More than 130 years after British colonial occupation, questions remain about the fate of Zimbabwe’s precolonial royal dynasties, the suppression of indigenous political authority and the hereditary families whose claims to traditional leadership have never been fully resolved.
By Princess Eugene Majuru | News of The South
Zimbabwe’s history did not begin with the arrival of the Pioneer Column in September 1890. Long before British colonial occupation, the territory was home to established African kingdoms, royal dynasties, chiefs and traditional political institutions that governed communities according to their own laws, customs and hereditary succession systems. Yet the history of many of these institutions has been overshadowed by colonial accounts that placed European conquest at the centre of the country’s political development. The colonial administration did not simply occupy land. It also transformed the political structures through which African communities exercised authority.
Kings lost sovereignty. Some chiefs were removed, while others were retained under colonial supervision. Traditional jurisdictions were reorganised, succession arrangements were altered and royal families found themselves living under a government that no longer recognised the full extent of their ancestral authority.
For some communities, the consequences remain visible today. Descendants of historically displaced ruling families continue to seek recognition of their ancestry, restoration of traditional institutions and acknowledgement of the political systems that existed before colonial occupation. The recent controversy surrounding Chief Fortune Charumbira and the restoration of previously abolished chieftainships has renewed attention on these unresolved historical questions. But the issue extends far beyond individual chiefs. It concerns the relationship between colonial conquest, historical memory, royal identity and the authority of the modern Zimbabwean state. If Zimbabwe has restored its national sovereignty, how should it address the indigenous royal institutions whose authority was disrupted during the struggle for control of the country?
Zimbabwe was a land of kingdoms before colonial occupation
The political history of precolonial Zimbabwe reveals a succession of complex African states. Great Zimbabwe, which flourished principally between the eleventh and fifteenth centuries, demonstrates the existence of sophisticated political organisation, long-distance trade networks, monumental architecture and established systems of authority centuries before European colonisation.
The Mutapa state subsequently became one of the most influential political formations in the region, with rulers whose authority extended across substantial territories and whose political relationships involved subordinate chiefs and other local leaders. The Rozvi state also exercised considerable influence, particularly in the southwest and central regions of present-day Zimbabwe.
In the nineteenth century, the Ndebele Kingdom under King Mzilikazi and later King Lobengula developed a powerful political and military system. These were not identical forms of government, and their histories should not be merged into a single narrative. Some kingdoms expanded through conquest, others through alliances, trade or political relationships. Their territories and authority changed over time. Nevertheless, they establish an important historical fact: African political institutions existed independently of British colonial administration. The colonial state did not introduce the concept of government, hereditary authority or organised leadership to Zimbabwe. It displaced and subordinated political institutions that were already there.
The conquest of 1890 and the destruction of African political independence
The arrival of the Pioneer Column in Mashonaland in September 1890 marked a decisive stage in the British South Africa Company’s occupation of the territory. The establishment of Fort Salisbury, later renamed Harare, became a symbol of colonial expansion. However, the land upon which the colonial settlement was established was not politically or socially empty. African communities already occupied the surrounding territory, maintained customary relationships with the land and possessed their own leadership structures. The colonial occupation introduced an external authority claiming powers over land, administration, taxation and political governance. The consequences were profound.
Traditional leaders who had previously exercised authority within indigenous political systems were increasingly required to operate under colonial officials. The British South Africa Company and subsequent colonial governments developed administrative arrangements that subordinated African customary institutions to settler rule. The defeat of the Ndebele Kingdom in 1893 and the suppression of the 1896–1897 uprisings further consolidated colonial power. These events did not merely change the government. They altered the political relationship between African communities and their hereditary rulers. Kings and chiefs who had previously operated within indigenous systems of sovereignty were placed under a state whose authority rested upon colonial conquest. For many royal families, the loss of political independence was accompanied by loss of land, jurisdiction, recognition and influence.
The forgotten royal families: What happened after the conquest?
The removal of African kings from political power did not necessarily mean the extinction of their royal families. A royal dynasty is not simply a government department that disappears when an administrator closes its offices. Royal identity is connected to genealogy, ancestry, historical succession, cultural practices and the collective memory of communities. When colonial authorities ceased to recognise a king or reduced a traditional leader’s jurisdiction, descendants could continue to preserve their family history. However, the passage of generations created additional difficulties. Royal families became dispersed. Some ancestral territories were incorporated into colonial settlements, farms and towns. Records were lost or remained in colonial archives. Oral histories were transmitted through families whose descendants sometimes had limited access to formal historical research. In certain cases, the absence of official recognition contributed to a wider loss of public knowledge about the original ruling institutions. This helps explain why descendants of displaced royal families may continue to pursue recognition more than a century after colonial occupation. Their claims concern not only titles but also the preservation of historical identity. Nevertheless, each claim must be assessed on its evidence. The existence of a royal tradition does not, by itself, establish the precise territory, succession entitlement or contemporary legal powers associated with that tradition.
Harare and the Mbari royal house: A history demanding examination
The history of Harare deserves particular attention because the modern capital developed from the colonial settlement of Salisbury. The official history of the city frequently begins with the Pioneer Column, Fort Salisbury and the expansion of colonial administration. Yet this starting point leaves important questions about the African communities who occupied the area before 1890.
