News / Press Release
UMthwakazi Monarch – A Public rejoinder to AmaNtungwa's Statement
17 Jan 2017 at 22:27hrs | Views
Someone or some people calling themselves 'AmaNtungwa' has released a Statement in isNdebele or iSintu on the Ndebele King on this publication today (http://bulawayo24.com/index-id-news-sc-press+release-byo-102586.html).
It is important that uMthwakazi at large make a quick rejoinder to that so-called Statement. The Statement purports to speak with authority and representativeness. That so-called Statement is misleading, unrepresentative, incorrect, dangerous, and unhelpful.
I point out from the onset that I write this Rejoinder in an individual capacity and not claiming to represent anyone, but I firmly believe that the view I express here is the view of the generality of uMthwakazi on both the question of the restoration of the Ndebele Monarchy, generally, and the Ndebele Monarchy, in particular, the latter of which the so-called Statement specifically relates.
I further point out that I do not question the bona fides of amaNtungwa in issuing that Statement, but take issue with them on the unrepresentative and unauthorized nature of their Statement.
To start with, the Statement is released by someone or people calling themselves 'AmaNtungwa'. Who constitutes amaNtungwa and who do they represent? Are they the same or different from the Royal Khumalo House (Indlunkulu yamaKhumalo?)? If not, what is the relationship between the two? And within the broader structure of uMthwakazi, where in the process of the identification and anointment of the Ndebele King, do amaNtungwa sit to be able to claim make supposedly authoritative Statements of this nature?
An informal, unincorporated and voluntary and passionate grouping of people who are, or who call themselves amaNtungwa or oKhumalo, neither qualifies them, nor authorizes them to make definitive or purportedly definitive Statements about a matter so essential and so central to Mthwakazi's restorationist agenda, and to the restoration of the Ndebele Monarch itself.
We need be reminded that the Khumalos are a large grouping of different clans who, as we now know from our various associations in South Africa, are generically called 'amaNtungwa' there. In Mthwakazi, however, they are not so known - the 'Mntungwa' totem being generally associated with the Mabhenas.
Under the Ndebele Monarchy, not all of these Khumalo clans were associated with the monarch, or had royal functions. Which maNtungwas, or clan of amaNtungwa, are these?
Further, amaNtungwa – accepting them as such – are only one of many clans and tribes of uMthwakazi. They hold no overriding or superior position over and above uMthwakazi at large, even, and particularly, on matters of the Ndebele King. The true Khumalos should know that better!
Zanuism was born this way, people being silent when they should speak out. It is therefore totally irresponsible for Mthwakazians to be silent about such encroaching dictatorships and unilaterism, given our experience under Zimbabwe's tribal misrule.
I issue this Rejoinder in the spirit of not allowing the same evil to migrate to a new Mthwakazi. Vigilance starts now, not later. Nothing is insignificant when it touches on freedom and open debate, transparency, and accountability! No suggestion that mischiefmaking is the aim of amaNtungwa here, merely that the same undesirable outcome can result unless we all were vigilant from the word go.
No Mthwakazian has mandated amaNtungwa – whoever they might be – to act this way – or at all unilaterally - on behalf of uMthwakazi in relation either to the restoration agenda or the installation of the Ndebele King.
It is also important to point out that national matters of Mthwakazi nationhood should be, and will be, dealt with by uMthwakazi as a whole, through public representative structures and institutions of uMthwakazi, acting as such and with appropriate authority and mandate from uMthwakazi.
Any such structure or institution shall be, and will only be one, of many such public structures and institutions of uMthwakazi culminating in the King figurehead. None therefore has, or will have, the power, mandate, authority, prerogative or privilege to act unilaterally and to presume, assume, or arrogate to itself a representative role of uMthwakazi outside these parameters.
It is also important to point out that uMthwakazi does not envisage, or even contemplate, the identification and anointment - let alone coronation - of an Ndebele King during this time of political exile and tribal occupation and misrule under Shonaist and Gukurahundist Zimbabwe. Such an idea must be, and is, an outrage! An Ndebele King cannot be installed in captivity, inside captivity, and under the oversight of captivity.
Further, there cannot be a Mthwakazi or the Ndebele 'King' without a Kingdom. It therefore follows that the restoration of the Ndebele Monarchy precedes the coronation of the Ndebele Monarch. It is therefore out of order that this so-called Statement from the so-called amaNtungwa purports to invert and circumvent the sequence of that process. Indeed, uMthwakazi herself!
