Abstract
Archives have become acceptable evidence in the context of land restitution to prove events that occurred in the past during land dispossessions. However, some researchers contend that archives are not always available and accessible when restitution claimants seek them due to loss, restrictions and lack of intellectual control. The purpose of this study was to explore archives as a tool to support or hinder land restitution in South Africa. This qualitative study used snowball sampling to select participants from restitution claimants, while purposive sampling was used to select project officers at the Commission on Restitution of Land Rights (CRLR) and archivists at the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa (NARSSA), respectively. Data were collected through interviews. The key finding indicates that there are a large number of unresolved land claims to redress land dispossession injustices caused by missing records, language barriers, unclassified information and access restrictions. The study concludes by arguing that archives can empower the claimants if available and accessible, while, on the other hand, they can disempower the claimants if unavailable and inaccessible.
Introduction and background
The importance of archives as a source of evidence in land restitution cannot be overstated. As observed by Ngoepe (2020), land claims in South Africa primarily rely on oral testimony, oral tradition and archival sources for evidence. Records protect citizens’ rights, such as their rights to land ownership, which are documented through land registration records (Ngoepe, 2008). When restitution claimants decide to lodge a land claim with the Commission on Restitution of Land Rights (CRLR) without all the necessary information for submission, the process can be difficult. However, some researchers concur that archives are unavailable when needed to support land claims, which disempowers the claimants. As a result, archives may empower if they are available or disempower if they are not. Several scholars, including Ngoepe and Makhubela (2015), Ngoepe (2008, 2012), Sebina (2004) and Saunders (2003) emphasise the importance of archives as a source of evidence for courts, auditing and land claims. In addition, Millar (2017) contends that archives would be useful in land restitution since they would provide proof to validate historical events and substantiate accusations through indigenous communities’ stories, histories and heritage, as portrayed through rock art painting. Thobela (2011), Sebina (2004) and Saunders (2003) highlight the close relationship between archives as a source of evidence and the land restitution process to ensure the historical correctness and relevance of a land claim to protect citizens’ land rights and provide remedies to affected restitution claimants. In this regard, Sebina (2004) reports on the unavailability of records in Botswana when a land claim was processed at Segoditshane village. As a result, during the process of the land claim, the court had to rely on the memory of the former director of the department. On the other hand, Ngoepe (2008) laments that relying on memory alone is often problematic due to its frailty, unless such memory is corroborated by others.
The availability and accessibility of archives for land restitution purposes has a direct impact on land restitution processes, according to the thesis of this paper. A large number of claims have been lodged in South Africa for land that was dispossessed during the apartheid regime (Saba, 2018: 13). To investigate and settle land claims, the CRLR, like all government institutions in South Africa, requires archives and documentary evidence. The Land Claims Court in South Africa deals with legal issues in land claims cases referred by the CRLR to ensure that land is restored to individuals or communities who provided sufficient proof. During the land restitution proceedings, archival documentation such as maps, title deeds, death certificates and archives relating to land dispossession may be required to support restitution claimants’ land claims. Similarly, records are created and maintained by individuals who may contradict the allegations (Fay and James, 2008). However, on rare occasions, restitution claimants may be permitted to present non-textual evidence such as graves. According to Thompson and Bornat (2017: 1), in situations where land dispossessions are not documented, low-income social groups such as the urban poor, travelling communities and isolated country people can provide oral testimony. On the other hand, because archives are rare and unique, it is essential to make land restitution archives available and accessible to the public because they have historical, legal, evidential and administrative value that promotes human rights and good governance in the public sector (Pereira, 2017: 35; Mhlanga, 2015: 4). As reported by Sibanda (2017), archival institutions play an important role by making archives available and accessible to help future generations understand the past, meet their needs and improve the country's economy. In view of this, Ngoepe (2019) contends that written records and oral evidence can support land claims in tandem.
