Why has traditional leadership been so silent about Thembu king?
IHAVE no authority in law, but I am not disrespectful of SA laws nor do I ignore the South African Constitution. I am also not a Thembu, but I am an African, so please lend me your ears.
I am not happy. I am rather disturbed, perhaps angered by a voice that sounds so soft – that of indigenous African (SA) leadership – the kings, queens, iinkosi.
As for the Thembu royal house, I do not know what to say, when the fate of the Thembu king, the first citizen of the Thembus, is in the hands of institutions that are supposed to be subordinate to him.
Had this happened to the Zulus, bebezawuwazi umzi onotywala (there would have been an uproar).
The problem is not with the judiciary for it simply interprets the policies and the law that makes the SA Constitution and the legal system. The question is, why does foreign Roman Dutch law supercede indigenous customary law?
I wrote a letter in March last year to Contralesa, asking nkosi Thobejane to ponder the implications of chapters 7 and 12 of the Constitution, for I think these take away African authority and power.
The fact is, the very Constitution (our supreme law) was drawn up by people who were under duress – desperate to complete tata Nelson Mandela’s 1994 democratic dispensation. But a self-destructive authority [was imposed] through political thinking influenced by external capitalist pressures. The result is that in SA traditional leaders, even after 20 years, are disempowered.
The absence of voices from our African customary authority – Codesa – led to the unfortunate trampling of anything relating to African supremacy.
Customary law might be recognised, but this is subject to Roman Dutch law.
The end result is chapter 7 and 12 of the Constitution, which is the complete detachment of African authority from kings, queens and iinkosi (chiefs).
The judicial interpretation of these faults in the case of the African Thembu King Buyelekhaya Dalindyebo resulted in his annihilation.
We always say the SA Constitution is the supreme law. We hold the UK in high regard, yet it does not have a written constitution. Perhaps those traditional authorities wanted supreme powers as is currently the case in the UK.
But that is not an issue to me. I have no problem with that. What concerns me is our Constitution, which belittles South African kings.
I do not condone disobedience or wrongdoing. Perhaps I must say my concern is not with King Buyelekhaya as an individual, but the bigger picture with regard to the long-term future of traditional leadership as an institution in South Africa.
Jailing kings might be a sign of its extinction.
I want to appeal to Africans, SA citizenry, the South African indigenous leadership and the advocates of African heritage and culture to objectively and critically analyse the plight of Africanism.
I also want to humbly appeal to President Jacob Zuma, whose affinity for African tradition is well known, to protect African dynasties and to avoid the insult to Africanness that will be suffered when a king must leave his people in circumstances of humiliation. — Dr Manduleli Bikitsha, (inkosi Zanokhanyo), Fort Malan
THE conviction and sentencing of King Buyelekhaya Dalindyebo, as disturbing as it is, is an eye-opener for black South African people. The so-called South African law in this case was used to show that blacks are subordinate to foreign law.
Many other incidents reveal what is really happening in the so-called New South Africa. — M Nqoro, Cape Town THE article “Brains no guarantee of success” (DD, December 24) about US presidents who surrounded themselves with highly learned experts yet failed to avoid making catastrophic decisions was a fascinating one, particularly in the light of some of the criticisms about decisions made by President Jacob Zuma.
Certainly brilliant, well exercised minds are desirous, as is experience in dealing with great challenges, but what the article clearly shows is that human cleverness has its limits. But there is a great difference between intellectual capacity and wisdom from God. The latter goes far beyond any human ability.
What history shows is that it is not the well educated who make better decisions than the less educated, but rather that people who are humble enough to listen for the voice of God are able to tap into the kind of wisdom which provides lasting answers.
The question when human solutions fail and when mistakes are made in the affairs of the nation, is whether it is not time for the church to let its voice be heard. — Judy Lindsay, Beacon Bay