King Goodwill ascended to the throne in 1968, after the death of his father, King Cyprian Bhekuzulu kaSolomon.
Police handwriting experts have found that the contested 2016 will of King Goodwill Zwelithini kaBhekuzulu — the validity of which is being challenged in court by a faction in the royal house — was forged.
The Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (the Hawks) has, since July last year, been investigating claims that the will was forged, when a criminal case was opened by members of the royal family opposing King Misuzulu kaZwelithini’s succession to the throne.
The late monarch’s daughter, Princess Ntandowenkosi Zulu, is also contesting the validity of the will in civil court after the high court in Pietermaritzburg dismissed an attempt to halt the appointment of Misuzulu kaZwelithini as king in March.
The court did not rule on the validity of the will. Instead it ordered that the issue be tested in a separate court.
The late monarch’s first wife, Queen Sibongile Dlamini-Zulu, has approached the supreme court of appeal (SCA) to set aside the Pietermaritzburg ruling by the KwaZulu-Natal judge president, Mjabuliseni Madondo, who found against her attempt to claim half of his estate on the grounds that they were married in community of property.
Sibongile has asked the court to overturn Madondo’s ruling because he had presided over the 2014 marriage of the late king and Queen Zola Mafu, one of the respondents in her application, and might be susceptible to bias because of this.
A date for the civil challenges is yet to be set.
In the criminal investigation, a senior police handwriting analyst and control forensic analyst, found last year that the monarch’s signature on the will did not match 25 specimen signatures to which he had compared it.
The analyst found that although the late king’s specimen signatures and that on the will “at first appear to be mutually consistent in respect of execution”, there were a number of “inconsistencies” in letter design and line continuity.
Although there were “some similarities” in terms of form, a “larger number of significant differences … outweigh the number of similarities identified”.
He further found that there were “unusual forms” in the signature on the will that did not occur in the specimen signatures.
“I found evidence to provide strong support for the proposition that the signatures in question were not written by the writer of the specimen signatures. The presence of a number of anomalies further provides strong support for the proposition that the signatures in question are simulated ‘free hand’ forgeries,” the analyst said.
It was not possible to say who had forged the will but analysis had shown that it had not been done by either of the two witnesses who signed the will.
An analysis of the layout and printing of the will had also found that it had been printed on ordinary copier paper, rather than on high quality or security paper, and that that header and contents of several pages had been misaligned.
The royal coat of arms was also of a lesser quality than those on other official documents the expert had analysed.
Hawks spokesperson Lieutenant Colonel Katlego Mogale was unable to comment on the status of the investigation and when the matter would go to the National Prosecuting Authority for a decision on whether to prosecute.
“There is not much that we can say at this stage as the matter is still under investigation,” she said.
Some history as to how the will was drafted can be found in court papers filed by Ingonyama Trust Board (ITB) chairperson Jerome Ngwenya, who has gone to court for an order compelling the Master of the High Court, Sanlam and Queen Sibongile to accept the will as the king’s last will and testament.
In his affidavit supporting the application, dated 15 March this year, Ngwenya said he had been responsible for drafting the will, as well as an earlier will made in 2014, along with the late king’s financial adviser, Richard Faulds.
Ngwenya, who was appointed as ITB chairperson by the late king, said he had a “remarkably close relationship” with Zwelithini and had become his “confidante in both legal and personal matters”.
Ngwenya said he had “facilitated” and “assisted in the drafting” of a 2014 will and the 2016 version, in terms of which he had been given “certain duties in terms of the provisions of the wills themselves”.
The 2014 will had been destroyed when the 2016 will was made but a photocopy had been retained, Ngwenya said.
The two wills were “substantially the same in content” but the 2016 version “addressed certain omissions and manuscript entries” that were “included and elaborated on”.
Faulds had drafted the text of the will, which was printed on a royal letterhead provided by Ngwenya.
Ngwenya said that although the 2016 will was “duly executed”, “formalities” in terms of section 2 of the Wills Act had not been adhered to. The first witness, Pieter Grobbelaar, had signed the will in the king’s presence but the second witness, Merle Stadler, had signed it later at the Richards Bay offices of the late king’s financial advisers.
“The document was otherwise properly executed by the late isilo and, based on my knowledge of what has been expressed to me by the late isilo prior to the preparation of both the 2014 will and the 2016 will, reflects and expresses his wishes. Mr Fauls has also confirmed to me that the 2016 will was prepared on the express instruction of isilo.”
Ngwenya said in his affidavit that he was aware of the civil case challenging the authenticity of the will and was “aware of a criminal case as well”.
In her papers before the SCA, Queen Sibongile Dlamini-Zulu confirmed that a criminal charge had been laid regarding the validity of the will.
She said the Recognition Act of 2000 meant that only her civil marriage to the late king was legally valid and that his subsequent marriages did not have legal standing. The validity of these unions had been questioned in academic circles “during the king’s lifetime.”
In 1981, the then KwaZulu government initiated a bill to recognise the king’s unions but failed to pass the legislation, she said.
As a result, the queen asked that court to rule that only her marriage be recognised and that the will be dealt with in terms of community of property.
She said the fact that Madondo had presided over her late husband’s marriage to Queen Mafu had created a “reasonable apprehension that he might be biased” because he had “played an important role in the marriage, which formed part of the subject matter of the dispute between the parties”.
Madondo had refused to entertain the application for his recusal during the original case on the grounds that any aggrieved party could approach the appeal court.
[/membership]