Why Kingship in Zimbabwe is Constitutional

True to the proverb that a stitch in time saves nine, the controversy surrounding Local Government Minister Daniel Garwe's letter dated 22 April 2025, to Bulawayo Mayor David Coltart, in which he gratuitously insulted Bulelani Lobengula kaMzilikazi as a "charlatan, criminal, and imposter," exposes a grievous and long unresolved misalignment between the Traditional Leaders Act (Chapter 29:17), as amended, enacted in 1998 and the Constitution of Zimbabwe enacted in 2013.

This misalignment manifests in several ways, all of them rooted in the legal, cultural, and political tensions exposed by the controversy.

Section 283(a) of the Constitution specifically requires the Traditional Leaders Act to accommodate in its definition of "traditional leaders" the "prevailing customs, cultures, and practices of the communities concerned"; such as the kingship in the culture, customs and traditions and practices of the Ndebele community, whose exclusion from the Traditional Leaders Act is unconstitutional.

On the back of the flawed and unconstitutional framework of the Act, which does not recognise kingship in violation of section 283(a) of the Constitution, Minister Garwe's cultural slur that Bulelani is a "charlatan, criminal and imposter" gives the incorrect impression that Bulelani is a self-proclaimed Ndebele King; when nothing could be further from the truth.

Background

On 21 April 2025, Bulawayo Mayor David Coltart hosted Bulelani Lobengula kaMzilikazi, a claimant to the Ndebele kingship, in what was said to be a courtesy meeting at City Hall in Bulawayo.

Writing about the meeting on his X [formerly Twitter] account, Coltart excitedly waxed triumphantly that:

"It was my great honour today to host Inkosi u Bulelani Lobengula Khumalo for a courtesy meeting at @CityofBulawayo City Hall. In a highly productive and fruitful meeting we discussed how our City can honour the proud history of King Mzilikazi and his descendants through recognition of important historical days and the development of culturally and historically significant sites, both in Bulawayo and its environs. We discussed how this will help not only respect culture, tradition and history but also boost Bulawayo's tourist potential". [https://x.com/DavidColtart/status/1914334283700851003]

This was curious propaganda, considering that Coltart — a former Minister of Education, Sport, Arts and Culture — is not an executive mayor, and that he has no known previous cultural association with issues or participation in events connected with King Lobengula, a direct descendant of King Lobengula; who "disappeared", in tragic circumstances yet to be fully explained, on 4 December 1893, after his Imbizo Regiment crushingly defeated Allan Wilson's colonial Patrol, to which Coltart most probably has historical affinity.

In this connection, Coltart's specific mention of King Mzilikazi and no mention of King Lobengula was loaded, but that is a story for another day.

Otherwise, it was rather rude of Coltart to host Bulelani at his office, glorified as the "Mayor's Parlour". Even the notorious Native Commissioners in Rhodesia never did that kind of thing.

How on earth does a king pay a "courtesy call" on a non-executive local government servant, called a mayor? It's Mohammed who must go to the Mountain, not the other way round. Mayors visit kings at their palaces, they don't summon kings to their parlours, unless they mean to demean or caricature them.

Bulelani, crowned in 2018 by some Khumalo family members and traditional leaders in Matabeleland, is recognized and respected by significant segments of traditional leaders in the region, and the Ndebele community at large, as the legitimate new "paramount" traditional leader of the Ndebele community; known as the King.

Minister Garwe's letter expressed "shock and utter disgust" at Coltart's meeting, asserting that Bulelani's claim to what he derided as the "defunct throne of King Lobengula" is illegal; presumably and ostensibly under the Constitution of Zimbabwe, and certainly under the Traditional Leaders Act, which Act recognizes only chiefs, headmen, and village heads.

Apparently relying on the legal framework of traditional leadership set up under the Traditional Leaders Act, Minister Garwe labelled Bulelani a "fraudulent imposter" and demanded Coltart explain the meeting he had with Bulelani within seven days, warning that engaging with Bulelani is "criminal" and misleading to the public.[https://drive.google.com/file/d/19sIoJ-LOK0EQSWnXcQ52mji4UIIi3g-z/view?usp=sharing]

Predictably, Minister Garwe's letter sparked outrage, with cultural groups  in Matabeleland like Ibhetshu LikaZulu, and political parties such as ZAPU, as well as other community based organisations, condemning the minister's remarks as a cultural insult to Ndebele identity, customs, tradition and heritage.

