported through partnership, can point towards healing and restoration for the nation.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the University of Pretoria.