So far the battle between the Zulu king and Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi has been a war of words — now it’s headed for the courts, writes Ann Eveleth
INKATHA Freedom Party (IFP) leader Mangosuthu Buthelezi’s new power base in kwa-Zulu/Natal, the controversial House of Traditional Leaders, came under a double-edged legal sword this week following Zulu King Goodwill Zwelithini’s supreme court application to have the Act which constituted the House declared
Zwelithini’s application in the Pietermaritzburg Supreme Court this week answered Buthelezi’s imbizo ultimatum last Sunday with a resounding “no” and could bolster a parallel application filed by the African National Congress (ANC), ANC kwaZulu/Natal chairman Jacob Zuma, deputy chairman chief Zibuse Mlaba, and chief Everson Xolo last December.
The monarch’s application comes amid revelations that an ANC leader killed early this year had been a key witness in their case.
Another witness now says he is afraid to testify to his own affidavit that the House of Traditional Leaders Act was promulgated without proper consultation.
Zwelithini has said in an affidavit that he, as the king of the Zulu nation, chairman of the Usuthu Tribal Authority and chairman of the Nongoma Regional Authority, was never consulted about the legislation.
KwaZulu/Natal premier Frank Mdlalose announced this week his intention to respond to the application along with kwa-Zulu/Natal Minister of Traditional Affairs Inkosi Ngubane, but IFP leaders were otherwise tight- lipped about the case.
The two respondents now have 15 legal days after April 7 to reply, while responding affidavits for the ANC case must by filed by March 31, raising the prospect that the two cases may closely coincide sometime in June or July — just before the IFP annual conference.
Buthelezi made his position on the ANC’s case clear at a meeting of chiefs in January when he dismissed the claim that traditional leaders had not been properly consulted as “a preposterous and false allegation”.
But Zwelithini’s attorney S’dumo Mathe said the monarch’s affidavit would strengthen this “overlapping” claim of both parties: “We are saying the king is the traditional leader of the amakhosi, so there is a stronger need for him to be consulted.”
Zwelithini argues in his affidavit that the provincial legislature failed to outline the methods by which it would consult traditional leaders; that all traditional authorities were not consulted and that the consultation process, which occurred in a party political atmosphere, did not “enable differing views on the issues arising from such proposed legislation to be expressed” as envisaged in section 183 (1) (c) of the interim constitution.
Zwelithini further alleges that the resolution which scheduled a single meeting on October 14 for this “consultation … held on short notice and without prior knowledge of the proposed Bill” and “could never be sufficient and adequate consultation”.
Zwelithini said he was “summoned” to attend the meeting to which he had never consented and this was in contravention of traditional Zulu law and custom.
The monarch charged that “It seems overwhelmingly probable that only people who supported the IFP were invited” to the October 14 meeting of “some of amakhosi of kwa-Zulu/Natal and members of IsoleSizwe” in Ulundi.
Zwelithini also argues there was no “significant discussion” around the Bill with the only query being whether female chiefs would be accommodated.
Beyond the lack of consultation, the two cases differ on the particular aspects of the Act they oppose: The ANC argues that clauses 2.2 and 4.6 are unconstitutional because they allow the House to “vary or withdraw” duties, powers, authorities and functions of the monarch with a two-thirds vote of the House, and grant the provincial government exclusive powers over “any law or administrative action affecting Zulu traditional or customary law” to the exclusion of central government.
Although Zwelithini’s representative Prince Sifiso Zulu told a press conference in Durban this week that clause 2.2 was of “great concern” to the monarch because it gave the House “power to dethrone the King”, the argument did not appear in the monarch’s court papers.
Mathe said, however, that the issue would be argued as part of his case.
Zwelithini’s papers instead focus on clauses 5.1(a) and 5.1(b) which respectively guarantee House membership to “the inkosi of the Amangwana Tribal Authority and the Inkosi of the Amazizi Tribal Authority” and “the traditional prime minister to the Ingonyama or his
In a legal battle which promises to dredge up alternative “histories” of the Zulu nation, Zwelithini has finally cast his rejection of the controversial “prime minister” post in legal ink, saying “Apart from the fact that (this guarantee) is contrary to the members of the House being nominated or elected, I wish to mention that there is no such institution or functionary in traditional Zulu customary law”.
Zwelithini said under traditional law, a king would appoint one of his izinduna (headmen) as induna-enkulu (chief headman) to represent him.
Arguing that these appointments had “never been hereditary”, Zwelithini said King Shaka’s induna-enkulu had been Ngomane Mdlethshe; King Dingane’s had been Ndlela Ntuli; King Mpande’s had been Masiphula Ntshangase; only King Cetshwayo had appointed a Buthelezi — Mnyama Buthelezi; King Dinizulu’s had been Mankulumane Ndwandwe; King Solomon had appointed Prince Gilbert Zulu and King Bhekezulu had not made such an appointment.
“Upon ascending to the throne Prince Ndesheni Zulu performed the functions of induna-enkulu for me and he was succeeded by Aaron Mthenjane,” Zwelithini added.
Zwelithini’s objection to section 5.1 (a) is that it “is inconsistent with the members being elected or nominated by the traditional authorities” as required by section 183 (1)(a) of the Interim Constitution.
This section also treats the two tribal authorities “differently from other tribal authorities” and gives them “double representation” in the House, Zwelithini