Recognition of Zulu king ruled invalid

The Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, on Monday declared President Cyril Ramaphosa’s recognition of AmaZulu King Misuzulu kaZwelithini as invalid.

In the summary of his judgment, Judge Norman Davis stressed that this court matter was not about who should be king of the Zulu nation but whether Ramaphosa had correctly recognised the king in terms of customary laws and customs.

Judge Davis found that Ramaphosa had not followed the Traditional and Khoi-San Leadership Act 3 of 2019 (the Leadership Act).

“It is declared that the recognition by the first respondent (Ramaphosa) of the second respondent as Isilo (king) of the Zulu nation as contained in Government Gazette of March 17, 2022 (the recognition decision) was unlawful and invalid and the recognition decision is hereby set aside.

“The matter of the recognition of the Isilo of the AmaZulu is remitted to (Ramaphosa) who is directed to act in terms of Sections 8(4) and 8(5) of the Traditional and Khoi-San Leadership Act 3 of 2019 and to appoint an investigative committee as contemplated in that act to conduct an investigation and to provide a report in respect of allegations that the identification of the (Misuzulu) was not done in terms of customary laws and customs,” the judgment reads.

The ongoing succession battle for the throne was taken to court by Prince Simakade Zulu, Misuzulu’s half-brother, and Prince Mbonisi Bekithemba ka Bhekuzulu, the half-brother of the late King Goodwill Zwelithini, who filed an application aiming to overturn the president’s certification of Misuzulu as the Zulu king.

Simakade is the first born son of the late King Goodwill Zwelithini.

The other respondents in the matter include the late Prince Mangosuthu Buthelezi, who was traditional Prime Minister.

Princes and princesses of the royal family were listed either as co-applicants or co-respondents.

Judge Davis said the court was also asked to determine if Misuzulu had correctly been appointed as king in terms of Zulu custom but KwaZulu-Natal High Court Judge Isaac Madondo had already pronounced in related litigation that Misizulu is the rightful heir to the throne.

Judge Davis, in explaining why the recognition was declared invalid, made reference to the dispute over succession that took place after King Zwelithini’s death and thereafter the death of Queen Mantfombi, who had been nominated as successor of the late king.

He said the then-Minister of Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs (Cogta) had requested an ad hoc mediation panel led by former KZN Premier Willies Mchunu “to attend to the dispute within the AmaZulu Royal Family (and) to reach an agreement on the person to be submitted to the president for recognition as king of the Amazulu Kingship”.

The mediation panel sought to be independent and autonomous and saw its primary responsibility to “undertake the necessary consultations to bring all the parties and the royal family together to reach an agreement on who should be recognised as the king in terms of the AmaZulu Kingship customary laws and customs.”

Judge Davis said Mchunu’s panel conducted extensive investigations and produced a report spanning 43 pages with the panel advising Ramaphosa not to rush to recognise Misuzulu as the king of the Amazulu; to wait for the court cases to conclude before making a decision; to appoint a legally formed investigation team to investigate the issue of succession and to consider having an acting king.

The judge said these recommendations were ignored.

He made reference to Prince Simakade’s contention that Ramaphosa’s decision was unlawful and contrary to the Leadership Act.

He said this was specifically related to Sections 8(4) and (5) of the act, where if an allegation that the identification of a person as a king or queen was not done in terms of customary laws and customs then the onus was on Ramaphosa to probe the matter through an investigative committee.

“Section 8(4) deals specifically with the issues applicable at the time when a (new) king is to be recognised. It is abundantly clear that the latter situation is applicable in the present instance and that this is the section that was binding on the president when he took the recognition decision,” Judge Davis said.

“It appears that the president at least partially appreciated the applicability of Section 8(4) as he refers to it in his answering affidavit.

“Having correctly identified the applicable section, the president however did not follow it.”

He found that Ramaphosa erred in law in performing an evaluative function regarding what he deemed to be “the evidence”.

The Mercury