Bulelani's office in Johannesburg, South Africa, responded to the minister's cultural onslaught with considerable restraint urging "caution, decorum, and cultural sensitivity"; framing Bulelani's meeting with Coltart as a "private cultural pilgrimage," and pleading for dialogue to enable the recognition of the Ndebele kingship.[https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CC5l15WLuxAvaLYgcEx1ryV_rhwwQ6ne/view?usp=sharing]

As will be shown below in this write up, the controversy triggered by Minister Garwe's 21 April 2025 letter to Coltart reveals in a dramatic way, the deep-seated challenges arising from the delay or neglect by Government and Parliament, thus far, to align the Traditional Leaders Act with the Constitution of Zimbabwe (2013), particularly regarding the accommodation of the inclusive definition of "traditional leaders" in section 283(a) of the Constitution, as read with section 332; and, generally, regarding the handling of cultural leadership, political neutrality, and the promotion and protection of the cultural rights of citizens.

The principal challenge is that sections 3 and 4 of the Traditional Leaders Act establish a uniform and monolithic legal framework for "traditional leadership" that excludes kingship, as it recognizes only chiefs, headmen, and village heads as traditional leaders; contrary to section 283(a) of the Constitution which peremptorily mandates that an Act of Parliament must provide for "the appointment, suspension, succession, and removal of traditional leaders" in accordance with the "prevailing culture, customs, traditions, and practices of the communities concerned".

Notably, the definition of "traditional leaders" applied in the Act, is inconsistent with the definition in section 332 of the Constitution, which defines "a traditional leader" as "a person appointed as such in terms of section 283". https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Duh8mBJdXp1l_PdhAwJsD5_coxHgOaUy/view?usp=sharing

Consequently, by excluding kingship and recognizing only chiefs, headmen, and village heads as traditional leaders, in breach of sections 283(a) and 332 of the Constitution; as will be outlined in the analysis below in this write up, the Traditional Leaders Act creates a direct conflict with multiple provisions of the Constitution, and discriminates against the Ndebele community, and other communities in Zimbabwe that have kingship as a cultural custom, tradition and practice.

In particular, the Act infringes on the cultural rights and traditional values of communities with kingship as their customary practice — whose cultural rights are enshrined in sections 3(1)(d), 3(2)(i)(i), 16, 51, 56 and 63 — in a manner that is inconsistent with sections 283(a) and 2(1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe (2013).

Gratuitous Cultural Insult

In the circumstances, it was most unfortunate that Minister Garwe labelled Bulelani as a "charlatan, criminal, and impostor"; a manifestly gratuitous cultural insult of Bulelani, the Khumalo family, the affected traditional leaders and the Ndebele community.

A gratuitous cultural insult is an unwarranted, offensive, or derogatory statement or action that disrespects, denigrates, or dismisses the cultural identity, heritage, or traditions of a group or individual without justifiable cause; often ignoring the cultural significance or legitimacy of the targeted practices or personality. Such an insult is typically unnecessary, inflammatory, disrespectful and disregards the sensitivities of the affected community, potentially exacerbating real or perceived historical grievances or cultural discrimination.

To be clear, Bulelani did not install himself or proclaim himself a ‘Ndebele King', something a charlatan, criminal or imposter would presumably do. He was crowned by members of the Khumalo family with traditional leaders in the Ndebele community. www.zimlive.com /bulelani-lobengula-khumalo-installed-as-king-of-ndebele-nation/

Bulelani Lobengula kaMzilikazi is anything but a "charlatan, criminal and imposter".

He is a direct descendant of King Lobengula, specifically his great-great-grandson. He is the son of Prince Humphrey Lobengula Khumalo, who is the son of Prince Patrick Lobengula Khumalo, who is the son of Prince Rhodes Lobengula Khumalo, who is the son of Prince Njube Lobengula Khumalo, who is the son of King Lobengula himself.

King Lobengula was the second and last official king of the Ndebele community in Zimbabwe, reigning from 1870 until his disappearance on 4 December 1893, under yet still to be authoritatively explained circumstances.

Bulelani was crowned as a claimant to the Ndebele kingship in a private ceremony in Bulawayo on 28 September 2018, recognized by some traditional leaders and the Khumalo clan, though his claim is contested by some members of the Khumalo family; and is yet to be recognized by the government.

