A storm of debate is sweeping across South Africa as lawmakers propose renaming the world-famous Kruger National Park to Skukuza National Park. The motion—driven by a call to shed colonial legacies and honor indigenous heritage—has sparked both celebration and concern.
The Kruger, a crown jewel of African tourism, is one of the most recognized safari destinations on the planet. So when the Mpumalanga Provincial Legislature voted to back the name change, it immediately ignited national and global conversations about history, identity, and the economic implications of renaming such an iconic site.
A Push Toward Decolonization
At the heart of this debate is South Africa’s ongoing effort to confront its colonial past. The proposal to rename Kruger National Park comes from the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), with backing from the ANC and MKP. They argue that the name “Kruger,” derived from former South African President Paul Kruger, represents a painful historical era that fails to reflect the spirit of modern South Africa.
Instead, they suggest “Skukuza”, a name already associated with the park’s main rest camp. The word holds deeper cultural meaning for many locals and connects to the region’s indigenous languages and heritage. Supporters say it symbolizes healing and reclamation—an important step in restoring pride and balance to a landscape that has long been tied to colonial history.
However, while the intent resonates with many, others see the move as politically charged. Critics argue that South Africa’s energy should focus more on improving park management and boosting conservation efforts rather than changing names.
Also, read: South Africa Begins Troop Withdrawal from DRC as First Soldiers Arrive Home
Questions Over Authority and Process
Despite the provincial legislature’s vote, legal experts say the province lacks the power to officially rename a national park. Kruger National Park is managed under national authority, meaning any change must go through the South African Geographical Names Council (SAGNC).
SANParks, the governing body for the country’s parks, confirmed that no official renaming process has begun. According to SANParks representatives, the law requires national consultation, public hearings, and ministerial approval before such a monumental change can take place.
This makes the current motion more symbolic than binding—but that hasn’t stopped the controversy from escalating across the country and beyond.
Tourism Experts Sound the Alarm
Tourism industry professionals have voiced strong concerns over the proposal. The Kruger brand is globally recognized, attracting more than 1.8 million visitors annually. Changing its name, experts say, could damage the country’s tourism image and lead to massive financial losses.
Professor Elmarie Slabbert, a tourism researcher at North-West University, explained that “Kruger is arguably one of the most famous wildlife brands in the world. A sudden change would disrupt marketing systems, signage, maps, and international recognition that took decades to build.”
Rebranding would also be costly. From updating websites and promotional materials to replacing park signage, the transition could cost millions of rand. Tourism boards worry this could reduce international bookings and harm small businesses dependent on safari tourism in nearby towns.
A Nation Divided
Public reaction remains split. Many South Africans—especially in rural Mpumalanga—support renaming the park as part of the nation’s larger cultural renewal. They believe “Skukuza” better represents the land’s indigenous roots and its people.
Others see the proposal as unnecessary symbolism at a time when South Africa faces major challenges such as unemployment, power shortages, and environmental decline. Opposition parties like the Democratic Alliance (DA) warn that renaming the park risks alienating international visitors who associate “Kruger” with Africa’s natural beauty and world-class wildlife experiences.
Online, the debate is just as fierce. Social media users are questioning whether renaming efforts truly heal historical wounds—or merely create new divisions under the banner of decolonization.
