Family accused of attacking chief in road dispute
SIPHOCOSINI - A Mayisela family has been accused of threatening and verbally attacking Siphocosini Chief Jabhane, after the traditional leader had ordered the area’s inner council to open a road in their field.
Section 233 of Ewatini Constitution provides that chiefs are footstools of Ingwenyama and Ingwenyama rules through chiefs. Subsection 6 provides that a chief, as a symbol of unity and a father of the community, does not take part in partisan politics.
The Constitution further states that in the exercise of the functions and duties of office, a chief enforces a custom, tradition, practice or usage which is just and not discriminatory.
News of the attack was addressed during an urgent meeting called by the chief over the weekend.
The chief shared to his subjects that he had been verbally attacked and further threatened by some members (men) of the Mayisela family, after he had ordered that a road be constructed through one of their fields to give way for neighbours who were also residents of the area. The chief stated that the opening of the road in the field was not intended to spite the Mayisela family but was part of a development in the area.
He said the opening of the road came after a unanimous decision taken by the residents in a community meeting.
Suggesting
“I have also been served with a court order suggesting that I should keep 500 metres away from the Mayisela homestead. The question is when you provoke a lion, what do you do when it starts roaring because it will roar?” asked the chief. The chief asked a resident, who is also a police officer, what to do if threatened by his subjects.
The residents murmured in shock as the chief shared his story.
Even though the chief did not repeat the threats, the inner council Indvuna, Sikakadza Matsebula, recently revealed in court that the members (children) of the Mayisela family used a siSwati adage ‘ubolibamba lingashoni’ when threatening the chief. Traditionalists differed on the interpretation of the adage.
Some understood it to mean a threat, suggesting that the person the utterances would be attacked. Others understood the adage to mean one should not think that things will end well for him/her. The other version from traditionalists was that the adage meant ‘what goes around comes around’.
However, the traditionalists shared the same sentiments that the adage was always provoked by anger.
The meeting was called a few days after the Mayisela family had approached the Mbabane Magistrates Court, seeking an order to interdict Siphocosini Inner Council Indvuna Matsebula from interfering with their property. The family of the late Mfanaleni Mayisela include his wife Sibongile Shongwe and children.
The family stated that they were not against the opening of the road in their field but were irked by the manner of approach by Matsebula.
Field
“The field in question forms part of our property. It is one of the fields where we grow crops. The inner council ought to have engaged and requested us to use the portion as opposed to them forcing us to remove the fence to give way to one homestead which has an alternative road. We cannot allow Matsebula to use his authority and grab our property. At times, it is good to make a humble request no matter your status or position,” said the family.
The family directed their complaint to Matsebula, whom they accused of opening the road for his relatives.
However, when sharing his side of the story, Matsebula, who was singled out as a defendant, started by setting the record straight that he opened the road in his capacity as the inner council indvuna, who was instructed by the chief. He stated that he opened the road along with the members of the inner council, not as an individual as alleged by the Mayisela family.
“Let me set the record straight that I feel uncomfortable and disrespected to be referred to as Sikakadza Matsebula in person, whereas I am involved in this matter as the inner council indvuna,” he said, before the court called the Mayisela family to order.
Matsebula stated that he knew the late Mayisela as a resident, who acquired the piece of land through
kukhonta. He stated that the issue of the road was not new as it was discussed before.
He said Siphocosini was divided into zones
(tikhungo), where each zone was monitored by a zone leader. Matsebula told the court that each zone was responsible for activities taking place, including development. He said in the case of the Mayisela family, the zone leader was assigned to negotiate for the road with the late Mayisela.
“We got a report that Mayisela objected to the opening of the road in his field. The zone, therefore, referred the matter to the inner council. A community meeting was then called to have the matter discussed by the residents (bandlakhulu). The residents ruled that Mayisela should give way to the Mabuza family. The decision by the residents was taken to the chief, before it was made the final order,” Matsebula told the court.
He submitted that Mayisela opened the road with a heavy heart. As a result, he stated that Mayisela bypassed the chief and appealed the verdict at the Ndabazabantu Office in Mbabane.
“The Office of Ndabazabantu maintained the ruling by the residents. James Magagula, who headed the office at the time, explained that the opening of the road was part of development as no liSwati had to struggle to get home. Mayisela was advised to return to ndabazabantu within 14 days if not satisfied with the verdict. It was made clear to Mayisela that the Office of Ndabazabantu would take him to Ludzidzini Inner Council to appeal the verdict as per the norm,” Matsebula told the court. He stated that he then discovered that Mayisela had bypassed the Office of Ndabazabantu and proceeded to Ludzidzini Inner Council on his own accord. Matsebula mentioned that the Ludzidzini Inner Council advised the chief to address the issue at the chiefdom level.
“If the late Mayisela removed the fence and opened the road during his lifetime, who had the authority to close it now?” asked the members of the inner council, who had accompanied Matsebula to court. The members of the inner council stated that the Mayisela family should come out clear that they were challenging the chief’s authority.
Challenging
“The chief instructed the inner council to open the road in the field, so anyone against that is challenging his authority. Come out clear if you are fighting the chief. Do not single out Matsebula as if he was working alone,” said the members of the inner council.
Acting Mbabane Senior Magistrate Sifiso Vilakati told both parties that the court’s hands were tied when it came to matters emanating from traditional structures, which he said were considered fully fledged courts with powers to make decisions and orders. Vilakati stated that just as verdicts from lower courts were appealed at higher courts, decisions from traditional structures had to be appealed at higher traditional authorities.
He stated that the court was praying hard for solutions in all matters aimed at restoring peace.
“The peace binding order only focuses on issues of violence, threats harassment, intimidation and insults among other violence-related acts. The court will advise that both parties maintain peace while means to get a solution to this matter are being made,” he said.
The judicial officer also observed that the issue of the Mayisela family was Eswatini Law and Custom clashing with a civil right to property. He said as submitted, the inner council acted on an instruction from the chief while the family viewed the act as an infringement on their right to property.