Zulu King Misuzulu kaZwelithini’s lawyer will argue the high court erred in ruling that his recognition is unlawful and invalid when his application is heard by the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) in November.
The king’s uncle Prince Mbonisi and his half-brother Prince Simakade successfully challenged the validity of the recognition of King Misuzulu by President Cyril Ramaphosa. The two royals argued the president had not followed the terms of the Traditional and Khoi-San Leadership Act (also known as the Leadership Act) in making the decision.
Misuzulu’s counsel will argue that by the time the king received a certificate of recognition, there was neither any existing dispute, evidence or an allegation which would cause the president to question an identified person as being king or queen.
“The only time the Leadership Act provides for the president to take substantive steps is where there is evidence or allegations that the identification was not done in terms of customary law and custom. This demonstrates, again, that it is customary law which ultimately determines who the rightful king or queen may be, and not the president’s recognition or otherwise,” the king’s heads of argument read.
Misuzulu’s counsel emphasised that the president has no role in the identification of a king or queen. It argued that the president's role is limited to the recognition of a queen or king.
The king argues he could only be identified by the royal family, adding that the recognition by the president did not make a person king or queen.
He adds that the president relied on the correspondence addressed by the late prime minister of the Zulu nation, Prince Mangosuthu Buthelezi, which stated that in accordance with Zulu customary laws and traditions, the decision [to recognise Misuzulu kaZwelithini as heir] was unanimous and that “no dissention was recorded, no query was raised and no grievance was lodged”.
It is settled custom that any queen born of royalty takes precedence over any other queen or wife of the king, and King Misuzulu’s mother was such a queen
— King Misuzulu's counsel
Judge Norman Davis of the Pretoria high court ruled in December that Ramaphosa had failed to follow due process in terms of the Leadership Act. The judge found that the president failed to institute an investigating committee when a dispute over the Zulu throne arose between Misuzulu and his brother, Prince Simakade.
But the king counsel argues that Davis’ assertion that “the mere making of an assertion that traditional laws and customs had not been followed [is] sufficient” that once an allegation is made, it is mandatory that the president “must cause an investigation to be conducted by an investigative committee” is wrong.
“In context, 'evidence' must mean the demonstration of facts which show that customary law was not followed ... It must contain the facts necessary to sustain the conclusion that customary law was not followed in the identification. Otherwise any statement, even one based on conjecture, would stymie the recognition of a king who has been identified correctly in terms of custom.”
The king’s counsel also argues the Davis judgment failed to contend with the facts and legal consequences surrounding the identification decision. “It is settled custom that any queen born of royalty takes precedence over any other queen or wife of the king, and King Misuzulu’s mother was such a queen. A queen born of royalty, whose lobola was paid by the Zulu nation, is the bearer of the king to ascend to the throne after the death of the reigning king, and King Misuzulu’s mother was such a queen.”
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.