News / National
Matebeleland angered by King Munhumutapa's Private Member's Bill
25 Oct 2024 at 14:39hrs | Views
A Private Member's Bill introduced by self-proclaimed King Munhumutapa, Timothy Chiminya, has ignited controversy in Zimbabwe, particularly within the Matabeleland region. Chiminya's bill seeks to amend Section 283 of the Zimbabwean Constitution, proposing the transfer of traditional leader appointments from the Minister of Local Government to his authority, a move many in Matabeleland see as an affront to their cultural autonomy.
If passed, this bill would give Chiminya, recently recognized by the courts as King Munhumutapa, exclusive power to appoint chiefs across Zimbabwe. He argues that the Munhumutapa Kingdom, which he claims to represent, embodies an ancient governance structure crucial to Zimbabwe's cultural heritage. The proposed amendment has drawn sharp criticism from stakeholders in Matabeleland, who cite the region's own monarchs, such as King Mzilikazi and the historical Mambo, as equally significant to their traditions and local governance.
Critics argue that Chiminya's proposal fails to acknowledge Zimbabwe's cultural diversity and the independence of various regions. Effie Ncube, a human rights advocate, questioned the legality of Chiminya's aspirations, arguing that a High Court ruling cannot supersede the Constitution. "How then does one seek to transfer constitutional powers from a constitutional office to a non-existent office?" Ncube asked. He stressed that Zimbabwe's Constitution protects cultural diversity and the right to preserve different traditions, and any amendments must respect this principle.
Ncube also warned against a singular authority overseeing all cultural matters, stating, "There is no single Zimbabwean culture over which one person, by whatever title they may be known, can preside, nor is there a superior culture to which all must submit."
Public policy expert Samukele Hadebe expressed alarm over the implications of a self-appointed figure gaining such powers. "Are we to allow a self-appointed someone based on a self-defined cultural heritage or supposed royal lineage, without citizen consent, to run the affairs of our traditional leaders?" Hadebe questioned, urging Zimbabweans not to undermine their right to self-governance.
Development practitioner Thembelani Dube, from the Rural Community Empowerment Trust, said the bill could fuel tribal divisions, perceiving it as a calculated attempt to elevate one group above others. "Zimbabwe is a multi-tribal, multi-ethnic and multi-cultural nation," Dube stated. "The bill should affirm the role of traditional institutions from different kingdoms across Zimbabwe in appointing leaders within their jurisdictions."
Senior Bulawayo resident and retired educator Ben Moyo also criticized the bill, describing it as an unconstitutional move backed by Zanu-PF to centralize authority. He pointed out that, historically, the Constitution has not supported the installation of monarchs, as seen when the Khumalos were barred from crowning a Ndebele King. Moyo further questioned the legal process by which Chiminya secured his recognition, noting, "The judgement was won by default because the ministry failed to contest his allegations."
As Zimbabwe awaits further discussions on the bill in Parliament, the proposal has fueled a fierce debate over constitutional law, cultural heritage, and the future of traditional leadership in the country.
If passed, this bill would give Chiminya, recently recognized by the courts as King Munhumutapa, exclusive power to appoint chiefs across Zimbabwe. He argues that the Munhumutapa Kingdom, which he claims to represent, embodies an ancient governance structure crucial to Zimbabwe's cultural heritage. The proposed amendment has drawn sharp criticism from stakeholders in Matabeleland, who cite the region's own monarchs, such as King Mzilikazi and the historical Mambo, as equally significant to their traditions and local governance.
Critics argue that Chiminya's proposal fails to acknowledge Zimbabwe's cultural diversity and the independence of various regions. Effie Ncube, a human rights advocate, questioned the legality of Chiminya's aspirations, arguing that a High Court ruling cannot supersede the Constitution. "How then does one seek to transfer constitutional powers from a constitutional office to a non-existent office?" Ncube asked. He stressed that Zimbabwe's Constitution protects cultural diversity and the right to preserve different traditions, and any amendments must respect this principle.
Ncube also warned against a singular authority overseeing all cultural matters, stating, "There is no single Zimbabwean culture over which one person, by whatever title they may be known, can preside, nor is there a superior culture to which all must submit."
Public policy expert Samukele Hadebe expressed alarm over the implications of a self-appointed figure gaining such powers. "Are we to allow a self-appointed someone based on a self-defined cultural heritage or supposed royal lineage, without citizen consent, to run the affairs of our traditional leaders?" Hadebe questioned, urging Zimbabweans not to undermine their right to self-governance.
Development practitioner Thembelani Dube, from the Rural Community Empowerment Trust, said the bill could fuel tribal divisions, perceiving it as a calculated attempt to elevate one group above others. "Zimbabwe is a multi-tribal, multi-ethnic and multi-cultural nation," Dube stated. "The bill should affirm the role of traditional institutions from different kingdoms across Zimbabwe in appointing leaders within their jurisdictions."
Senior Bulawayo resident and retired educator Ben Moyo also criticized the bill, describing it as an unconstitutional move backed by Zanu-PF to centralize authority. He pointed out that, historically, the Constitution has not supported the installation of monarchs, as seen when the Khumalos were barred from crowning a Ndebele King. Moyo further questioned the legal process by which Chiminya secured his recognition, noting, "The judgement was won by default because the ministry failed to contest his allegations."
As Zimbabwe awaits further discussions on the bill in Parliament, the proposal has fueled a fierce debate over constitutional law, cultural heritage, and the future of traditional leadership in the country.
Source - southern eye