With this history of Bulelani, Minister Garwe's insensitive labelling of him as a "charlatan, criminal, and impostor" is therefore most unfortunate as it is unwarranted and disproportionate, not only given Bulelani's lineage and cultural heritage, but also because it ignores the arguably legitimate cultural crowning process in 2018 — which was led by some traditional leaders and members of the Khumalo family.

It matters not that there may still be disputes over the process that was used to install Bulelani or that there may be other claimants to the Ndebele kingship in competition with him. But by dismissing the cultural process, and using derogatory and inflammatory language, coupled with the lack of engagement with Ndebele cultural perspectives on the matter, the Minister displayed disrespect for the heritage of a community whose cultural rights, values and traditions are protected by the Constitution of Zimbabwe (2013), and ipso facto needlessly exacerbated cultural tension and feelings of historical grievances by the affected community.

Even so,  Minister Garwe's cultural slur is in some strange way an opportunity that should not be wasted or squandered, but should be used to correct the misalignment or inconsistency of the Traditional Leaders Act with the Constitution of Zimbabwe (2013), by aligning it accordingly.

Constitutional Supremacy

It is trite that the Constitution of Zimbabwe (2013) is the fundamental or supreme law of the land. This is enshrined in section 2(1) of the Constitution, which provides that the "Constitution is the supreme law of Zimbabwe and any law, practice, custom or conduct inconsistent with it is invalid to the extent of the inconsistency". This provision is cemented by section 3(1)(a) which provides that the first of the nine values and principles upon which Zimbabwe is founded is "respect for the supremacy of the Constitution". https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DzbYDXBC3fLUE9lGNjQhE1ABAvw4Doib/view?usp=sharing

As already intimated in the foregoing, section 283(a) of the Constitution peremptorily and specifically mandates that an Act of Parliament must provide for "the appointment, suspension, succession, and removal of traditional leaders" in accordance with the "prevailing culture, customs, traditions, and practices of the communities concerned." This provision emphasizes the diversity of customary practices across Zimbabwe's communities, that must be accommodated, thereby requiring flexibility in the legal framework in the enabling Act, to accommodate community-specific leadership structures, such as the institution of kingship in the Ndebele community.

In direct conflict with section 283(a) of the Constitution, the Traditional Leaders Act, establishes a uniform — one-size-fits-all — legal framework for traditional leadership that recognizes only chiefs, headmen, and village heads as traditional leaders.

The Act does not provide for the recognition or appointment of "kings," despite the historical and cultural significance of kingship in the Ndebele community in its prevailing culture, customs, traditions and practices. This omission creates an inconsistency with the Constitution's peremptory requirement in section 283(a) for the Act to inclusively respect the  prevailing community-specific customs.

Ndebele Customary Practices and Kingship

It is common cause that the Ndebele community has a well-documented history of kingship which predates colonial disruption — which is also relatively modern, as exemplified by King Mzilikazi and King Lobengula — under whom the institution of kingship (commonly referred to as "Inkosi" or "Mambo") was a central pillar of Ndebele culture, customs, traditions and practices.

Unlike the chieftainship system which is uniformly enshrined in the Traditional Leaders Act, and which operates at a more localized level, Ndebele kingship historically unified diverse clans under a "paramount" traditional leader, consisting of chieftainships, and this practice remains culturally alive and significant within the Ndebele community to this day.

Section 332 of the Constitution provides that, "traditional leader" "means a person appointed as such in terms of section 283." On the back of this definition, section 283(a) explicitly requires that "An Act of Parliament must provide for the following, in accordance with the prevailing culture, customs, traditions and practices of the communities concerned — (a) the appointment, suspension, succession and removal of traditional leaders."

This is peremptory.

Tellingly, section 283(a) does not exclude kings or kingship in the definition of "traditional leaders" nor does it limit the definition only to chieftainship or chiefs, head person or village head."

The appointment of "traditional leaders" must align with the "prevailing customs and traditions" of the community concerned. For the Ndebele community, this includes the recognition of "kings" as "traditional leaders", as evidenced by the historical practices and contemporary calls for the recognition of the Ndebele kingship.

The failure of the Traditional Leaders Act to provide for kings as a category of traditional leadership defined in section 332 of the Constitution disregards this customary practice, by imposing a uniform and monolithic cultural structure that does not reflect the unique cultural system of the Ndebele community.

