News / Regional
Row erupts over circumcision
14 Jan 2013 at 05:04hrs | Views
Beitbridge Rural District Council (BRDC) and traditional leaders in Mpande community have clashed.
Traditional leaders are accusing the district council of trying to usurp their authority by allocating communal land which was reserved for community circumcision rites and grazing to some villagers for farming without their sanctification.
They described the action by the BRDC as outright arrogance and gross disrespect of the institution of traditional leaders.
The five families allocated land have been defying calls by the traditional leaders in the area to vacate the land amid revelations by the community that they were prepared to mobilise and force the "arrogant invaders" out with axes and spears if peaceful avenues proved futile and painful for them to understand.
Instead the villagers at the centre of controversy have gone on a rampage - cutting down trees, leaving a trail of destruction and exposing the land to agents of erosion.
A visit to the area by Sunday News last week revealed that the once densely vegetated community ritual and grazing area was now a former shadow of itself as the thicket has been removed and made to hedge the envisaged farming area.
The community also expressed dissatisfaction that one of the villagers who was given part of the land belonged to another village where he owns yet another field that he was leaving for a new one.
Although the district administrator Mr Simon Muleya and acting chief executive officer for Beitbridge Rural District Council Mr Peter Ncube backtracked and said they were not in the business of giving land to communal farmers, the community fumed saying council was not being fair by allowing certain individuals to practise the long abandoned shifting cultivation method where people would move from one place to another like nomads after having exhausted soil resourcefulness in one area.
Mr Muleya said the Environment Management Agency (EMA) should descend heavily on the villagers for destroying vegetation.
He stressed that his office through the district lands office and not him allocates land in resettlement areas and not in communal areas.
Chief Sitaudze's clerk , Mr Salatiel Sitaudze, said the community was very bitter over the issue. He said they wrote to the district administrator's office, council and EMA explaining the magnitude of damage to the place they deemed sacred but up to now nothing has been done.
He said headman Mazibeli and 17 village heads under Chief Sitaudze were in solidarity that those few families given land under unclear circumstances by council should not be allowed to stay or continue cutting trees that provide cover during ritual times.
"We are very unhappy that council made the decision to give these people part of our sacred land. This land is important to us and we feel it should not be defiled, let alone get disturbed.
"We use it for our traditional rituals apart from grazing our animals. It is a boys and girls circumcision rites centre for the entire community. Now that is has been turned into some kind of a desert by these villagers we do not know what we are going to do.
"Our cattle used to graze in the area whose importance therefore was twofold but now there is nowhere to turn them to. We all have children but we have to contend with them on the little land that we have because we understand the value we attach to this land.
"Therefore for someone to come and do what he pleases right in our sight is disrespect of the highest order. We inherited its cultural significance from the late Chief Dalana, my father and we have all been preserving it. Our young men have always wanted to fight them with axes and spears but we have been restraining them," he said.
He added that he was unimpressed by the response he got from the district administrator Mr Muleya after having appraised him on the position of the traditional leaders. The response from Mr Muleya reads:
"Reports reaching our office indicate that you are refusing to let the above named persons to clear their land. You are not an authority yourself. Let them go ahead with clearing their fields forthwith. If you continue to obstruct them you are going to face litigation," reads part of the letter written by the district administrator.
Mr Peter Ncube said it was true that council in 1999 gave land to Mr Robert Sibanda and Mr Morgan Nyathi but did not specify the area hoping that they were going to follow the communal route of going through the village head.
He said it was surprising that the two were resurfacing today some 13 years after having applied to council. Mr Ncube said the offer letters were going to be reconsidered and they were going to be assigned somewhere else.
He added that they were going to pay to EMA for the destruction they have caused to the environment.
"It is true. We have such an issue. But let me stress that council will make some reconsiderations on that issue. Those people will be assigned somewhere.
"We did not override the traditional leaders' authority. We only approved their applications and they were supposed to take them to the traditional leaders where the normal channels of giving communal land were to be followed," he said.