The Mbari royal house, whose hereditary tradition is associated with King Mbari, is among the families seeking recognition of ancestral authority in the Harare area. Its descendants maintain that colonial occupation disrupted the traditional political authority of their ancestors and that the historical claims of the royal house deserve formal investigation and consideration for restoration. The question is not whether the modern city should be returned to a precolonial administrative arrangement. Rather, it is whether the country’s historical and traditional leadership institutions have adequately acknowledged the political communities that existed before Salisbury was established. What was the nature of the Mbari royal house’s authority before colonial occupation?
Which communities and territories were historically associated with that authority? What happened to its traditional leadership structures during the occupation of the Harare area? What documentary and oral evidence survives concerning King Mbari and the royal succession? And what constitutional or legislative procedures are available for considering the restoration of a traditional institution within a modern metropolitan area? These questions warrant a serious historical investigation involving archival research, genealogical evidence, community testimony and the relevant legal authorities. The issue also highlights a broader challenge: Zimbabwe’s contemporary traditional leadership framework has developed primarily around rural jurisdictions, while some historically significant centres of African political authority are now located within major cities. Urban development should not erase historical memory, but recognition of ancestral history and the exercise of modern governmental powers must be carefully distinguished.
Why were some chiefs retained while others disappeared?
Colonial administrators did not treat all traditional leaders equally. Some chiefs were retained because their authority could be incorporated into colonial administration. Others were removed or demoted following resistance to colonial rule, while certain subordinate leaders were promoted. Historical research documents how Native Commissioners exercised substantial influence over chiefly appointments and recognition. In some cases, colonial officials preferred candidates considered cooperative rather than those possessing the strongest hereditary entitlement under customary succession arrangements. The consequences extended beyond individual appointments. When a colonial administration changed the recognised leadership of a community, it could alter the balance between royal houses and establish succession arrangements that later generations came to regard as official. A family that benefited from colonial recognition might retain authority long after the original appointment. A family whose claim was rejected might spend generations attempting to establish its hereditary entitlement. However, the historical record also requires caution. Not every chief recognised by colonial administrators was improperly appointed. Many were members of established ruling lineages whose authority predated colonial occupation. Likewise, not every claim by a displaced family can be accepted without examining competing genealogies and customary practices. The important distinction is between traditional authority established through indigenous custom and changes imposed or influenced by colonial administration.
The Ndebele royal house and the loss of kingship
The Ndebele Kingdom provides one of the clearest examples of the political consequences of colonial conquest. King Mzilikazi established the kingdom during the nineteenth century, and his son Lobengula subsequently ruled until the British South Africa Company’s military invasion of 1893. The defeat of the kingdom dismantled its independent political and military authority.
Following Lobengula’s disappearance and death, the colonial administration did not restore the Ndebele monarchy as an independent governing institution. Instead, the region was brought under colonial administration. The descendants of the Ndebele royal lineage continued to exist, but the political institution through which their ancestors had exercised sovereignty was not restored.
Modern discussions concerning Ndebele kingship demonstrate how historical royal identity can survive despite the disappearance of the original sovereign institution. They also raise difficult questions about the relationship between cultural recognition, hereditary succession, community consent and Zimbabwe’s constitutional framework. Restoring a cultural royal institution is not necessarily the same as restoring the sovereign powers of a precolonial kingdom. The distinction is essential to any serious debate about historical justice.
Why Zimbabwe’s independence did not automatically restore its kings
When Zimbabwe attained independence in 1980, the new government inherited a country whose traditional leadership structures had already undergone decades of colonial intervention.
The priorities of the new state included establishing national institutions, addressing racial inequalities, consolidating political authority and responding to the consequences of colonial land ownership. Traditional leadership remained part of the governance system, but the restoration of every precolonial royal institution was not an automatic consequence of independence.
The Constitution adopted in 2013 provides for the recognition and regulation of traditional leaders, including the creation and resuscitation of chieftainships. However, the legal recognition of kingship, particularly where claims involve historical sovereignty or urban jurisdictions, raises questions beyond the ordinary appointment of a chief. The modern state must reconcile hereditary claims with constitutional equality, community rights, administrative boundaries and democratic governance. Historical restoration therefore requires more than a ceremonial declaration. It requires a clear understanding of what is being restored, who is entitled to hold the position and what authority that position would carry.
Is Zimbabwe restoring traditional authority or preserving colonial boundaries?
The government’s efforts to restore some abolished chieftainships have created opportunities to address historical grievances. Yet they also expose the limitations of restoration if the process focuses only on institutions already documented within colonial administrative structures. Some royal institutions may have been suppressed before they were formally recorded as recognised chieftainships. Others may have exercised forms of authority that did not correspond neatly with the categories later used by colonial officials. A system that relies exclusively on colonial registers risks overlooking precisely those institutions whose suppression prevented their inclusion in those records. At the same time, oral traditions and family claims must be subjected to careful historical examination. The challenge is to establish an evidence-based process capable of considering both written archives and indigenous sources of knowledge. It should also recognise that colonial documents reflect the perspectives and administrative objectives of those who produced them. The absence of a name from a colonial register cannot automatically prove that a royal institution never existed. Equally, a colonial document recognising a particular chief cannot, on its own, settle every question of customary succession.