This imposition of a monolithic legal framework for "traditional leaders" who are defined to exclude kingship or kings is contrary to section 3(1)(d) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe (2013); which provides that Zimbabwe is founded on respect for nine key values and principles which include, "the nation's diverse cultural, religious and traditional values".

Put simply, and as is explained immediately below, it is unconstitutional to have a uniform and monolithic cultural structure imposed on any ethnic, racial, cultural, linguistic and religious groups". Such an imposition is by definition contrary to the essence of African customary law.

Ethnic Groups are Constitutional

Section 3(2)(i)(i) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe (2013) provides that "principles of good governance, which bind the State and all institutions and agencies of government at every level, include recognition of the rights of ethnic, racial, cultural, linguistic and religious groups".

Ethnic, that is to say tribal, groups are fully protected by the Constitution to vindicate and fully enjoy their culture, customs, traditions and practices that do not violate section 2(1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe (2013).

As such, it is legally and constitutionally baseless for people to claim, as some routinely do, that calls from the Ndebele community for the recognition of kingship are by definition tribal; when they are in fact protected by the Constitution.

Kings without Kingdoms

Amidst calls for the recognition of kingship in accordance with the Constitution of Zimbabwe (2013), there's been a great deal of confusion created by the uncritical conflation of kingship with kingdom, leading to understandable but misplaced and indeed wrong claims that the calls for the recognition of kingship are allegedly calls for the resuscitation of what Minister Garwe referred to as the "defunct throne of King Lobengula", which was a kingdom.

There's an important conceptual difference between a "kingship" and a "kingdom", which lies in their scope and nature.

Kingship refers to the position, role, or institution of a king, which is the office or authority held by a king as an individual "paramount traditional leader". As such, kingship focuses on the personal rule, power, and responsibilities of "the king" as a "traditional leader".

Legally, kingship involves the cultural rights, duties, and prerogatives associated with the role of a king as a traditional leader; which role is defined by culture, customs, tradition, practices, under the Constitution of Zimbabwe (2013).

Conceptually, kingship emphasizes the individual or the system of cultural and traditional governance in terms of customary law. Because it cannot be the same as the situation that prevailed under King Mzilikazi and King Lobengula, respectively, in terms of section 283(a) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, the ‘kingship" of Bulelani specifically and only refers to his cultural and traditional role and authority as a "paramount" traditional leader in the Ndebele community.

In contrast, kingdom refers to the territorial and political entity governed by a king or queen; as a monarch. As such, kingdom is the geographical, territorial, social, and administrative domain under the monarch's rule, encompassing the land, the people, and the institutions.

Legally, a kingdom is a sovereign state or polity with defined borders and a system of governance. Conceptually, a kingdom represents the collective entity, rather than the individual ruler. In this connection, for example, the Kingdom of England refers to the territory, laws, and people governed by the English monarch.

A key distinction between "kingship" and "kingdom" is that kingship is about the role of the "paramount" traditional leader as a cultural institution; it's about the "who" and "how" of overseeing culture, customs, traditions and practices of an ethnic group referred to in section 3(2)(i)(i) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe (2013)); whereas kingdom is about the political entity or body politic being ruled.

It is common to hear sensational allegations that calls by the Ndebele community for the recognition of kingship seek to resuscitate the Ndebele Kingdom. The allegations are political, and have nothing to do with the Constitution of Zimbabwe (2013).

 As stated above, a kingdom is a territorial entity, country or state governed by a king or queen; while a kingship is the "paramount traditional leadership" of a cultural community, ethnic and linguistic group; that oversees a shared culture, customs, traditions and practices.

There's no "ethnic, racial, cultural, linguistic or religious group" in Zimbabwe with any legitimate, legal, constitutional or territorial claims as a country or state. Section 1 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe (2013) is crystal clear that "Zimbabwe is a unitary, democratic and sovereign republic". Any other territorial thought or scheme would be treasonous. It's that simple and straightforward.

Uniform Cultural Framework Unconstitutional

As already pointed out, under sections 3 and 4, the Traditional Leaders Act establishes a standardized and uniform hierarchy of traditional leadership (chiefs, headmen, and village heads); and outlines procedures for their appointment, primarily through the President, with input from the National Council of Chiefs and provincial assemblies.

While the Act references customary law in certain respects (for example regarding succession principles), it nevertheless does not accommodate the diversity of leadership structures that are specifically mandated by section 283(a) of the Constitution.

