President Cyril Ramaphosa attends the coronation ceremony of King MisuZulu kaZwelithini. File photo by Getty Images
Members of the Zulu royal family who have challenged the legitimacy of king MisuZulu kaZwelithini want the high court to order president Cyril Ramaphosa to remit the identification of the heir to the throne back to them.
They have accused Ramaphosa of “multiple constitutional violations” against them and of usurping their right to identify the rightful successor to the late king, Goodwill Zwelithini kaBhekuzulu.
Prince Mbonisi Zulu — the king’s uncle — and 22 other Zulu royals have made an application for a cross-appeal in the application for leave to appeal by the president and the king against an order by the Pretoria high court last year declaring MisuZulu’s appointment unlawful.
The application for leave to appeal by Ramaphosa and the king will be heard in Pretoria on 16 January and the Zulu royals want the part of the order by Judge Norman Davis instructing Ramaphosa to remit the matter to an investigating panel set aside.
Davis made the order last month after separate applications challenging the recognition of MisuZulu in March 2022 — and his installation in October of the same year — by Mbonisi, Prince Simakade and other royal family members were consolidated.
Davis found that Ramaphosa’s recognition of the king was flawed as he had failed to appoint an investigative panel to probe the dispute over the throne but he did not rule on the issue of the legitimacy of the king’s claim to the throne.
In papers filed in court this week, Mbonisi gave notice of their intention to oppose the application for leave to appeal by Ramaphosa and MisuZulu as there were “no reasonable prospects of success on appeal”.
There were no compelling reasons why the appeal should be granted, nor was it in the interest of justice that the court do so, they said.
Turning to the cross-appeal, Mbonisi said that while the court had correctly found the recognition of MisuZulu was unlawful and invalid, it had “failed to fashion an appropriate order that is just and equitable”.
The order should have taken into account the “nature of the constitutional rights” of the applicants, who were the “core and key members” of the Zulu royal family and who “play an indispensable customary and legal role in the identification of a successor to the amaZulu throne”.
Mbonisi said that, if the court had “fully appreciated the role of the amaZulu royal family in the identification of a successor”, it would have “remitted the matter back to the amaZulu royal family”.
They, in turn, would have identified an heir and submitted an application to the president for recognition in terms of the Traditional and Khoi-San Leadership Act .
‘Violations’ by Ramaphosa
Mbonisi said the court had “unjustifiably” limited its finding on the president’s “unlawful and unconstitutional conduct” to a “single violation” rather than dealing with the “multiple constitutional violations” committed by the head of state.
These included the failure to consult the premier and the failure to detect that advice given by the then minister of co-operative governance and traditional affairs about the premier’s stance on MisuZulu was a “false representation”.
Mbonisi said both the court and the president had failed to acknowledge that “there was no lawful identification process and decision by the Zulu royal family” which had been completed ahead of him recognising MisuZulu.
The president had also violated the Superior Courts Act by relying on the judgment of KwaZulu-Natal deputy judge president Mjabuliseni Madondo, in MisuZulu’s favour, when the ruling was under appeal, Mbonisi said.
“The court should have found that the unlawful conduct of the president was so egregious as to require a remedy of remittal to the amaZulu royal family,” he said. “The court should have found that the unlawfulness of the president’s decision and conduct could not be cured by an investigation under section 8(4) of the [Traditional and Khoi-San Leadership Act].”
Mbonisi said that the public interest in the affirmation and preservation of ancient customs and traditions that govern the identification of an heir to the Zulu throne had been “completely ignored by the court”.
The president’s role was “limited to merely the recognition of an identified successor”.
“The president’s power to recognise a successor does not extend to the identification, adjudication of, or to exercise an executive discretion to identify a successor.”
He said the meeting on 14 May 2021 which had identified MisuZulu was not properly constituted and was “unlawful, unconstitutional and procedurally unfair”.
The status of this meeting — and the decisions taken at it — was still under dispute, which meant that the president had taken the decision to recognise the sitting king and not the Zulu royal family, he said.
“The president is bound by the identification decision of the royal family and may not rely on factors extraneous to those factors taken by the royal family. Such an approach avoids the unconstitutionality of the president exercising recognition powers in a manner that usurps the power of the royal family,” Mbonisi said.
Attempts to secure comment from the presidency and the king’s spokesperson had been unsuccessful at the time of writing.