The Constitution and the question of historical justice
Zimbabwe’s Constitution recognises the institution of traditional leadership and requires traditional leaders to preserve the culture, traditions, history and heritage of their communities.
Section 283 provides for the creation and resuscitation of chieftainships in accordance with the prevailing customs and traditions of the communities concerned. It also requires safeguards against political interference. These provisions establish a constitutional basis for examining historical traditional leadership claims. However, the Constitution does not automatically validate every royal restoration claim, nor does it establish a general right for all descendants of precolonial rulers to recover historical political sovereignty. The legal question is whether a particular institution can be recognised or restored under the existing constitutional and legislative framework. The historical question is whether the institution existed and how its authority was disrupted. Both questions must be answered. A credible restoration process should therefore combine historical investigation with legal clarity and community consultation.
Should Zimbabwe establish a Royal Heritage and Traditional Leadership Commission?
The unresolved disputes surrounding hereditary leadership suggest a need for a more comprehensive national approach. An independent historical commission could investigate the origins of disputed chieftainships, the suppression of royal institutions and the effects of colonial administrative intervention. Such a body could bring together historians, archivists, genealogists, customary-law specialists, traditional leaders and representatives of affected communities. Its mandate could include examining the original succession systems of disputed chieftainships, identifying royal institutions abolished during colonial occupation and reviewing the documentary evidence supporting restoration claims. It could also develop a national historical record of traditional political institutions that existed before 1890. Such a record would have value beyond legal disputes. It could inform school curricula, museum exhibitions, heritage preservation, academic research and public understanding of Zimbabwe’s precolonial history. However, any commission would need to remain independent of political influence and avoid becoming an instrument through which competing families seek government favour. Its purpose should be to establish historical evidence, not to distribute titles as political rewards.
The descendants of displaced royal houses deserve to be heard
Historical justice is not achieved simply by acknowledging that colonialism caused suffering. It also requires examining the specific institutions, communities and families affected by colonial policies. For descendants of displaced royal houses, recognition may involve the preservation of ancestral records, acknowledgement of historical leadership, protection of cultural heritage or consideration of traditional authority claims. Different communities may seek different remedies. Some may wish to restore a chieftainship. Others may seek recognition of a royal lineage without claiming present-day governmental powers. Still others may prioritise the preservation of sacred sites, ancestral burial grounds or traditional ceremonies.
These distinctions matter. The descendants of royal families should have opportunities to present their claims, but the rights and interests of the wider communities concerned must also be respected. Traditional authority cannot be reduced to hereditary entitlement alone. It also carries responsibilities towards the people within the relevant customary institution. A restoration process that excludes community voices risks creating new disputes while attempting to resolve historical ones.
The forgotten kings are part of Zimbabwe’s national history
Zimbabwe’s historical identity is inseparable from the kingdoms and traditional political institutions that existed before colonial occupation. Great Zimbabwe, Mutapa, Rozvi, the Ndebele Kingdom and numerous regional ruling houses contributed to the political and cultural development of the country. Their histories should not be confined to brief references in school textbooks or museum displays. Nor should the study of traditional authority begin only with those chiefs who received recognition from colonial administrators. A fuller account of Zimbabwe’s history must examine the institutions that survived colonial rule, those that were transformed and those whose political authority disappeared. It must also acknowledge the limitations of available evidence and the existence of competing historical interpretations. The objective should not be to romanticise precolonial government or assume that every hereditary institution operated without conflict. African kingdoms, like political institutions elsewhere, experienced succession disputes, territorial competition and changes in authority. Recognising that complexity strengthens rather than weakens the historical record.
Political independence must be accompanied by historical recognition
The legacy of British colonial occupation extends beyond the seizure of land and the establishment of settler government. It includes the transformation of indigenous political institutions and the displacement of traditional authority. More than a century later, some of the resulting historical questions remain unresolved. The descendants of precolonial royal families continue to preserve ancestral traditions, while some seek recognition of leadership institutions that disappeared under colonial rule. Zimbabwe’s Constitution provides mechanisms for the restoration of chieftainships, but the wider question of displaced royal authority requires careful historical and legal examination. The country must distinguish between authentic customary succession, colonial administrative recognition and contemporary political appointments. It must also ensure that restoration processes respect the communities whose traditions are involved. The controversy surrounding Chief Fortune Charumbira has renewed public attention on the independence and legitimacy of traditional leadership. But the deeper historical debate concerns those whose authority was lost long before Zimbabwe became an independent republic. Their histories cannot be understood solely through the records of the colonial state that displaced them. The question Zimbabwe must confront is not simply which chiefs were recognised by the British, but which indigenous political institutions existed before British occupation, how they were transformed and what justice requires today. For the descendants of displaced royal houses, that question remains central to the struggle for historical recognition. And for Zimbabwe as a nation, answering it is part of understanding its history in full.
Comments
About Author