In particular:

o No provision for kingship: The Act does not recognize or provide a mechanism for appointing kings, despite their well-established status as traditional leaders, for example, under Ndebele customary law and practice. This omission, which has complicated the crowning of Bulelani, violates the constitutional requirement in section 283(a) of the Constitution to tailor the legal framework to the "prevailing customs" of specific "communities concerned".

o Uniform legal framework: By imposing a one-size-fits-all model of traditional leadership, the Act disregards the mandatory constitutional directive to respect the unique and diverse cultural practices of communities like the Ndebele community, for example, that have always operated under a kingship cultural system rather than the chieftainship model, that's prevalent among other groups or communities in the country.

o Cultural discrimination: The Act's failure to recognize or provide for Ndebele kingship effectively discriminates against communities whose customary law and traditions are overseen by kings as "paramount" traditional leaders. The discrimination contravenes the Constitution's commitment to cultural diversity and equality — (as provided in sections 3, 16, 51, 56 and 63 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe (2013) — which protect the right to participate in one's cultural life and to promote cultural values.

State and Government Duty

In chapter 15 on national objectives, the Constitution of Zimbabwe (2013) directs the State to promote and preserve cultural values to enhance dignity, well-being and equality of Zimbabweans. In particular, section 16 provides that:

(1) The State and all institutions and agencies of government at every level must promote and preserve cultural values and practices which enhance the dignity, well-being and equality of Zimbabweans.

(2) The State and all institutions and agencies of government at every level, and all Zimbabwean citizens, must endeavour to preserve and protect Zimbabwe's heritage.

(3) The State and all institutions and agencies of government at every level must take measures to ensure due respect for the dignity of traditional institutions.

Impact of Uniform Cultural Framework on Fundamental Rights

Importantly, the responsibility of the State and all institutions and agencies of government at every level to "promote and preserve cultural values and practices to "enhance the dignity, well-being and equality of Zimbabweans" is justiciable in the Declaration of Rights [chapter four of the Constitution] under section 51 which provides that, "Every person has inherent dignity in their private and public life, and the right to have that dignity respected and protected"; and under section 63 which stipulates that, "Every person has the right to participate in the cultural life of their choice; but no person exercising these rights may do so in a way that is inconsistent with this Chapter."

The imposition of a uniform or standardized hierarchy of traditional leadership (chiefs, headmen, and village heads) in sections 3 and 4 of the Traditional Leaders Act, which excludes kingship, is unconstitutional as it violates the Declaration of Rights in sections 51, 56 and 63 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe (2013).

The imposition - under the Traditional Leaders Act - of a monolithic model of traditional leadership that excludes kingship in the cultural mix of "traditional leaders" in violation of the specific peremptory mandate in section 283(a) of the Constitution, as read with sections 332, 16, 51, 63, 3(1)(d) and 3(2)(i)(i), discriminates against communities, such as the Ndebele community. That discrimination is in violation of section 56(3) of the Constitution — the key equality and non-discrimination provision in the Declaration of Rights — which provides that, "Every person has the right not to be treated in an unfairly discriminatory manner on such grounds as their nationality, race, colour, tribe, place of birth, ethnic or social origin, language,class, religious belief, political affiliation, opinion, custom, culture, sex, gender, marital status, age, pregnancy, disability or economic or social status, or whether they were born in or out of wedlock."

It stands to reason under section 56(1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe (2013) that "All persons [read: in all "ethnic, racial, cultural, linguistic or religious groups"] are equal before the law and have the right to equal protection and benefit of the law".

Constitutional Interpretation and Customary Law

Importantly, section 46 of the Constitution requires courts to interpret constitutional provisions in a manner that promotes the values of human rights, equality, and cultural diversity, taking into account international law and Zimbabwe's customary practices. The section specifically provides, under subsection 2 that, "When interpreting an enactment, and when developing the common law and customary law, every court, tribunal, forum or body must promote and be guided by the spirit and objectives of this Chapter".

On the Continent — where matters of culture, customs, traditions and practices matter — the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, to which Zimbabwe is a party, emphasizes the protection of traditional values and cultural heritage; while Article 17(3) in particular provides that "The promotion and protection of traditional values recognised by the community shall be the duty of the State".

So it is that, when interpreting section 283(a) of the Constitution, as read with section 332, courts are required to adopt a purposive approach, ensuring that the legal framework for traditional leadership respects the diversity of Zimbabwe's communities.