When institutions tasked with preserving and managing archival information and heritage fail, the consequences are dire, with the potential to stymie, if not halt, meaningful progress towards land restitution, ultimately denying the rightful owners their land. Without the records, the government will not be able to address issues such as land rights. In view of the foregoing, this study investigated archives as a tool to support land restitution in South Africa. The Land Claims Court then ensures that all land claims lodged are resolved. According to Harris (2000), from 1998 to 1999, the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa (NARSSA) and the then Department of Land Affairs launched a joint operation to locate, protect and inventorise records stored in both archives and government offices for use as evidence during the land restitution process.
Contextual setting
As part of redressing past injustices and transforming society, the South African government implemented a three-pronged land reform programme that includes land redistribution, land restitution and land tenure reform (Du Plessis, 2006: 20). The goal of the land restitution programme is to promote the restoration of land to black people who were forcibly removed from their land during the colonial and apartheid regimes. The Restitution of Land Rights Act (Act No. 22 of 1994) requires members of the public who have been evicted from their land to file restitution claims with the CRLR (Republic of South Africa, 1994), which is in charge of investigating these claims and issuing recommendations based on their resolution. Archives are one method of proving the legitimacy of land claims. To investigate and settle land claims, the CRLR, like all government institutions in South Africa responsible for investigations, requires archives and documentary evidence. The public has the right to access a wide range of governmental and public archives, allowing them to root out corruption, promote accountability and transparency, and enable efficient service delivery (Chaterera, 2016: 166). According to Chaterera (2017: 1), national archival institutions allow the public to access and use archives. As a result, restitution claimants rely on the archives to validate their land restitution claims.
Land dispossession of black people in South Africa during colonialism and apartheid resulted in community segregation and poor living conditions for a large portion of the country's population. To address these long-standing inequalities, the Republic of South Africa's Constitution of 1996 provides for the right to restitution for persons or communities who were evicted from their land after 19 June 1913, as a result of previous racially discriminatory laws or practices. Parliament passed the Restitution of Land Rights Act (Act No. 22 of 1994) to give substance to the right to restitution and to repeal the Native Land Act of 1913, which gave white people preferential treatment in land ownership (Republic of South Africa, 1994). For dispossessions before 19 June 1913, the 1996 Constitution requires the state to take reasonable legislative and other measures to foster conditions that will enable citizens to gain access to land on an equitable basis but within the available resources. The 1996 Constitution anticipated that it would be relatively easy to prove dispossession that occurred in the twentieth century, whereas there would be evidentiary problems if similar evidence were required for land taken during colonialism.
Research problem
Despite their importance in land reform, archives are not always available and accessible when claimants seek them for a variety of reasons, including loss, restrictions and theft (Sebina, 2004). The success of land restitution cannot be guaranteed in South Africa because the legal framework and the availability and accessibility of archives to resolve the land issue remain major challenges. According to Ngulube (2006, 2019: 20), the use of archives is extremely low due to a lack of quality controls, and a lack of financial and other resources. In a two-year report on the state of archives in South Africa, Archival Platform (2015) states that there have been numerous cases of records disappearing in the public sector. As a result, because of the lack of evidence, land-grabbers (a person who seizes land illegally or underhandedly) will believe they are entitled to ownership under the land restitution programme (Turyamureeba, 2017: 52). Losses in archives, restrictions and theft make it difficult to use archives to provide evidence of past land dispossession injustices. To effectively use archives to support their land dispossession claims, users of archival institutions must have a basic understanding of archival services (Waiser, 2015) or must make use of the archivists to retrieve the relevant information (Johnson, 2008). The value of archives is overlooked, and restitution claimants are denied or delayed the justice they deserve in the land dispute (Ngoepe and Makhubela, 2015).
Purpose and objectives of the study
The overarching purpose of this study was to explore archives as a tool to support land restitution in South Africa. The specific objectives were to:
determine the availability of archives to support land claims in South Africa determine the accessibility of archives to support land claims in South Africa.
