In March this year, Bonani Yamani, a young man from the Eastern Cape, was kidnapped by his family and taken against his will to an ingcibi, a traditional surgeon who performs circumcision on Xhosa young men as part of their rites of passage into manhood.
He was not the first to be forced to undergo this ordeal – older family men are known to have been taken by neighbours or strangers to an ingcibi so that they could be circumcised before they are fully accepted by their peers as men – or remain perpetual children, as Xhosa tradition dictates.
The dust had hardly settled on Yamani’s case, which was reported prominently in the media and created a frenzy of debates about the abuse of his human rights, when another controversy linked to traditional circumcision catapulted itself onto the radar screens of local media.
SABC1 started screening a mini-part series called Umthunzi Wentaba, whose sole intention was to spark debate not only on circumcision per se but also about its social impact.
Many initiates are known to have contracted HIV and other at these schools. This is mainly because the ill-trained ingcibis tend to use the same blade over and over again on the initiates without sterilizing it.
This was one of the central themes of the TV mini-series, to alert communities of the dangers posed by ill-trained ingcibis on the lives of would-be initiates. The mini-series, in an artistic and non-preachy way, was advocating for those who officiate over these rites to take these palpable dangers into account, and perhaps team up with modern doctors in executing this most sacred exercise.
From an artistic point of view, Umthunzi Wentaba was fantastically conceptualised and dramatised to drive these important points home. But some felt it was too graphic.
In one episode a surgeon was seen wielding his circumcision instruments before cutting the young men’s foreskin, which was followed by screams and groaning.
I did not find this offensive. Even though I’ve not undergone the process – Zulus do not observe this custom – I am quite familiar with it. Nelson Mandela wrote graphically about it in his autobiography “A Long Walk To Freedom”. No-one complained. No-one dared castigate him for revealing the “sacred secrets” of the circumcision tradition. In fact he was praised for his forthrightness and honesty.
But the Congress of Traditional Leaders and others opposed to the screening were so vociferous in their denunciation of what they saw as a betrayal of the secrecy around the ritual that they fought hard against the SABC to stop the screening. The public broadcaster capitulated after screening only two parts of what would have been a four-part series.
The debate around circumcision points to what appears to be an ambiguity in the Constitution.
The Constitution provides protection for different cultures and customs, religions – which traditional leaders believe has been trampled on by the screening of the series.
But the Constitution also lays an even greater emphasis on individual rights, in this case the rights of Yamani and others who have been taken against their will to initiation schools.
Striking a balance between these conflicting self-interests will continue to be the test to our constitution.
Freedom of expression, and our rights to information about issues that affect us as a society, also come in to play. There are some of us who feel that our right to information has been trampled upon by an unprincipled broadcaster who crumbled under pressure.
HIV is a concern to all of us, and if some circumcision schools are conducting business under conditions that might prove to be conducive to perpetuation of the HIV scourge, then we as viewers need to know.
Open debate on these issues can only strengthen our Constitution – and ensure that circumcision is safe and continues to be regarded with the respect it deserves.
Fred Khumalo is a novelist and columnist at the Sunday Times.