By Princess Eugene Majuru
Recent remarks by former Norton MP Temba Mliswa have reignited an important national conversation about respect for traditional leadership in Zimbabwe.
Mliswa addressed the public following an exchange between Chief Murinye and businessman Mutangiri, who reportedly built a school in Murinye’s jurisdiction and later became embroiled in a dispute with the Chief. According to Mliswa, the businessman insulted the Chief, allegedly using the term “musatanyoko.” Mliswa revealed that he himself was summoned to attend the traditional court over the matter and emphasized a critical principle:
Even if a Chief insults you, you do not insult a Chief. A Chief is a king. His stance is commendable. It is refreshing to hear a former parliamentarian publicly affirm the dignity of Zimbabwe’s traditional institutions.
However, this incident exposes a deeper structural problem — one rooted not merely in individual conduct, but in Zimbabwe’s constitutional and legislative framework.
The Constitutional Question: Why Harare and Bulawayo Have No Chiefs
Zimbabwe’s Constitution recognizes traditional leadership. Section 282(1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe provides:
“Traditional leaders are responsible for performing cultural, customary and traditional functions of a Chief, headman or village head…”
Section 283 establishes the National Council of Chiefs.
Yet, despite this recognition, urban areas such as Harare and Bulawayo have no recognized Chiefs. Historically, during the colonial era of Rhodesia, British administrators removed or weakened indigenous authority structures in urban centers. Colonial municipal governance systems replaced traditional jurisdictions. That colonial logic continues to influence how traditional leadership is geographically confined today.
Section 281(2) of the Constitution states that traditional leaders must not:
“be members of any political party or in any way participate in partisan politics.”
While intended to protect neutrality, this clause has had the unintended effect of limiting traditional leaders’ political influence in modern governance structures.
More significantly, the Constitution does not explicitly provide for the restoration or recognition of traditional authority in metropolitan provinces. As a result, Harare and Bulawayo — historically indigenous territories with pre-colonial rulers — remain legally detached from their traditional leadership heritage.
This omission is not accidental. It is a colonial legacy.
The Weakness of the Traditional Leaders Act
The Traditional Leaders Act [Chapter 29:17] attempts to operationalize constitutional provisions. However, it suffers from several weaknesses:
1. Limited Jurisdictional Authority
Chiefs’ powers are largely confined to communal and resettlement areas. Urban territories fall under municipal governance, excluding Chiefs from cities that historically belonged to their lineages.
2. Subordination to Central Government
Chiefs are appointed through processes that involve the President and the Ministry responsible for Local Government. While consultation with communities occurs, the final authority lies with central government. This undermines full traditional autonomy.
3. Weak Enforcement Mechanisms
Traditional courts have limited punitive authority. Disrespect of a Chief may institutions becomes symbolic rather than authoritative.
4. Financial and Administrative Dependence
Chiefs receive allowances from the state, making the institution financially dependent rather than sovereign in function.
These structural limitations weaken the institution. Respect cannot be demanded where legal authority is diluted.
A Missed Opportunity
During his tenure in Parliament, Temba Mliswa was vocal and articulate. Parliamentary debates were robust, and he contributed significantly to national discourse. At the time, I made calls to him urging him to push for constitutional amendments to:
Remove or amend colonial clauses that exclude urban traditional leadership.
Amend the Traditional Leaders Act to restore fuller authority to Chiefs.
Recognize historical jurisdictions in metropolitan provinces.
Unfortunately, those efforts did not materialise. Had amendments been pursued then, perhaps today’s disputes would unfold differently — with traditional authority firmly embedded in law, rather than merely defended in principle.
Royal Lineage and Responsibility
As a descendant of King Mbari, the former ruler of Harare and its surrounding territories, the issue of traditional leadership is not academic — it is ancestral. Before colonial occupation, Harare was not an empty administrative zone. It was ruled land. It had authority. It had custodians. To remain silent on matters affecting traditional leadership would be a betrayal — not only of heritage, but of responsibility to ancestors and to Zimbabwe itself.
Zimbabwe must confront the unfinished business of decolonisation. Practical steps include: Amending the Constitution to explicitly recognize traditional leadership in metropolitan provinces.
Reforming the Traditional Leaders Act to:
Strengthen jurisdictional authority.
Enhance enforcement powers of traditional courts.
Reduce excessive executive control over appointments.
Creating legal mechanisms for coexistence between municipal governance and restored traditional leadership in urban areas.
Decolonisation is not merely symbolic. It requires legislative reform.
Zimbabwe belongs to Zimbabweans.The restoration of dignity to Chiefs is not nostalgia — it is justice.
Zimbabwe ndeyedu maZimbabweans.
Let us continue the work. #hontembamliswa #Traditionalleadersinzimbabwe #chiefmurinye #highlight #chosen #effectsofcolonialism #DecolonizeTheMind
Comments
About Author
