PRESIDENT Emmerson Mnangagwa has been drawn into a chieftainship row where a Masvingo man is challenging the appointment of Jestia Muzenda as Chief Makore.
Clever Kumbirai Mazano cited Mnangagwa, Local Government and Public Works minister, Chiefs Council of Zimbabwe president, Masvingo Provincial Chiefs Council chairperson, the district development co-ordinator and Muzenda in papers filed at the High Court.
In the matter that was heard by High Court judge Justice Sansley Zisengwe, Mazano challenged the process leading to the appointment of an individual to the prestigious and respected position of chief.
Muzenda rose to become Chief Makore after his father Johannes Chadzimira Chihambakwe ceded his nomination for the throne.
However, Mazano disputes the appointment, arguing that the cession of one’s chieftainship through an affidavit or otherwise is irregular, flawed and alien to the customs and traditions of the Makore people.
He further indicated that his presentation to Mnangagwa and the provincial chiefs council objecting to Muzenda’s appointment fell on deaf ears as the latter proceeded to recommend him for appointment.
He further argued that Muzenda’s appointment was an aberration of the customs of the Makore community, constitutional provisions and the Traditional Leaders Act.
He also called for an inquiry on the prevailing customary principles of succession applicable to the community insofar as the correct nomination procedure is concerned.
- Chamisa under fire over US$120K donation
- Mavhunga puts DeMbare into Chibuku quarterfinals
- Pension funds bet on Cabora Bassa oilfields
- Councils defy govt fire tender directive
Keep Reading
Mazano approached the High Court seeking an order, firstly, setting aside Muzenda’s appointment as Chief Makore and, secondly, setting into motion a fresh selection process consistent with the traditions, culture and customs of that clan.
In defence, the respondent argued that the process of ceding one’s nomination for possible appointment to the throne is part of the customs, culture and traditions of the Makore people.
The respondents argued that there was nothing amiss about the cession of one’s nomination to another person of royal lineage in that community, saying the appointment of Muzenda was above reproach and should not be rescinded.
According to Makore’s chieftainship, there are four families — that is Rispambi, Chihambakwe, Mugore and Mazambo — and the community in question subscribes to the collateral system of succession, which is based on seniority.
The system in 2014 saw Shonhi Muzenda of the Chihambakwe house appointed substantive Chief Makore.
Due to his ill health and advanced age, Jestia was selected to assist him as his assistant.
When Shonhi died that year, Jestia continued as acting chief, a position he held until the disputed appointment as substantive Chief Makore.
The process for the appointment of substantive Chief Makore to replace Shonhi commenced in 2016, with Johannes being nominated for the position.
Johannes then deposed an affidavit effectively ceding his nomination to Jestia and died a few years later.
In his ruling, Justice Zisengwe said Mazano unfortunately conflated the cession of a nomination and cession of the chieftainship, saying what Johannes ceded was his nomination for the position.
He said should he have not ceded his nomination, Johannes would still been considered by the functionaries involved in the appointment process.
“Therefore, to the extent that plaintiff’s argument is anchored on the principle that one cannot give what one does not have, such argument is flawed,” Mazano said.
“Secondly and perhaps more importantly, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the cession of one’s nomination for the position of chief is not part of this particular group of people.
“Although there are, indeed, similarities in customary practices among the various ethnic groupings strewn across the length and breadth of Zimbabwe, there are significant variations among them.”
The judge said Mazano failed to direct his mind to the question as to what the traditions and customs provide in a situation where a nominated candidate cannot for any appropriate reason (such as physical or mental infirmity, old age, religious inclination, etc) is unable to take up the position.
“This was the narrow issue which the plaintiff needed to interrogate. According to the defendants when such a situation arises, cession of such nomination may kick in,” Justice Zisengwe said.
“The plaintiff did precious little to controvert that position. Ultimately, therefore, the plaintiff failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that he is entitled to the relief that he seeks and accordingly his claim has to fail.”
He further dismissed the application with costs.