The Ndebele King, or Ndebele Monarch, will therefore be installed once the Ndebele Kingdom – or uMthwakazi Kingdom – is first fully restored as a sovereign and independent TERRITORIAL State.
In the interim, and for the duration of any transitional arrangements associated with transfer of independence power and sovereignty to the soon-coming Ndebele Kingdom, a Constitutional Regency of the in-coming Ndebele State shall be established to handle all transitional issues.
This Constitutional Regency will be in the form of an Interregnum Regency. It is during and under this Constitutional Regency – and after FULL restoration - that the issue of the process of identifying, choosing, anointing and coronating the Ndebele King will take place, and NOT before these two base events.
The identification and installation of the Ndebele King shall also be a public, open, and transparent event in which all of uMthwakazi will freely participate through uMthwakazi's traditional and public processes and institutions.
While the debate about the restorationist agenda and restoration of the Ndebele Monarch must continue – and encouraged to be animated and enthusiastic – it must also be so guarded that it does not stray out of and away from what uMthwakazi owns, wants, and is preparing to sacrifice for.
In the result, and speaking of this time of political exile and captivity, uMthwakazi has made no determination, and can make no such determination now, on the question of which royal line will host uMthwakazi's new King. That is an issue the new independent and sovereign United Kingdom of Matebeleland will determine and deal with.
While I welcome, amaNtungwa's call for vigilance – whoever they are – their call leaves me concerned in the sense that they themselves talk of a 'Prince' that has supposedly already been 'anointed', and is ready to be coronated. In Zimbabwe's captivity? And anointed by who?
The enemy is at work. And we have already encountered the enemy in 2015 when he has sought to 'governmentize' uMgubho Celebrations and highjack uMthwakazi's growing revolution. The enemy will not fight uMthwakazi by arms of war, but by our own, paid, hired and sponsored Mthwakazians, paid to highjack uMthwakazi's restorationist revolution through lofty but empty titles parcelled out by the enemy himself.
You will know them by their lofty titles and sub-titles in full season! Reject them – outrightly and totally – when they step out of their shadows, as they will!
The caution must therefore be equally true and apply to amaNtungwa's own caution as it does to everybody else out there purporting to speak in the name of and in the behalf of uMthwakazi!
It is important that uMthwakazi at large make a quick rejoinder to that so-called Statement. The Statement purports to speak with authority and representativeness. That so-called Statement is misleading, unrepresentative, incorrect, dangerous, and unhelpful.
I point out from the onset that I write this Rejoinder in an individual capacity and not claiming to represent anyone, but I firmly believe that the view I express here is the view of the generality of uMthwakazi on both the question of the restoration of the Ndebele Monarchy, generally, and the Ndebele Monarchy, in particular, the latter of which the so-called Statement specifically relates.
I further point out that I do not question the bona fides of amaNtungwa in issuing that Statement, but take issue with them on the unrepresentative and unauthorized nature of their Statement.
To start with, the Statement is released by someone or people calling themselves 'AmaNtungwa'. Who constitutes amaNtungwa and who do they represent? Are they the same or different from the Royal Khumalo House (Indlunkulu yamaKhumalo?)? If not, what is the relationship between the two? And within the broader structure of uMthwakazi, where in the process of the identification and anointment of the Ndebele King, do amaNtungwa sit to be able to claim make supposedly authoritative Statements of this nature?
An informal, unincorporated and voluntary and passionate grouping of people who are, or who call themselves amaNtungwa or oKhumalo, neither qualifies them, nor authorizes them to make definitive or purportedly definitive Statements about a matter so essential and so central to Mthwakazi's restorationist agenda, and to the restoration of the Ndebele Monarch itself.
We need be reminded that the Khumalos are a large grouping of different clans who, as we now know from our various associations in South Africa, are generically called 'amaNtungwa' there. In Mthwakazi, however, they are not so known - the 'Mntungwa' totem being generally associated with the Mabhenas.
Under the Ndebele Monarchy, not all of these Khumalo clans were associated with the monarch, or had royal functions. Which maNtungwas, or clan of amaNtungwa, are these?
Further, amaNtungwa – accepting them as such – are only one of many clans and tribes of uMthwakazi. They hold no overriding or superior position over and above uMthwakazi at large, even, and particularly, on matters of the Ndebele King. The true Khumalos should know that better!