Literature review
This study relied on the life cycle model to explore archives as a tool to support or hinder land restitution. In the three phases of the life cycle of a record, we used the constructs ‘creation or receipt’, which covered the availability of a record. This related to the creation of records by the CRLR or any other land agency and the receipt by NARSSA when such records are transferred to the archives repository. The second phase, which is ‘maintenance and use’ was also used to cover accessibility, that is, when classification systems are compiled and records are filed properly according to these classification systems and stored in protected storage, or when the land records that are transferred to an archive repository are arranged and described with finding aids created to ensure they are retrievable. This way, records would be available and accessible when needed. As Jenkinson (1922) observes, the primary (safeguarding of archives and custody) and secondary (needs of the researchers) duties of the archivist would be fulfilled. However, if records are not preserved, the secondary duty of access would not be fulfilled, as these records would not be available. Guided by the constructs of availability and accessibility of archives, the study reviewed the literature according to the objectives of the study.
Availability of archives
The availability of archives is critical to a successful land claim settlement. Fay and James (2008) opine that communities are solely reliant on archival evidence held in archival institutions to support their claims. Without such evidence, the claim is unlikely to be successful in court. Saurombe (2015: 72) contends that archival institutions serve as a catalyst in addressing people's needs through archives. According to Harris (2000: 26), the possibility of ensuring that archives are available relies heavily on archivists whose responsibility it is to know their users and to respond effectively to their needs through exit interviews.
Gray (1998: 261) indicates that the principle of making information freely available to everyone is valued by the Anglo-Australian legal system. In some instances, transcripts may be available and accessible as documentary evidence for lawyers to make a decision. But since transcripts emanate from tape recordings that lawyers use as available evidence for decision-making, it is unlikely that the information would not have discrepancies due to errors and omitted information (Gray, 1998: 261). As a consequence, a study conducted by Suarez and Suarez (2007: 11) showed that there are cases in countries like Spain where archives regarding the immigration of incoming communities are unavailable.
According to Sebina (2004), without archives, governments and organisations are unable to manage their current operations effectively due to the poor ability to use the experiences of the past for guidance. Hence, the restitution process is dependent on the availability of archives and other archival information that are valid and sufficient to execute land rights. Thus, the unavailability of archives means archivists cannot prove the injustices of the past regarding land removals. Barata et al. (2000: 9) further show that to alleviate legal matters such as land and property registration, the evidence of archives is relied upon. Therefore, activities of the past should be accompanied by archival evidence and oral history (Ngoepe, 2020). Thobela (2011: 55) claims that land reform programmes in the former Transkei homeland have little or no evidence that relates to the owners of the land. It would seem that the failure to resolve land claims originates from relying on documentary evidence only, which is usually unavailable or distorted, rather than using oral history to supplement or authenticate the records. This stems partially from the bias that information recorded in documents contains the truth, while oral history can also be used to access the in-depth knowledge of the past directly from the affected individuals or communities.
Accessibility of archives
Mukwevho (2017: 24) defines accessibility as citizens’ ability or right to easily access public archives with minimal barriers, which is the goal of any archive policy. Loewen (2008: 164) defines access as “the ability and opportunity to discover, use, and comprehend” a nation's documentary evidence. Making archives accessible is a difficult task. Scholars such as Wamukoya (2012: 121), Ngulube et al. (2013: 135), and Arko-Cobbah (2008: 181) give the benefits of open access to public archives as:
enhancing an institution's image generating knowledge and understanding enhancing citizen participation in decision-making facilitating research and education enhancing service delivery to citizens and other stakeholders promoting the exchange of ideas and economic growth fostering accountability and promote transparency and justice. Archives must be committed to equal terms of access Access conditions must be clear to all concerned (i.e., disclosing records containing highly sensitive information to the public after 20 years) The citizens’ rights to privacy should be strictly adhered to.
