STATEMENT ON MBARI CHIEFTAINSHIP RESUSCITATION, FIRST CHIMURENGA HEROES’ REPATRIATION, AND THE NATIONAL BIRA
By Princess Eugene Majuru
As a custodian of heritage and a voice within our Zimbabwe cultural traditions, I find it necessary to speak clearly and firmly on matters that concern our ancestors, our identity, and our national dignity.
The resuscitation of Mbari chieftainship is a matter of lineage, history, and cultural restoration. It is not a recent creation, nor is it subject to external approval or convenience. It belongs to the rightful traditional frameworks that have always governed such processes. Matters of chieftainship are guided by custom, spirit, and continuity—they cannot be reduced to opinion or mischaracterized for political comfort.
The repatriation of the remains of our First Chimurenga heroes, including great ancestors such as Mbuya Nehanda, is a sacred national duty. These are not ordinary historical figures—they are foundational to the soul and struggle of this nation. Their return must be approached with the dignity, respect, and spiritual awareness it deserves.
It is within this context that the idea of a national bira was put forward. This was not an instruction, nor a claim to authority, but a culturally grounded suggestion: that before undertaking such a significant act as the return of our ancestors, the nation may seek spiritual guidance in accordance with its traditions.
A bira is not owned by an individual. It is a collective spiritual process, led and conducted by spirit mediums, chiefs, and traditional leaders. It does not elevate a person—it aligns a people. To suggest that such a process can be used for personal gain is to misunderstand both its purpose and its sacred nature.
Let it be clearly understood: I will not be present at such a bira, nor do I lead it, organize it, or control it. It is national in character and belongs to the people and their custodians of tradition.
Equally important, the national bira, the repatriation process, and the resuscitation of Mbari chieftainship are distinct. One does not serve as a vehicle for the other. To conflate them is to distort their meaning and to diminish the seriousness of each. As Zimbabweans, we must guard against reducing our cultural processes to suspicion and small interpretations. Our traditions are not instruments of personal ambition—they are living systems of identity, guidance, and continuity.
I remain committed to speaking openly on matters of heritage and restoration, not for personal elevation, but in respect of the responsibility that comes with cultural custodianship. These matters call for unity, respect for tradition, and clarity of purpose.
End Statement
Comments
About Author
