By HRH Princess Eugene Majuru, Princess of Harare
Constitutions are never neutral. They embody the interests of those who draft them and serve as instruments of political control. The Lancaster House Constitution of 1979, negotiated in London under British oversight, was designed not as a framework for full African liberation but as a compromise to safeguard settler and imperial interests. Its provisions demonstrate a deliberate attempt to limit the power of African customary authority while institutionalizing settler structures of control.
For the Mbari clan, the implications were particularly severe: Harare — their ancestral land and cultural domain — was structurally excluded from the framework of chieftaincy, thus denying them recognition as custodians of the capital city.
Colonial Design of the Constitution
Urban-Rural Divide
The Constitution entrenched a binary distinction between “communal” (rural) lands and “urban” areas.
Chiefs and traditional leaders were confined to the rural sphere, while urban centres were governed through “modern” bureaucratic institutions.
This legal structure severed Harare from its historical custodians, creating the fiction that the capital was outside the domain of indigenous governance.
Suppression of Chieftainship in Strategic Areas
Certain regions, particularly those of political and economic importance, were deliberately excluded from customary administration.
Harare (then Salisbury), as the colonial capital, was removed from indigenous jurisdiction, ensuring that no African authority could claim legitimacy in the heart of settler power.
This exclusion persisted into independence, symbolizing the continuity of colonial domination under African political leadership.
Entrenchment of Settler Property Rights
The Constitution prioritized settler property rights, making it almost impossible to redistribute land or restore indigenous ownership without massive compensation.
For the Mbari, this meant that even though their ancestral land was known and historically documented, the law made restitution practically unachievable.
The Paradox of Independence
Although Zimbabwe declared independence in 1980, the Lancaster House Constitution effectively ensured that:
The state apparatus remained colonial in character.
Chiefs were tolerated only in the peripheries, while urban custodianship, especially in Harare, was obliterated.
The Mbari clan, despite being the historical rulers of the capital, were written out of the legal framework altogether.
This paradox reflects Fanon’s warning that the postcolonial state often becomes the continuation of colonialism by other means. Zimbabwe became politically independent but legally bound to a colonial framework.
Harare: The Case of Deliberate Erasure
The exclusion of Harare from chieftainship is not accidental but systemic. It reflects three interlinked strategies:
Decapitalization of Indigenous Authority – By removing chiefs from the capital, the colonial state symbolically severed Africans from the centre of power.
Creation of “Stateless Africans” in the city – Indigenous inhabitants of Harare were legally classified as tenants or “migrants” rather than custodians of the land.
Perpetuation of Colonial Memory – By retaining Harare as a “modern” zone free from indigenous governance, the Constitution cemented the idea that true authority could only exist within European-derived institutions.
Implications for the Mbari Clan
The Mbari, once paramount rulers of Harare, found themselves in a legal vacuum:
No recognition of their historical custodianship.
No pathway to reclaim ancestral authority under constitutional law.
No legal protection for their memory and traditions in the city.
This is not merely a question of omission but a deliberate erasure. The Mbari case illustrates how law can be used as an instrument of colonial violence disguised as legality.
The Law as a Tool of Coloniality
The Lancaster House Constitution represents the continuity of coloniality under the guise of independence. By confining chieftainship to rural areas and excluding Harare, it institutionalized the erasure of the Mbari clan and denied the capital city its rightful custodians.
The irony is stark: Zimbabwe claims independence, yet it operates under a constitutional framework that suppresses its own people, particularly the Mbari. Until this legal contradiction is addressed, Zimbabwe’s independence remains incomplete and compromised.
Comments
About Author