As a result, accessibility necessitates the application of the legislative framework governing access to archives in organisations. According to Wamukoya (2012: 121), access to archives is primarily determined by the quality of information provided to citizens and the quality of archives used for decision-making. According to Arko-Cobbah (2008: 181), the refusal to grant access to information undermines democracy. According to Mason (2016: 1), “in a democratic, information-based society, there exists a basic social right to equitable and free access to archival services” and “archival services must restructure their services to respond to this right.” According to Blais (1995: 23), there are three main principles for a user to gain access to archives:
The International Council on Archives (2012) points out that the public has the right to access public or private archives. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa emphasises the right to access information held by the state. This means that archival institutions are required to provide unrestricted access to archives in their custody that have been preserved or stored for more than 20 years. According to Ngulube et al. (2013: 136), the most fundamental component of a service-oriented society is the promotion of access to archives. Thus, the Protection of State Information Bill and other South African legislation require archival institutions to act within the constraints of information access (Archival Platform, 2015: 124). Similarly, the Promotion of Access to Information Act (Act No. 2 of 2000) (PAIA) stipulates that all archival institutions should adhere to the vital role of making archives available for use (Republic of South Africa, 2000). For land restitution, different types of archives can be used. Moabelo (2007: 13) emphasises that rural communities’ lack of access to archival materials such as death certificates, birth certificates, maps and family trees poses a challenge for the land restitution programme to settle land claims. Kwatsha (2010: 36) also observes that this poses a threat to NARSSA, which has to preserve the collective memory of the country for easy access to those records in the future. The inability to produce archives and the lack of documentation of the restitution claimants lead to distress and uncertainty for the lawful owners. However, what matters most is that archival institutions play a fundamental role in making archives on land dispossession accessible for public use, which is of critical importance for the land restitution programme to execute its mandate on land restitution. As a result, ensuring that government institutions preserve archives to avoid loss of information may lead to the preservation of social and institutional memory and therefore accountability (Ndenje-Sichalwe, 2010: 87). Heeks (2000: 197) also points out that the notion of access to archives is crucial because, without archival institutions, government departments cannot carry out their mandates.
Despite this, according to Archival Platform (2015), in the era of open democracy, which saw the promulgation of PAIA, the public is still denied information upon request based on restrictions placed on certain archives. This can be seen by the fact that several researchers reported that public institutions did not make information available because the country might be at risk (Archival Platform, 2015). The issue of access is also underlined by Ngulube (2003) when he stresses that legal rights to public archives in Zimbabwe cannot be guaranteed, as physical access to historical manuscripts or documentary evidence is given by the director of the national archives. Hence, there is a need to review the access policy, which allows directors to place restrictions on certain archives to underscore the fact that users should have access to archives, especially land records, to use them to provide evidence of the injustices of the past.
Ngulube (2006: 143) maintains that working hours of service and the availability of documentary evidence for consultation by users affect physical access to archives. While it is true that archival preservation promotes access, one could argue that the legislative framework provides ineffective access. To that end, archival institutions involved in land restitution must assume responsibility for ensuring that archives and oral histories are available and accessible for use as evidence in court.
Ngulube and Tafor (2006: 76) emphasise that archival institutions are expected to promote citizens’ right to access archives and other information under their control. As a result, the public can request access to the archives to ensure transparency and accountability in South Africa. Scholars consider access to information to be a fundamental tenet of justice. This statement is supported by Stever (2017: 7) who states that archivists in the United States prioritised the preservation of archives for the benefit of the community. Despite the fact that the Bill of Rights does not place much emphasis on protecting the public's right to access information, Americans are well on their way to documenting national history.
According to the NARSSA Act (Act No. 43 of 1996), archivists are responsible for ensuring access to archives held by governmental bodies, whether public or non-public, in the custody of NARSSA (Republic of South Africa, 1996). Nonetheless, archivists face severe constraints due to the Protection of Personal Information Act (Act No. 4 of 2013) (POPIA) restrictions (Republic of South Africa, 2013). The restrictions, according to Onyeneke (2016), are as follows:
Where records are in fragile condition and unrestricted access to them may lead to their total disintegration and loss Where there is a need to protect the privacy of the individual donors Where there is the obligation to comply with donor-imposed conditions For the protection of national defence and security.
While noting the POPIA as a barrier to accessing archives, Onyeneke (2016) discovered that most of the records that were supposed to be preserved by the National Archives of Nigeria (NAN) were not selected. One could argue that if this issue is not addressed by the NAN, which is responsible for ensuring that records with archival value are transferred, public access will be deliberately denied because the archives will be unavailable. According to Onyeneke (2016), archives are likely to be damaged if a natural disaster such as a fire, flood, earthquake or tornado occurs. The affected archival institution may suspend operations until the matter is resolved.
