For the last 16 months, a shroud of uncertainty veiled the business community of Pilgrim’s Rest, as it has waited with bated breath for the outcome of the Public Protector’s investigation into controversial allegations of maladministration and irregularities in the awarding of tenders for shop leases in the historic gold mining village.

However, in mid-December, the village breathed a collective sigh of relief following the release of Thuli Madonsela’s report, aptly titled ‘Poisoned Processes’, which revealed the tender process was flawed and exposed the eviction of 17 legitimate businesses in July 2012 as unlawful.

The controversy around the Pilgrim’s Rest building tenders dates back to October 2011, when the Mpumalanga Department of Public Works, Roads and Transport, which manages the village on behalf of the South African government, the custodian of the national heritage site, decided to advertise the leasing of all buildings used for business on a tender bulletin. The primary aim of that decision was to facilitate the transformation of the business and tourism sectors in Pilgrim’s Rest by enabling greater ownership and participation in local businesses by previously disadvantaged communities.

Unfortunately, the tendering was flawed from the start. After many months of missed deadlines and uncertainty for the then current tenants, at the end of June 2012, the department finally awarded 21 building leases to 14 successful bidders, of whom only five were owners of existing businesses. That meant 17 of the existing businesses had to close shop by the end of July that year. Perhaps more alarmingly was the fact that most of the successful bidders were not even residents of the Pilgrim’s Rest area.

In the immediate wake of that announcement, local business owners went to court and simultaneously lodged a complaint with the Public Protector.

In July 2012, North Gauteng High Court Judge Stanley Makgoba ruled in favour of the tenants and halted the evictions, pending a review of the tenders.

While it took Madonsela just under 16 months to undertake a thorough investigation and compile her report – and it is no secret that the Public Protector has been one very busy lady – the verdict was certainly worth waiting for.

In the report, she exposed all the irregularities in the tendering process and, on that basis, directed the Department of Public Works to cancel the awarding of the contracts for the new shop leases and also directed the head of department to embark on a new procurement process for the conclusion of lease contracts for buildings that are currently without valid lease agreements.

Madonsela stated: “The head of department must ensure that the procurement process complies with the relevant laws and related prescripts as well as the standards of fairness, equitability, transparency, competitiveness and cost effectiveness as required [by the Constitution].” Most significantly, she called on the head of department to ensure that the new process is “heritage compliant” to minimise adverse effects on the maintenance and conservation of Pilgrim’s Rest.

The request to ensure heritage compliance actually speaks to one of the most fundamental but not openly addressed challenges, which has the potential to threaten the long-term viability of the historic gold mining village.

For all that, Pilgrim’s Rest is a popular attraction and offers tremendous opportunity to grow and transform the Mpumulanga tourism sector; the village is, above all else, a national heritage site and living museum.

Thus, priority has to be given to all initiatives that will conserve the historical value of the village, which was declared a national heritage site in 1986, before consideration can be given to enhancing its tourism potential. After all, that is the primary reason why tourists, both local and foreign, flock there in droves every week.

It is in that context that the question needs to be asked: Is a government department that is primarily responsible for maintaining provincial infrastructure best placed to manage a national heritage and tourism site? Perhaps, from a purely maintenance perspective, one could argue that the Department of Public Works is an adequate choice (although, on my last visit to the valley of gold, it was clear that some buildings in the village were in urgent need of maintenance). However, it certainly is not the department that can appreciate nor fully promote the historical and cultural value of the site.

That has been fully evidenced by the recent tender scandal, in which the department clearly took factors other than heritage compliance, sustainable business models and community development into account when issuing the string of contracts for building leases.

While there is no doubt that the transformation goal, a goal that was at the heart of the original tender process, needs to be achieved, it is fundamental that transforming the village’s tourism and business sector is not done at the expense of its inherent historical value.

For Pilgrim’s Rest to flourish, not only as a tourist attraction, but also as a living museum, the village needs to be managed not by one government department but by a committee of sorts, comprising various government departments, including the departments of Tourism and Arts and Culture, as well as community stakeholders. It stands to reason that only a multifaceted committee representative of all stakeholders can sustainably manage a heritage site as important and historically unique as Pilgrim’s Rest.

This is certainly not an academic debate. Pilgrim’s Rest is a living museum and has a community numbering over 3 000 people, whose livelihood depends on the village (and the handful of gold mines that still operate in the vicinity). However, the sustainability of Pilgrim’s Rest as a popular tourist attraction, and, indeed, as one of the country’s unique historical sites, ultimately depends on the preservation and promotion of its history and physical heritage in a way that will compel visitors to return to that charming little gold mining village time and again.