The Boer People South Africa Forgot | The Accord That Was Never Honoured
The Boer people are not simply another name for Afrikaners. They are a distinct people who built internationally recognised sovereign republics, lost them to British force in 1902, were absorbed into a broader political identity they did not fully choose, and were then excluded from the only formal promise of self-determination that post-apartheid South Africa ever put on paper.
In November 2025, a group called the Oranje-Vrijstaat Boervolk re-proclaimed the independence of the Orange Free State. This article explains where that proclamation comes from, and what it means that no government has a serious answer to the question behind it.
A People, Not a Label
Most South Africans hear the word Boer and think Afrikaner. Those are not the same people, and that confusion is not accidental. It is the product of more than a century of political consolidation that absorbed a distinct frontier identity into a broader Cape-based nationalist movement, and in doing so, erased the specific grievances and specific history of the people who had actually built and lost sovereign republics.
The Boer people are descended from the Trekboers and Voortrekkers, the frontier settlers who left the Cape Colony from the 1700s onward to escape British colonial control. They moved north and east into the South African interior. They spoke their own dialect, distinct from Cape Dutch and from what later became standardised Afrikaans, a dialect they called Die Taal or Boer Taal that developed entirely separately on the northern frontier.
What they built there were not colonial extensions. The Orange Free State, established in 1854, was an internationally recognised sovereign republic with its own constitution, its own legal system, and its own treaty relationships. Britain confirmed its independence through the Bloemfontein Convention. The United States signed a formal Convention of Friendship and Commerce with it in 1871. The Netherlands sent a royal flag in 1856. The South African Republic in the Transvaal, the ZAR, had parallel recognition through the Sand River Convention of 1852.
The Afrikaner identity, as a political concept, came later and it came from the Cape. It was a term used by Cape Colony settlers in the late 1800s to describe themselves and their language. By the time it became politically significant, the Boer people were already living in independent republics in the north, republics that had no institutional connection to the Cape Colony, that had developed a separate dialect and a separate political culture, and that would be drawn into the same conflict with Britain for entirely different reasons.
Reference: Dr. Lets Pretorius, Die Boereboek. Limited availability. See dieboereboek.co.za
1902: The First Erasure
The Anglo-Boer War, note the name, not the Anglo-Afrikaner War, was fought between the British Empire and the Boer republics. It began with a British ultimatum, not Boer aggression. It ended in May 1902 with the Peace of Vereeniging, signed under conditions that any honest reading of the historical record would describe as coerced. Between 26,000 and 28,000 Boer women and children died in British concentration camps before the Boer commanders signed.
Britain’s commitment in return was that self-government would be restored at the earliest opportunity. 8 years later, the Union of South Africa was formed. The Boer republics ceased to exist as legal entities. The people who had built and fought for them became South African citizens alongside Cape Dutch settlers who had largely sided with the British, and alongside British settlers who had been the enemy 8 years prior.
The Union brought stability, and for a time the Boer community accepted it. The economy was functional. The old South African flag carried symbolic echoes of the former republics at its centre. But the political structure of the Union, and later the Republic declared in 1961, was dominated by an Afrikaner nationalist movement anchored in Cape politics. The distinct Boer identity, with its specific history and its specific grievance, was not at the centre of that project. It was absorbed into it.
This was not a violent erasure. It was a quiet one. A merger the smaller party did not fully choose, into an identity that did not fully represent them.
1994: The Second Erasure
When South Africa negotiated its democratic transition in the early 1990s, the question of Afrikaner self-determination was on the table. General Constand Viljoen, who led the Freedom Front, insisted on a formal written commitment before the 1994 election. He came close to withholding participation altogether, and the security implications of that possibility were significant enough that the ANC agreed to negotiate.
On 23 April 1994, 4 days before the election, the Accord on Afrikaner Self-Determination was signed by the Freedom Front, the ANC, and the South African Government and National Party. The document committed all parties to negotiate the concept of a Volkstaat, a self-governing territory for the Afrikaner people. A Volkstaatraad was to be established to investigate how this could be achieved and report back to the Constitutional Assembly.
Source: Accord on Afrikaner Self-Determination, 23 April 1994. United Nations Peacemaker Archive.