According to Mukwevho and Ngoepe (2019), accessibility of archives remains crucial in archival service and to the general public. In terms of physical access to archives, archival institutions are public spaces with the mandate to serve people of all ages (Melville and Malao, 2005: 31). Nevertheless, scholars are concerned that only a few people are familiar with the existence and accessibility of archival institutions in eastern and southern Africa (Archival Platform, 2015: 131; Saurombe, 2015: 149; Venson et al., 2014; Ngoepe and Ngulube, 2011).
In many countries, government departments are confronted with the centralisation of not directing expenditures to archival institutions, resulting in inequalities in a country due to poor archive management (Mhlanga, 2015: 27). Indeed, Archival Platform (2015: 131) concludes that there are failures in South Africa's national archival system to fulfil the obligation to make archives accessible to the public. According to Dube (2011: 285), archival institutions are slow and unreliable in providing access to their collections and meeting the public's needs. The literature review emphasised the importance of availability and accessibility of records for land claims.
Research methodology
This study adopted a qualitative research approach through interviews with archivists from NARSSA and project officers from CRLR, as well as oral testimony of the restitution claimants to collect data. The restitution claimants were selected using snowball sampling because of the small population being studied and the difficulty of locating them in South Africa. On the other hand, project officers from the CRLR, as well as archivists from NARSSA, were purposively selected based on the knowledge they have in using archives to support land claim processes in South Africa. The participants of the study included four staff members from the CRLR (project officers), four restitution claimants and five staff members from NARSSA (archivists). Interviews were recorded using a voice recorder and note taking. To augment interview data, documents such as policies and procedures, acts, annual reports and operational plans were analysed. Data were presented through text and themes. Thematic content analysis was used to analyse the data. Transcription was done to convert audio to text. The researchers then looked closely at the data to find common themes: repeated ideas and topics. To ensure anonymity, each participant was assigned a code. For example, the project officer quoted or reflected as 1A-D, restitution claimants as 2A-D and NARSSA archivists as 3A-E.
Results
The findings of the study are presented and discussed in this section based on the study's objectives, which were to determine whether archives are available and accessible to support land claims in South Africa.
Availability of archives
Participants in this study found that government archives were available to support land claims in South Africa. Mukwevho (2017: 24) laments that archival institutions should ensure that archives are available to the public. The findings of the current study revealed that archives for land restitution purposes are available at archival institutions such as NARSSA, the Union of South Africa, the Office of the Surveyor General in Cape Town and the Africana Research Library. Land ownership and dispossession archives, including correspondence, reports of various government functionaries relating to the removal of people and reports of Commissions of Enquiry, are made available to support land claims, according to Participant 1B. Participant 1C further indicated that “there are deeds records which relate to the owners of the land even though blacks did not have title deeds before dispossession.” As a result, the Deeds Office makes additional evidence on land claims available.
The researchers were interested in what kind of evidence participants could provide to support their land claim. Participants 1A, 1C and 1D stated that they obtained information from various proclamations, such as removals of people to build a road, school or government building; documents on racial segregation of a group of people; permits; studies on forced removals in townships and newspaper articles. According to participants 1A, 1B, 1C and 1D, available archival information is used to prove a restitution claimant's land ownership. According to these participants, claimants can also produce the following:
Physical evidence (gravesite with family names, together with old identity document) and any endorsed documentary evidence (service payments of a church, permission to occupy, old house ruins and/or dilapidated kraal) Archival evidence Deeds printout (land register and the title deed) Proof of acknowledgment of claim form Oral history (tribal or family history) The archivist informed me that some of the information was kept at the Land Surveyor's office, and I don’t know where the building is because I was never given an address to go to. The archivist also referred me to the Bloemfontein Archives, but I have no idea where it is.
