Zulu royal row rages on in court
Family members have argued that they should be the ones to choose who is heir to the throne
Fresh allegations that the late Zulu traditional prime minister, Mangosuthu Buthelezi, did not have the right to convene the meeting where Misuzulu kazwelithini was identified as heir to the throne have emerged in the Pretoria high court.
The king’s uncle, Prince Mbonisi, and other members of the Zulu royal family made the claim during an application for leave to appeal by Misuzulu and President Cyril Ramaphosa against the court order setting aside his recognition.
Buthelezi had backed Misuzulu to become king in the dispute with his siblings after the death of his father, Goodwill Zwelithini kabhekuzulu, and his mother, Queen Mantomfi Dlamini-zulu, in 2021. But the relationship had soured at the time of Buthelezi death.
Mbonisi and other Zulu royals who had challenged his claim to the throne secured the order setting aside his appointment had also brought an application for leave to cross-appeal in the application by Ramaphosa and Misuzulu.
They argued that it was they who had the right in terms of customary law and tradition to name the heir to the throne and not Buthelezi, the president or a panel appointed by him.
Judgment was reserved in the application — and the application for a cross-appeal — which were heard by Judge Norman Davis on Tuesday.
Last December, Davis ruled that the president’s recognition of Misuzulu had been unlawful for a number of reasons, among them the failure to appoint a committee to investigate allegations that the process identifying Misuzulu as heir had been flawed.
Mbonisi, his half-brother Simakade and other members of the royal family had argued that the president should not have gone ahead with the installation of Misuzulu because he knew there was a dispute over the throne.
They had failed in an attempt to interdict the coronation in March 2022 — heard by Kwazulu-natal’s deputy judge president, Mjabuliseni Madondo — but had informed the presidency of their intention to further appeal the matter.
Davis agreed that the president erred and set aside the recognition of Misuzulu, but did not make any finding on the authenticity of his claim to becoming king.
Davis ordered the president to appoint a committee in terms of the Traditional and Khoi-san Leadership Act to investigate claims that the meeting held to identify him on 14 May 2021 was not properly constituted.
The royals approached the court to both oppose the application for leave to appeal, and to have part of the judgment altered to remit the decision on the succession to them, as was their role.
In their heads of argument submitted to the court, Mbonisi’s legal team argued that there were no reasonable prospects that the appeal court would find that the recognition was lawful.
There were also no other compelling reasons to entertain the president’s appeal, which they described as “hopeless,” because of the “breadth” of the unlawful actions that he carried out.
These included failing to comply with the Act and failing to consult the premier of the province before making the appointment.
They said that there were “incontrovertible facts and evidence” that the president was aware of a dispute over the identification of Misuzulu as heir but had still gone ahead with the recognition.
Royal family members alleged that customary law and customs had not been followed in naming Misuzulu and that the meeting which did so on 14 May 2021 was improperly constituted.
“Prince Mbonisi addressed numerous letters to the president informing him about the disputes that had arisen in the Zulu royal family in respect of the identification process,” they said. “The president simply ignored the letters written to him by Prince Mbonisi informing him about the disputes in the Zulu royal family regarding the identification of [Misuzulu] as the king of amazulu.”
Princess Thembi Ndlovu had also written to the president informing him of the issues around the identification of the king, who himself had written to the president asking him to appoint a panel of judges to resolve the challenge to it.
They said the president had acknowledged that there was a dispute and had sought the assistance of the premier and the minister in resolving it.
Instead of heeding the advice of a panel the minister appointed, and delaying the process and appointing a mediator, Ramaphosa instead went ahead and recognised Misuzulu as king.
Mbonisi’s lawyers said there were “reasonable prospects” that an appeal court would find that the appropriate remedy which David should have ordered was “remittal to the royal family” and that the cross-appeal they requested should be granted.
They said the meeting on 14 May 2021 was “not a meeting of the Zulu royal family” and that its convener, Buthelezi, did not have the authority to do so.
Buthelezi, who died last year, had not filed an affidavit regarding the process, and had not provided any record from the meeting to support his authority.
“The people recorded by [Misuzulu] as having attended the meeting of 14 May 2021 were not members of the Zulu royal family with the right and duty to identify an heir to the throne,” they said.
The status of the late king Goodwill’s will, which was “relevant to the Zulu royal family when considering an heir, remains a subject of litigation”.
“The will is material and relevant evidence that is necessary for the validity of the Zulu royal’s identification decision was not considered.”
They said the minutes of the meeting of 14 May 2021 “clearly do not reflect the grounds on which the second respondent was identified as the successor, except that this was Prince Buthelezi’s preference based on the will of [Misuzulu’s] deceased mother”.
Ramaphosa had acted irrationally by ignoring the fact that the royal family had indicated their intention to appeal, which would have effectively suspended the ruling of Judge Madondo.
Mbonisi’s legal team said that although Davis had correctly found the president’s decision to recognise Misuzulu was unlawful, it had erred in ordering him to appoint an investigative panel.
“Had the court 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, for that family to identify an heir… and submit an application in terms of section 8(1)(a)(ii) of the TKLA [Traditional and Khoi-san Leadership Act] for the recognition of the identified heir by the president,” they said.