Please follow and like us:

By Princess Eugene Majuru, Princess of Harare

The Mbari clan, the original royal custodians of Harare, remain deliberately excluded from recognition in Zimbabwe. This exclusion is not an accident,  it is the legacy of colonial strategies to erase indigenous authority and replace it with settler-controlled governance structures. More than 45 years after independence, the legal framework of Zimbabwe continues to reflect and enforce this suppression, violating both national and international human rights standards.

A. National Law

1. Constitution of Zimbabwe (2013)

The Constitution guarantees equality, cultural rights, and recognition of traditional leadership. Yet, in practice, these protections are denied to the Mbari clan.

• Section 56: Equality and non-discrimination.
  The explicit exclusion of Harare from traditional leadership structures denies the Mbari clan the equality guaranteed to every Zimbabwean. Other clans have recognized chiefs, but the Mbari — the custodians of the capital  are uniquely excluded. This selective denial amounts to discrimination.

• Section 16: Preservation of cultural heritage.
  The state has a constitutional duty to preserve cultural heritage. By refusing to recognize the Mbari chieftaincy in Harare, the government not only erases cultural heritage but actively sustains colonial distortions of Zimbabwean history.

• Section 63: Right to participate in cultural life.
  Mbari descendants are denied their right to live out their culture fully. Recognition of a clan’s leadership is not ceremonial; it is a vital part of cultural expression. Excluding Harare effectively excludes Mbari culture from the national fabric.

• Sections 281–283: Traditional leadership.
  While these sections provide for recognition of chiefs, headmen, and village heads, they deliberately exclude Harare from such recognition. This provision is not indigenous — it originates from colonial laws imposed to suppress Mbari authority and prevent the resurgence of their kingship.

2. Traditional Leaders Act [Chapter 29:17]

The Act explicitly excludes Harare from having a chief, sustaining the colonial framework designed to suppress Mbari authority. Instead of correcting colonial injustice, post-independence Zimbabwe codified it into law. This is a continuation of colonial oppression under a new guise.

B. Lancaster House Agreement (1979)

The Lancaster House Agreement entrenched colonial structures at independence.

• For ten years, it froze land ownership patterns in favoor of settlers.

• More crucially, it froze recognition of indigenous authority in urban areas. Harare was deliberately placed outside indigenous custodianship, ensuring the Mbari clan could not reclaim their throne.

This arrangement was designed to buy settler security while denying indigenous peoples their rights. Zimbabwe has failed to dismantle these oppressive legacies, leaving the Mbari clan still trapped under colonial agreements.

C. International Law

Zimbabwe is a party to multiple international treaties that guarantee indigenous rights. The ongoing suppression of the Mbari clan violates these obligations.

1. African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights

• Article 19: All peoples shall be equal. Mbari’s exclusion violates this principle.

• Article 20: The right to existence and self-determination. Denying the Mbari recognition strips them of their right to self-determination as custodians of Harare.

• Article 21: The right to freely dispose of wealth and natural resources. Harare sits on Mbari ancestral land, yet the clan has no recognized authority over its resources.

• Article 22: The right to cultural development. The denial of Mbari history and leadership erases cultural development.

2. UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP)

• Article 8: Indigenous peoples have the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture. The suppression of Mbari leadership is precisely such forced assimilation.

• Article 11: Right to practice and revitalize cultural traditions. Denial of the chieftaincy prevents the clan from fully practicing their cultural identity.

• Article 26: Right to lands and territories traditionally owned. Harare is Mbari land, yet the clan has no recognition over it.

3. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

• Article 27: Minorities have the right to enjoy their own culture, religion, and language. By refusing recognition, Zimbabwe is violating this right for the Mbari.

D. Contemporary Contradictions

While the state refuses to recognise Mbari chieftaincy, it selectively consults the clan for spiritual matters — such as during the building of Dzivarasekwa Barracks, the drying of Mazowe Dam, and the construction of the new Parliament building. The government acknowledges Mbari authority when convenient, then discards it when formal recognition is demanded. This hypocrisy exposes the political fear of Mbari resurgence.

The continued suppression of the Mbari clan through constitutional exclusion, colonial legal carryovers, and selective recognition represents a serious breach of Zimbabwe’s own Constitution and international law.

Zimbabwe fought for liberation from colonialism. Yet today, one of its most important royal houses  the Mbari of Harare — remains displaced, silenced, and denied their rightful place in the nation’s heritage.

To deny the Mbari is to continue the colonial project. To restore them is to fulfill the unfinished promise of independence.

Please follow and like us:

Comments

comments