The researchers were also curious about to how the restitution claimants learnt about archival institutions that house land records. Participants 2C and 2D mentioned a family member who worked for NARSSA, other restitution claimants who were claiming the land and the Office of the Surveyor-General. Participants 2C and 2D also stated that a family member's colleague was able to advise them on where to find the necessary documents. For example, participant 2D stated that:
Accessibility of archives
The study investigated whether archives in South Africa are accessible to support land claims. Despite the fact that archives are kept in archival institutions for public use, some restitution claimants had never visited them to retrieve records, according to the study's findings. Participants 3A, 3B, 3C and 3D stated that the accessible archives contain information or evidence about the people who have been removed from the land. For example, participant 3A explained that: The land restitution collections are kept in strongrooms at the NARSSA. These strongrooms have access control, climatic control and UV control. The strongrooms are kept at between 45 percent and 55 percent humidity and around 20 degrees Celsius. The lights have UV protection, and the strongrooms do not have windows. The strongrooms are also fitted with fire detection and suppression systems. All of this is done to protect and preserve the collections so that they are available to researchers upon request. All members of the public have the right to access archives, as governed by the NARSSA Act and the PAIA.
According to other participants, access to archives at archival institutions was exceptional for their land claims. For example, participant 2C stated that: I have researched my land claim at the National Archives in Pretoria. I was given a 1936 report on Black Land, a 1960 and a 1968 report on homelands and the extension of homelands or Group Areas Act, which I couldn’t find anywhere. The National Library of South Africa in Pretoria was quite excellent in providing the records requested. Wits University also provided various publications regarding land, including land research articles and publications. Usually, the archivist who works in the reading room will assist you in finding the documents through the use of an index, either in hard copy format or electronic format. Then you will have to go through that index and find the applicable documentation. After finding the suitable documentation, you would request an archivist to help you attain copies of the original document.
The information is usually kept in files and reports from different old government institutions, some of which do not exist anymore (institutions). For instance, the Bantu Commissioner does not exist anymore because of the nature of his appointment under the apartheid government. Most of these acts and institutions were scrapped because they were found unconstitutional and/or illegal under the new Constitution post-1996. The records were made accessible through copies that were attained from the National Library of South Africa and the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
Participant 2D indicated that: I visited the reading room at the NARSSA, which is on the ground floor, where researchers go to request information. Some archives were accessible; it was good because the archivist assisted me to get all the information I required. They retrieved all the information on time.
Participant 2B believed that the Limpopo Provincial Archives do not exist because land claims archives are inaccessible. Participant 2A stated: It is not easy to retrieve land records from the CRLR and the Surveyor General's Offices because they do not respond to the letters requesting information. The NARSSA in Pretoria and the Union of South Africa in Cape Town managed to retrieve archives I requested to use for the land claim.
Institutions that house archives ensure that access restrictions are clear and based on applicable legislation, while also respecting the right to privacy and the rights of private material owners (International Council on Archives, 2012). However, it appears that the CRLR is not currently facing any challenges in the custody of restricted archives that cannot be accessed for land restitution purposes. Participants 3A, 3B, 3C and 3D agreed that the NARSSA is not stored in restricted archives and cannot be accessed or made available for land restitution purposes.
Participant 1D, on the other hand, stated that access to records containing personal information for land restitution purposes is restricted at the archival institutions. Participant 3E backed up this claim by saying: The archivist may restrict access to archives that are sensitive or on the grounds of their fragile condition, provided that there shall be a right of appeal to the Director-General against the restriction.
The official conducts an archival search, and the department pays for the required documents if they are available.
Furthermore, Participant 1A stated that CRLR requests documents through an account.
Participant 1D described the processes outlined below:
Make sure that records are always accessible (working hours) Always have official to assist in accessing records Provide procedure and standard of accessing records Comply with the legal framework about records management The researcher would identify a file reference number and a collection by using the manual or electronic finding aid. This reference number will be given to the archivist in the reading room, who will then retrieve the file and provide it to the researcher. The researcher can request photocopies of the file or take photographs of the documents. Researchers are also allowed to take photographs of the documents, but the use of a flashlight is prohibited. Access to public records with a period of more than 20 years since their existence may be given upon request. Non-public records in custody shall be made available for public access subject to any condition agreed upon their acquisition. The finding aids, such as inventories, databases and lists of archivalia, are provided to researchers.”
