Introduction
The Constitution of Zimbabwe (2013) and the Traditional Leaders Act [Chapter 29:17] were meant to usher in a new era of equality and recognition of cultural rights. However, in practice, these laws have perpetuated the colonial exclusion of the Mbari clan — the rightful custodians of Harare. By deliberately excluding Harare from having a recognized chieftaincy, the legal system continues to enforce structural discrimination.
The Mbari case demonstrates how Zimbabwe’s legal order, though post-colonial in appearance, remains colonial in spirit.
Constitutional Framework
1. Section 56 — Equality and Non-Discrimination
Section 56(1) of the Constitution guarantees that “all persons are equal before the law and have the right to equal protection and benefit of the law.”
– By denying recognition to the Mbari chieftaincy in Harare while other clans across Zimbabwe retain theirs, the state is in breach of this section.
– The discrimination is not based on merit, history, or legitimacy — it is rooted in colonial design, which continues unchallenged.
– This selective recognition creates a two-tier system of cultural rights, where rural clans are recognized but the urban custodians — specifically Mbari — are excluded.
Analysis: Section 56 is violated because Mbari descendants do not enjoy the same cultural and legal protections as other clans.
2. Section 16 — Preservation of Cultural Heritage
Section 16(1) obligates the State and all institutions to “promote and preserve cultural values and practices which enhance the dignity, well-being and equality of Zimbabweans.”
– The Mbari chieftaincy is a cornerstone of Harare’s cultural heritage. Erasing it from legal recognition violates this duty.
– Preservation of heritage is not optional. The Constitution imposes it as a state obligation. Failure to recognize Mbari leadership means the state is actively undermining heritage rather than preserving it.
Analysis: Instead of dismantling colonial erasure, the government has endorsed it — directly contravening Section 16.
3. Section 63 — Right to Participate in Cultural Life
Section 63 provides that “every person has the right to use the language and to participate in the cultural life of their choice.”
– For the Mbari, cultural life includes the recognition of their chieftainship and custodianship over Harare. Without this recognition, the clan is deprived of meaningful cultural participation.
– Harareans, too, are denied their right to engage fully with their indigenous heritage, because the state blocks acknowledgment of the city’s true custodians.
Analysis: Section 63 is breached by excluding the Mbari from cultural participation in their homeland.
4. Sections 281–283 — Traditional Leaders
Sections 281–283 recognize chiefs, headmen, and village heads as legitimate traditional leaders, outlining their roles in administration, culture, and governance.
However, these provisions are accompanied by a deliberate exclusion clause: Harare and other major cities cannot have recognized chiefs.
– This exclusion is not indigenous law — it is colonial imposition.
– It reflects a strategy to de-legitimize Mbari kingship, reduce it to “customary practice,” and ensure urban spaces remain under state, not indigenous, control.
– Post-independence, Zimbabwe did not correct this distortion. Instead, the exclusion was carried forward into the 2013 Constitution.
Analysis: Sections 281–283 provide for traditional leadership only where it does not threaten the colonial legacy of urban domination. The Mbari, custodians of Harare, are uniquely suppressed under this framework.
Traditional Leaders Act [Chapter 29:17]
The Traditional Leaders Act regulates the appointment, recognition, and duties of chiefs. It explicitly bars the appointment of chiefs in Harare.
– This clause originates from British colonial statutes, where settlers feared indigenous authority in the capital.
– By embedding this clause into post-independence law, Zimbabwe has effectively legalized colonial suppression.
– The Act also empowers government ministers to decide when and where chiefs may be recognized, giving the state discretionary power to continue excluding Mbari indefinitely.
Analysis: The Act institutionalizes suppression by refusing to recognize Mbari authority where it matters most — in Harare, the political and cultural heart of the nation.
Zimbabwe’s national laws — both the Constitution and the Traditional Leaders Act — uphold a colonial legacy designed to suppress the Mbari clan.
– Section 56 is breached through discriminatory exclusion.
– Section 16 is violated because cultural heritage is not preserved.
– Section 63 is undermined as Mbari are denied cultural participation.
– Sections 281–283 perpetuate colonial erasure of urban chiefs.
– The Traditional Leaders Act enforces exclusion by law.
Thus, under Zimbabwe’s own legal framework, the continued suppresion of the Mbari clan in Harare is unconstitutional, unjust, and a betrayal of the very ideals of independence.
Comments
About Author
