'Umthondo' Cannot be illegal or indecent - but Gudo’s argument Is correct

Mr. Gudo, the male genitalia cannot be deemed indecent or punishable by law. “Umthondo” simply means penis - a biological organ that cannot be unlawful. Across all societies and throughout human evolution, body parts were named. You argue that cultural norms discourage public mention of private anatomy. Indeed, genitalia are rarely spoken of outside medical contexts. Your argument centers on respect: the culture of silence protects the sacredness of the human body. I agree with you.


However, I wish you had extended your critique to the ZAPU emblem. The yellow ZAPU T-shirt features a black bull with an exaggerated scrotum - an image that is both disturbing and problematic. This emblem suggests power and dominance through male anatomy, a message that no longer belongs in the second millennium. The silence surrounding this overt display of male chauvinism within ZAPU must be condemned by gender rights advocates. Even if it’s a bull’s scrotum, the symbolism reinforces conservative thinking and male superiority within the party.

Curiously, no female voice within ZAPU has publicly challenged this emblem. Rebranding ZAPU must include gender sensitivity. While the shirt’s color is commendable, the bull and its exaggerated genitalia are outdated. Women who wear these shirts inadvertently endorse male dominance - suggesting inequality in all aspects of social development. How can we fight gender injustice effectively under such symbolism? As the Ndebele say, izinto ezincane zidala umehluko - small things make a big difference.

The debate around “Umthondo” also reignited thoughts about kingship in Matabeleland. I must say, the prospective kings may not fully grasp the Zulu meaning of “Umthondo.” In traditional Ndebele settings, it can carry connotations of shock, awe, and power display.

Kingship in Matabeleland has been unresolved for decades. Under current economic hardship, the push to revive a Ndebele kingdom may be driven by fiscal incentives - such as the collection of royal taxes. Globally, monarchies are losing relevance, as seen in the United Kingdom.

Rumors circulated that Chief Ndiweni of Ntabazinduna relocated to the UK to seek an audience with Queen Elizabeth II, allegedly to demand reparations for gold reserves stolen by the British South African Police on behalf of the Crown. These claims remain unverified and likely impossible to establish. It seems more about money than the welfare of Ndebele subjects.

I challenge the three kings to serve their people by initiating projects that uplift rural communities. Kingship must add value. Rural populations need guidance in subsistence farming, especially under climate change. Leadership should promote food security and sovereignty.

Building durable homes would ease the burden on women, who traditionally construct huts. Schools and hospitals must be refurbished. No one will work for us—we must act ourselves. Supporting rural development does not conflict with government policy. These are my humble thoughts.

The kings could also engage regional politicians to pressure the government to complete stalled infrastructure projects. Their neutrality in political matters positions them well to advocate, even amid disputes over who is the legitimate king among the three King-elects.

They must recognize the social and economic decline in Matabeleland and act. What are they waiting for? It does not help King-Elect Bulelani Khumalo to reside in South Africa, waiting for Zimbabwe’s government to approve his coronation. To be served by their subjects, kings must first serve them. That means taking responsibility—guiding communities out of poverty.