Participant 3A stated that:
Discussion
It is clear from the presented data that land records that are in the custody of NARSSA are accessible to the users, as there are systems in place. The same cannot be said about records that are still in the custody of the CRLR and the Surveyor General's Offices, as participants indicated that officials at these institutions are not always helpful. This may be because the two are not memory institutions. In addition, they may not have officials with the requisite skills like archivists at NARSSA to manage the records from creation to disposal and to make them available and accessible when needed. When archives exist, restitution claimants can find evidence or supporting documentation for their land claim. However, it should be noted that NARSSA does not have all the required records, as some might not have been transferred to the archives repository by the creating agencies. In cases where there are no archives to support land claims, project officers rely on tangible evidence such as graves on the land being claimed. Mji (2018) emphasises this by indicating that graves are visible evidence of historical land dispossession. This, in turn, can be supported by oral history.
The study discovered that there are finding aids for all the collections at NARSSA to make archives easily accessible to users. However, participants noted that most users still struggle with unresolved land claims because of language barriers. It is also possible that NARSSA lacks translation officials with the necessary expertise to appropriately translate written words in archives from English or Afrikaans to other official languages. When archives are translated, restitution claimants will have access to supporting documentary evidence in the languages they are familiar with. However, it should be noted that the records that the creating agencies transferred to NARSSA might not have been translated. Archivists should rely on visiting disadvantaged communities to learn about their language and traditional names in circumstances where there are no translated archives. This is backed up by Suarez and Suarez (2007) who emphasises that archivists could improve access to archives by learning the languages of the communities affected by land dispossessions, which would assist in the interpretation of data.
On a positive note, it has been discovered that the South African archival institutions permit users to access their collections. Nevertheless, archival institutions continue to face criticism from the general public for failing to make collections they house visible to citizens. It was evident that some participants were unaware of the archives’ existence, as they did not consult the archives when they lodged land claims. This is corroborated by Mukwevho (2017: 183), who discovered that an archivist's lack of records management and archives knowledge may hinder the visibility and accessibility of public archives repositories.
Conclusion
NARSSA has land restitution archives from the CRLR that are open to the public. The archival evidence on the history of land dispossessions in the reading room was made available and accessible to restitution claimants and project officers without restriction. As a result of the reading room, it was possible to create access to archives based on the easy retrieval of land restitution collections. However, some archives remained inaccessible to users due to damage or they contained personal information. The land restitution collection was incomplete because the CRLR did not transfer all the archives, as required by the NARSSA Act. As a result, the NARSSA holdings did not contain all the archives requested by users. Therefore, it was established that if records are available, arranged and described, users are empowered when they require such records. This was the case with records that could be retrieved from NARSSA to support the land claims. However, where records were not arranged, as was the case at the CRLR, land claimants struggled to access such records and therefore were disempowered. It can be concluded that archives can serve as a tool to support land restitution if they are available and accessible. The non-existence of archives can hinder land restitution.
The language used in archives and a lack of translation services in the reading room make access to archives for land claims difficult. This is a serious violation of the NARSSA Act and the PAIA, both of which promote access to archives in the NARSSA holdings. This study also concluded that finding aids to retrieve information easily and quickly facilitated access to archives at NARSSA. Furthermore, NARSSA's facilities in the reading room catered for disabled people and improved access to the land restitution collections housed there. The study also found that archivists in charge of making archives available and accessible to support land claims are experienced and skilled.
Recommendations
Archival institutions in charge of land restitution archives should place more emphasis on user accessibility and the right to information. According to Jo Pugh (1992: 60), access policies should include the provisions for restricted information and the use of finding aids and reference services. It is the responsibility of the archivist to inform users of the restrictions placed on specific archives and how to access them. Archival evidence should be protected from loss, damage and unauthorised access.
Mukwevho (2017: 183) emphasises that “mostly, archivists’ lack of knowledge of archives and records management may be a problem affecting the visibility and accessibility of public archive repositories.” The NARSSA employees in charge of providing access to the land restitution collections are highly skilled and well trained. It is critical to have competent and experienced archivists who deal with access to archives in order to improve the archival services that would be beneficial to restitution claimants and project officials. Such skilful archivists would be able to refer archival users to available primary and secondary sources for land claims.