He confirmed that the land had some cultural significance and was specially preserved for that although it doubles as a grazing area.
Traditional leaders are accusing the district council of trying to usurp their authority by allocating communal land which was reserved for community circumcision rites and grazing to some villagers for farming without their sanctification.
They described the action by the BRDC as outright arrogance and gross disrespect of the institution of traditional leaders.
The five families allocated land have been defying calls by the traditional leaders in the area to vacate the land amid revelations by the community that they were prepared to mobilise and force the "arrogant invaders" out with axes and spears if peaceful avenues proved futile and painful for them to understand.
Instead the villagers at the centre of controversy have gone on a rampage - cutting down trees, leaving a trail of destruction and exposing the land to agents of erosion.
A visit to the area by Sunday News last week revealed that the once densely vegetated community ritual and grazing area was now a former shadow of itself as the thicket has been removed and made to hedge the envisaged farming area.
The community also expressed dissatisfaction that one of the villagers who was given part of the land belonged to another village where he owns yet another field that he was leaving for a new one.
Although the district administrator Mr Simon Muleya and acting chief executive officer for Beitbridge Rural District Council Mr Peter Ncube backtracked and said they were not in the business of giving land to communal farmers, the community fumed saying council was not being fair by allowing certain individuals to practise the long abandoned shifting cultivation method where people would move from one place to another like nomads after having exhausted soil resourcefulness in one area.
Mr Muleya said the Environment Management Agency (EMA) should descend heavily on the villagers for destroying vegetation.
He stressed that his office through the district lands office and not him allocates land in resettlement areas and not in communal areas.
Chief Sitaudze's clerk , Mr Salatiel Sitaudze, said the community was very bitter over the issue. He said they wrote to the district administrator's office, council and EMA explaining the magnitude of damage to the place they deemed sacred but up to now nothing has been done.
He said headman Mazibeli and 17 village heads under Chief Sitaudze were in solidarity that those few families given land under unclear circumstances by council should not be allowed to stay or continue cutting trees that provide cover during ritual times.
"We use it for our traditional rituals apart from grazing our animals. It is a boys and girls circumcision rites centre for the entire community. Now that is has been turned into some kind of a desert by these villagers we do not know what we are going to do.
"Our cattle used to graze in the area whose importance therefore was twofold but now there is nowhere to turn them to. We all have children but we have to contend with them on the little land that we have because we understand the value we attach to this land.
"Therefore for someone to come and do what he pleases right in our sight is disrespect of the highest order. We inherited its cultural significance from the late Chief Dalana, my father and we have all been preserving it. Our young men have always wanted to fight them with axes and spears but we have been restraining them," he said.
He added that he was unimpressed by the response he got from the district administrator Mr Muleya after having appraised him on the position of the traditional leaders. The response from Mr Muleya reads:
"Reports reaching our office indicate that you are refusing to let the above named persons to clear their land. You are not an authority yourself. Let them go ahead with clearing their fields forthwith. If you continue to obstruct them you are going to face litigation," reads part of the letter written by the district administrator.
Mr Peter Ncube said it was true that council in 1999 gave land to Mr Robert Sibanda and Mr Morgan Nyathi but did not specify the area hoping that they were going to follow the communal route of going through the village head.
He said it was surprising that the two were resurfacing today some 13 years after having applied to council. Mr Ncube said the offer letters were going to be reconsidered and they were going to be assigned somewhere else.
He added that they were going to pay to EMA for the destruction they have caused to the environment.
"It is true. We have such an issue. But let me stress that council will make some reconsiderations on that issue. Those people will be assigned somewhere.
"We did not override the traditional leaders' authority. We only approved their applications and they were supposed to take them to the traditional leaders where the normal channels of giving communal land were to be followed," he said.
He confirmed that the land had some cultural significance and was specially preserved for that although it doubles as a grazing area.
Source - SN