The Volkstaatraad was established. It began its work. It was then quietly shut down before completing its mandate. The negotiations the Accord committed to were never honoured. The constitutional provision for a Volkstaat was absorbed into the broader framework and left there, undeveloped, until it became irrelevant in practice.
Read the Accord carefully. It uses the word Afrikaner throughout. Every clause about self-determination, every reference to a Volkstaat, every mention of who the Freedom Front represented, uses the word Afrikaner. The Boer people, as a distinct group with a distinct history and a distinct legal claim reaching back to the sovereign republics, are not named once. The movement that negotiated on their behalf had already absorbed them into a broader label. And the promise that was made and then broken was made on behalf of Afrikaners, not Boers.
The second erasure did not come from the British. It came from the architecture of the transition itself.
30 Years of Consequences
The ANC has governed South Africa for 30 years. The economic record is documented. BEE policies have systematically excluded white South Africans from economic participation. State-owned enterprises have collapsed across multiple sectors. Load-shedding ran for years. The agricultural sector, which has always been foundational to Boer identity and livelihood, faces ongoing land expropriation pressure alongside farm attacks that remain a persistent and largely unaddressed reality.
The conditions the Accord was supposed to protect against have materialised. The mechanism created to address them was shut down before it produced results. A community that never fully chose to be part of the South Africa handed to the ANC in 1994, and that was not properly represented in the negotiations that shaped that handover, has now watched 3 decades pass in a country whose policies have made their position progressively more difficult.
It is in this context that the Oranje-Vrijstaat Boervolk’s proclamation must be understood. This is not a fringe eruption. It is the logical endpoint of a process that began in 1902 and was left unresolved in 1994.
What the OVB Is Doing and Why It Matters
In November 2025, the Oranje-Vrijstaat Boervolk formally re-proclaimed the independence of the Orange Free State. They have published their own Staatskoerant. They reference the original treaties that established and recognised the OFS. They have developed a legal framework drawing on the ICJ’s 2010 advisory opinion on Kosovo and on the original documentation of the OFS as a sovereign entity.
Source: oranjevrijstaatboervolk.com | ICJ Advisory Opinion on Kosovo, 2010
This writer contacted the OVB directly, put 5 hard questions to them about their legal foundation, and received written answers to all 5. The responses engage seriously with international law. Their historical foundation is not invented. The Orange Free State was a real sovereign republic with genuine international recognition, and the argument that its sovereignty was never formally extinguished through a legitimately consented process is not one that can be dismissed without engaging with it honestly.
Their legal framework has gaps. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties cannot reach back to 1902 because Article 4 of the Convention itself states that it does not apply retroactively to treaties concluded before it came into force. The ICJ Kosovo opinion is real but narrower than the OVB is using it. The Montevideo criteria require effective governance today, not a historical map. These are gaps that opponents will exploit, and the OVB needs stronger legal architecture before its members act on the framework as though it is settled law.
But the underlying question the OVB is asking has never been properly answered by any recognised legal authority. That silence is itself significant.
The Question Nobody Is Answering
South Africa has 2 choices. It can engage with the question seriously, open a formal process, honour the spirit of the 1994 Accord that was never implemented, and create a legitimate political space for the Boer people’s self-determination claim to be heard and adjudicated. Or it can continue to ignore it until the pressure finds another outlet.
What is happening with the OVB is not a threat in the conventional sense. They are reaching for legal instruments, not weapons. They are filing documents and making arguments. That is precisely what a community does when it still believes the system can respond to legitimate claims. The danger arises if the system proves it cannot.
The 1994 Accord was the mechanism. It was signed, witnessed, and archived by the United Nations. And it was not honoured. 30 years later, a group is standing in a field in the Free State proclaiming a republic. The serious question is not whether their legal framework is currently watertight. The serious question is what happens when people who are trying to do things legally run out of road.
South Africa has never formally answered the question of what happened to Boer sovereignty. Not in 1902. Not in 1910. Not in 1994. The Oranje-Vrijstaat Boervolk is asking it again. And this time, the country’s track record of broken commitments and 30 years of governance failure provides the context in which that question lands.
About The Riaan Roux Show
The Riaan Roux Show is an independent South African current affairs channel producing investigative and accountability-focused content. Don’t just know what’s happening, understand what it means.
