Calls to remove Rhodes' remains spark debate

A fresh controversy has erupted over the burial of British colonialist Cecil John Rhodes in Zimbabwe's Matobo Hills after traditional leaders from Manicaland demanded that his remains be removed from the historic site.

The call, made by Chief Senator Mutasa during the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Anti-Sanctions Day commemorations in Mutare, has divided public opinion, with some Zimbabweans supporting the removal while others argue that the grave remains an important tourist attraction.

Mutasa said traditional leaders from Manicaland were united in their opposition to the continued presence of Rhodes' remains in Zimbabwe.

"As chiefs of Manicaland, we are saying Rhodes' bones must go," he declared.

His remarks reignited a longstanding debate over how Zimbabwe should deal with colonial-era monuments and historical sites associated with the country's occupation by British settlers.

Rhodes, a British mining magnate and politician, played a central role in the colonisation of territories that later became Zimbabwe through his British South Africa Company.

He served as prime minister of the Cape Colony between 1890 and 1896 and remains a controversial historical figure because of his involvement in British imperial expansion and policies associated with the dispossession of African communities.

Following his death in Cape Town on March 26, 1902, Rhodes was buried at World's View in the Matobo Hills in April of the same year, in accordance with instructions contained in his will.

More than a century later, his grave continues to attract visitors, although its presence remains a sensitive reminder of Zimbabwe's colonial history.

Mutasa's demand triggered widespread discussion on social media, with some commentators questioning why traditional leaders from Manicaland were making pronouncements about a historical site situated in Matabeleland South.

One social media user, Frank Bekezela Mpofu, argued that Matabeleland and Manicaland were distinct regions whose interests should not be conflated.

Another commenter, Prince Sandile Vodloza, questioned how Rhodes' burial in Matobo directly affected communities in Manicaland.

Other contributors warned that removing the remains could have economic consequences for tourism operators and communities benefiting from visitors to the area.

A social media user identified as Reggie Maf argued that the grave should be preserved because of its potential to attract foreign tourists and generate employment.

Another commenter, Leonard Mazodze, expressed similar concerns, suggesting that the historical site contributes to tourism revenue.

However, supporters of the proposed removal maintained that Zimbabwe should reconsider the continued preservation of monuments associated with colonial oppression.

Honesty Inno Chenjerai cited South Africa's decision to remove a statue of Rhodes from the University of Cape Town as an example of how countries can reassess controversial colonial symbols.

The statue was removed on April 9, 2015, following protests associated with the Rhodes Must Fall movement, which challenged the continued celebration of colonial figures in public institutions.

The Zimbabwean debate, however, presents additional complexities because it concerns human remains rather than a statue or monument.

Matobo Hills is a UNESCO World Heritage Site celebrated for its remarkable granite landscapes, ancient rock paintings and cultural and spiritual importance.

The area attracts domestic and international visitors interested in its natural beauty, archaeological heritage and historical landmarks.

Rhodes' grave forms part of that historical landscape, although the wider significance of Matobo Hills extends far beyond the colonial figure buried there.

The latest controversy has raised questions about whether removing Rhodes' remains would represent an important act of historical redress or undermine an established heritage attraction.

It has also brought attention to the views of local communities and traditional leaders in Matabeleland, whose interests could be affected by any decision concerning the burial site.

While calls for the removal of Rhodes' remains have surfaced periodically, there has been no indication that the Government has formally approved an exhumation or relocation.

For now, Mutasa's remarks have reopened a national conversation about colonial history, cultural identity and the economic value of preserving controversial historical landmarks.

The debate underscores the challenge of reconciling Zimbabwe's liberation history with the preservation of sites that continue to attract visitors because of their association with the country's colonial past.