Zanuism was born this way, people being silent when they should speak out. It is therefore totally irresponsible for Mthwakazians to be silent about such encroaching dictatorships and unilaterism, given our experience under Zimbabwe's tribal misrule.
I issue this Rejoinder in the spirit of not allowing the same evil to migrate to a new Mthwakazi. Vigilance starts now, not later. Nothing is insignificant when it touches on freedom and open debate, transparency, and accountability! No suggestion that mischiefmaking is the aim of amaNtungwa here, merely that the same undesirable outcome can result unless we all were vigilant from the word go.
No Mthwakazian has mandated amaNtungwa – whoever they might be – to act this way – or at all unilaterally - on behalf of uMthwakazi in relation either to the restoration agenda or the installation of the Ndebele King.
It is also important to point out that national matters of Mthwakazi nationhood should be, and will be, dealt with by uMthwakazi as a whole, through public representative structures and institutions of uMthwakazi, acting as such and with appropriate authority and mandate from uMthwakazi.
Any such structure or institution shall be, and will only be one, of many such public structures and institutions of uMthwakazi culminating in the King figurehead. None therefore has, or will have, the power, mandate, authority, prerogative or privilege to act unilaterally and to presume, assume, or arrogate to itself a representative role of uMthwakazi outside these parameters.
It is also important to point out that uMthwakazi does not envisage, or even contemplate, the identification and anointment - let alone coronation - of an Ndebele King during this time of political exile and tribal occupation and misrule under Shonaist and Gukurahundist Zimbabwe. Such an idea must be, and is, an outrage! An Ndebele King cannot be installed in captivity, inside captivity, and under the oversight of captivity.
Further, there cannot be a Mthwakazi or the Ndebele 'King' without a Kingdom. It therefore follows that the restoration of the Ndebele Monarchy precedes the coronation of the Ndebele Monarch. It is therefore out of order that this so-called Statement from the so-called amaNtungwa purports to invert and circumvent the sequence of that process. Indeed, uMthwakazi herself!
The Ndebele King, or Ndebele Monarch, will therefore be installed once the Ndebele Kingdom – or uMthwakazi Kingdom – is first fully restored as a sovereign and independent TERRITORIAL State.
In the interim, and for the duration of any transitional arrangements associated with transfer of independence power and sovereignty to the soon-coming Ndebele Kingdom, a Constitutional Regency of the in-coming Ndebele State shall be established to handle all transitional issues.
This Constitutional Regency will be in the form of an Interregnum Regency. It is during and under this Constitutional Regency – and after FULL restoration - that the issue of the process of identifying, choosing, anointing and coronating the Ndebele King will take place, and NOT before these two base events.
The identification and installation of the Ndebele King shall also be a public, open, and transparent event in which all of uMthwakazi will freely participate through uMthwakazi's traditional and public processes and institutions.
While the debate about the restorationist agenda and restoration of the Ndebele Monarch must continue – and encouraged to be animated and enthusiastic – it must also be so guarded that it does not stray out of and away from what uMthwakazi owns, wants, and is preparing to sacrifice for.
In the result, and speaking of this time of political exile and captivity, uMthwakazi has made no determination, and can make no such determination now, on the question of which royal line will host uMthwakazi's new King. That is an issue the new independent and sovereign United Kingdom of Matebeleland will determine and deal with.
While I welcome, amaNtungwa's call for vigilance – whoever they are – their call leaves me concerned in the sense that they themselves talk of a 'Prince' that has supposedly already been 'anointed', and is ready to be coronated. In Zimbabwe's captivity? And anointed by who?
The enemy is at work. And we have already encountered the enemy in 2015 when he has sought to 'governmentize' uMgubho Celebrations and highjack uMthwakazi's growing revolution. The enemy will not fight uMthwakazi by arms of war, but by our own, paid, hired and sponsored Mthwakazians, paid to highjack uMthwakazi's restorationist revolution through lofty but empty titles parcelled out by the enemy himself.
You will know them by their lofty titles and sub-titles in full season! Reject them – outrightly and totally – when they step out of their shadows, as they will!
The caution must therefore be equally true and apply to amaNtungwa's own caution as it does to everybody else out there purporting to speak in the name of and in the behalf of uMthwakazi!
Source - Xoxani Ngxoxo