The uniform and monolithic leadership structure under the Traditional Leaders Act woefully fails to meet this standard, stipulated in section 283(a) of the Constitution, by excluding kingship as a cultural practice and tradition common among a number of communities in Zimbabwe.

Precedent and Judicial Guidance

In general, judicial decisions in Zimbabwe have tended to emphasise the importance of aligning traditional leadership appointments with customary practices. For example, before the enactment in 2013 of the new Constitution, in Moyo v Mkoba & Ors, the High Court held that the President was only required to give "due consideration" to customary principles of succession. However, the Constitution of Zimbabwe (2013), under section 283(a), imposes a much stricter obligation to act "in accordance with the prevailing customs of the community concerned", as confirmed in Marange v Marange and 2 Ors (2021).

This shift is significant and strengthens the position that the Traditional Leaders Act must be aligned with the Constitution to explicitly recognize Ndebele kingship in compliance with the mandatory requirement of section 283(a) of the Constitution.

Furthermore, in Munodawafa v District Administrator, Masvingo, & Ors (2015), the court acknowledged the High Court's inherent jurisdiction to review matters involving traditional leadership where domestic remedies (e.g., through the President or provincial assemblies) are inadequate.

The fact that the Traditional Leaders Act does not provide a mechanism for appointing Ndebele kingship, creates a gap that undermines access to justice, cultural rights and equality; thereby justifying the need for legislative or judicial intervention to align the Act with the Constitution.

Remedy for Inconsistency

It is therefore plain that the failure of the Traditional Leaders Act to recognize or provide for Ndebele kingship as traditional leaders, renders the Act manifestly inconsistent with section 283(a) of the Constitution, in so far as it imposes a uniform legal framework that excludes community-specific leadership structures.

There's therefore a compelling case for either Parliament to align the Traditional Leaders Act with the Constitution or for the Constitutional Court to declare unconstitutional in part, sections 3 and 4 of the Act (defining traditional leaders); and to direct Parliament to amend the Act to include provisions for kingship in communities where such institutions are part of the prevailing customs of the community, as is the case among the Ndebele community.

Alternatively, the Constitutional Court could exercise its inherent powers by reading in provisions to the Traditional Leaders Act to allow for the appointment of kings, pending legislative reform, as permitted under section 176 of the Constitution, which provides that, "The Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court and the High Court have inherent power to protect and regulate their own process and to develop the common law or the customary law, taking into account the interests of justice and the provisions of this Constitution."

General Implications

Recognizing Ndebele kingship would not only align the Traditional Leaders Act with section 283(a) of the Constitution, as read with sections 332 and 2(1), but it would also promote national unity by respecting Zimbabwe's cultural diversity, as mandated by sections 3(1)(d), 3(2)(i)(i), 51, 56 and 63 of the Constitution, within the context of a "unitary, democratic and sovereign republic" as provided in section 1.

Such recognition would address historical grievances stemming from colonial disruptions of Ndebele culture, customs, traditions and practices that are not inconsistent with the Constitution, and would affirm the legitimacy of traditional institutions in modern governance.

Non action would undermine the Constitution's commitment to inclusivity and diversity, and would perpetuate cultural discrimination and inequality of communities, in breach of section 56(3) of the Constitution.

Conclusion: Kingship in Zimbabwe is Constitutional

The Traditional Leaders Act (Chapter 29:17) enacted in 1998, as amended, is inconsistent with section 283(a) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe (2013), in so far as it neither recognises nor provides for Ndebele kings, as "traditional leaders" in the sense they're defined in section 332.

By failing to provide for the appointment of kings, the Act violates the constitutional requirement to align traditional leadership structures with the "prevailing customs, traditions, and practices" of specific communities concerned.

This is supported by the supremacy of the Constitution of Zimbabwe in terms of section 2(1); the historical and cultural significance of Ndebele kingship under sections 3(1)(d), 3(2)(i)(i), 16, 51, 56 and 63; the judicial precedents emphasizing customary law; and Zimbabwe's obligations under international law to protect cultural heritage.

The Parliament of Zimbabwe could remedy the misalignment of the Traditional Leaders Act with the Constitution of Zimbabwe (2013) by amending the Act. If this proves difficult for one reason or another, an application should be made to the Constitutional Court to ask it to remedy the inconsistency by declaring parts of the Act unconstitutional or by reading in relevant provisions of the Act to recognize kingship, to ensure compliance with the Constitution's mandate for cultural diversity and community-specific traditional leaders.