Fresh wrangle rattles Mabhikwa chieftaincy

The appointment of Ms. Zanele Khumalo as Regent Chief Mabhikwa has sparked fresh controversy, with 32 family members approaching the High Court to challenge her ascension to the chieftaincy.

Zanele, a married mother of two, was recently appointed to temporarily fill the void left by her late brother, Chief Vusumuzi Khumalo, who died in a car accident along the Bulawayo-Victoria Falls Road in 2022. She is expected to serve for nine years until Vusumuzi's son, Makhosemvelo Khumalo, reaches maturity and assumes the substantive chieftaincy.

Despite a colorful installation ceremony last Friday, the festivities were overshadowed by a long-standing family dispute over the rightful claimant to the Mabhikwa chieftaincy. A faction of the Khumalo family has filed a legal challenge against Zanele's appointment, arguing that it is unlawful since Zimbabwean law does not recognize the position of a Regent Chief.

The legal challenge also cites the failure to nullify the appointment of John Khumalo, who claims to have been previously designated as the acting chief. John and his supporters have historically disputed the legitimacy of Zanele's father, Nicholas Khumalo, arguing that his mother, being from the Mabhena clan, disqualified him from inheriting the chieftaincy. According to their interpretation of tradition, the rightful successor should come from the MaMkhwananzi lineage.

In their court application, the 32 family members, represented by Dube, Mguni & Dube Legal Practitioners, name Local Government Minister Daniel Garwe as the First Respondent, National Council of Chiefs President Mtshane Khumalo (Second Respondent), Matabeleland North provincial assembly of chiefs' chairperson Chief Siansali (Third Respondent), Zanele Khumalo (Fourth Respondent), and President Emmerson Mnangagwa (Fifth Respondent). They accuse the government-appointed Chief Nkalakatha-led delegation of bias and conflicts of interest in the selection process.

John Khumalo, in his founding affidavit, contends that the decision to install Zanele has resulted in two acting chiefs, arguing that both the Traditional Leaders Act and the Constitution of Zimbabwe do not recognize such a position. He also highlights that a 2009 High Court ruling had delineated the proper procedure for appointing a chief within the Mlonyeni Khumalo chieftaincy, in which he was declared the rightful successor.

“The Traditional Leaders Act and the Constitution of Zimbabwe prescribe a structured process for the appointment of a Chief. This process was ignored, and key family members were either not consulted or their opinions disregarded. Instead, the appointment was orchestrated at a venue selected by government representatives, violating procedural norms and our cultural traditions,” he stated.

John further argued that the Mabhikwa chieftaincy has historically been passed among male heirs and that Zanele's appointment disrupts established succession traditions. He described the decision as a source of widespread dissatisfaction among the family and the broader Lupane community.

“The Fourth Respondent (Zanele) is married as Mrs. Ndlovu and is not conversant with our traditional ceremonies. Her appointment is against the will and wishes of the family, posing a serious risk of disunity both within the family and the community at large,” he argued.

He also raised concerns over the cultural implications of a married woman assuming the chieftaincy, questioning whether she would relocate to the Mabhikwa homestead or move the chieftaincy base to her matrimonial home in Jotsholo.

“This is unthinkable and amounts to cultural desecration. It is unacceptable,” he added.

The case is now before the High Court, with the family awaiting legal proceedings that could determine the future leadership of the Mabhikwa chieftaincy. The outcome could set a precedent for chieftaincy disputes in Zimbabwe, particularly regarding gender roles and traditional leadership structures.