As Chief Fortune Charumbira’s removal from the Senate reignites controversy over traditional leadership, deeper questions are emerging about hereditary authority, colonial interference, disputed succession and the royal families whose leadership was suppressed during British rule.
By Princess Eugene Majuru | News of The South
Zimbabwe may have gained political independence from Britain in 1980, but more than four decades later, questions remain about whether the country’s traditional leadership structures have fully escaped the influence of colonial rule. Who are Zimbabwe’s rightful chiefs? Who occupied positions of traditional authority before the British arrived? Which chiefs were appointed, promoted or protected by colonial administrators? And what became of the royal families whose authority was suppressed, their territories occupied and their hereditary rights disrupted?
These are not simply historical questions. They concern the legitimacy of institutions that continue to exercise authority over millions of Zimbabweans. The recent recall of Chief Fortune Charumbira and two other traditional leaders from the Senate has brought these issues into sharper focus. Charumbira, a former President of the National Council of Chiefs and the Pan-African Parliament, has long been one of Zimbabwe’s most influential traditional leaders. His removal from parliamentary representation followed a vote by the Masvingo Provincial Assembly of Chiefs, amid allegations that he and two colleagues had undermined President Emmerson Mnangagwa, including through their reported opposition to the restoration of chieftainships abolished during colonial rule. The recall does not automatically remove Charumbira from his substantive chieftainship. Nevertheless, it has reopened a wider debate about the historical foundations of traditional authority. The central question is whether Zimbabwe’s recognised traditional leadership accurately reflects the country’s precolonial political institutions or whether some present-day succession arrangements continue to reflect decisions made by colonial officials.
Before the British arrived, Zimbabwe already had kings, chiefs and royal dynasties
One of the greatest distortions of African history is the suggestion that structured political authority arrived with European colonial administration. Long before the British South Africa Company occupied Mashonaland in 1890, communities across the territory now called Zimbabwe possessed established systems of governance. The Kingdom of Zimbabwe, the Mutapa state, the Rozvi state and the Ndebele Kingdom represent different periods and forms of African political organisation. These societies had recognised rulers, systems of succession, territorial responsibilities, customary laws and relationships between political and spiritual authority. Leadership was not uniform across every community. Some societies recognised kings whose authority extended across extensive territories. Others were organised through chiefs, subordinate rulers, lineage heads and councils of elders. Succession was also not necessarily determined by the eldest son automatically inheriting his father’s position. In some communities, authority rotated between recognised royal houses. In others, senior family members and customary institutions participated in selecting a successor from eligible hereditary lineages. These arrangements developed over generations and formed part of the communities’ political identity. Colonial officials did not create African traditional leadership. They encountered existing institutions and subsequently changed many of them.
How colonial administrators gained control over chieftainships
Following occupation, colonial authorities needed systems through which they could govern African populations, collect taxes, regulate labour, enforce administrative decisions and control territory. Traditional leaders became important intermediaries between colonial government and African communities. However, the relationship was unequal. Colonial administrators increasingly claimed the authority to recognise chiefs, approve successors, define jurisdictions and remove leaders considered unsuitable. Native Commissioners and other colonial officials acquired considerable influence over customary appointments. Historical research demonstrates that colonial administrators sometimes favoured candidates who were cooperative, formally educated or considered easier to work with, even where other claimants possessed stronger customary succession claims. The result was a significant transformation. A position that had traditionally depended upon hereditary entitlement, customary procedures and community recognition could become dependent upon approval by a colonial official. This did not mean every recognised chief was illegitimate. Many established ruling families continued to hold authority despite colonial supervision. But it did mean that government recognition and customary legitimacy were no longer necessarily identical. In certain communities, the consequences remain disputed today.
The Charumbira chieftainship: A documented dispute over colonial interference
The controversy surrounding Chief Fortune Charumbira offers a particularly important example of how colonial-era succession arrangements can become the subject of modern legal challenges.
In the 2019 High Court case Mapingure v Provincial Assembly of Chiefs, Masvingo Province, a claimant challenged the process through which Fortune Charumbira became substantive chief.
The applicant argued that the traditional Karanga succession system governing the chieftainship required rotation among eligible royal houses. According to the applicant, this arrangement had been disrupted during the colonial period. The court recorded allegations that following the death of Chief Madyira in 1943, his son Mazhira was appointed because of his close relationship with colonial authorities. The applicant maintained that the subsequent succession arrangements continued to favour the same family line rather than following the customary rotation system.
Fortune Charumbira became substantive chief in May 2000, following an earlier period as acting chief. The dispute therefore raised a fundamental question: if a customary succession system was altered through colonial intervention, should later appointments continue to follow the altered arrangement?
The High Court did not conclusively determine whether Charumbira’s appointment violated customary succession rules. The proceedings were affected by the failure to join the President, whose constitutional role in chiefly appointments was central to the dispute. Nevertheless, the case is historically significant because it placed allegations of colonial interference in a modern chieftainship succession before the judiciary. It also demonstrates why such disputes cannot be resolved merely by pointing to an existing appointment certificate. The underlying customary evidence must be examined.
Were some colonial-appointed chiefs rewarded for loyalty?
Colonial administrations throughout Africa frequently relied upon selected local authorities to implement their policies. In Southern Rhodesia, chiefs and headmen operated within an administrative system supervised by colonial officials. Some retained significant customary standing within their communities. Others faced restrictions, removal or replacement. Colonial officials could use recognition and appointment powers to strengthen relationships with cooperative leaders. This raises difficult questions about the historical origins of particular succession arrangements. Was a leader recognised because the community’s customs entitled that person to rule? Was a rightful successor overlooked because colonial officials considered another candidate more cooperative? Were hereditary rotation systems changed to favour one family? Were traditional jurisdictions divided or reorganised for administrative convenience? And where colonial intervention changed succession, did post-independence authorities restore the earlier arrangements or preserve the structures they inherited? These questions require individual historical investigations. It would be inaccurate to declare every chief appointed during colonial rule illegitimate. It would be equally inaccurate to assume that every colonial appointment faithfully reflected indigenous customary law. The distinction is central to understanding Zimbabwe’s traditional leadership history.
Chieftainship is not the same as royalty
Another important issue is the frequent confusion between a chief and a member of a royal dynasty. A chief occupies a traditional leadership office recognised by customary institutions and, in contemporary Zimbabwe, by national law. Royalty concerns hereditary descent from a recognised ruling lineage. Depending on the community, a royal dynasty may historically have exercised authority through kingship, paramount leadership, chieftainship or another form of indigenous government. A person may belong to a royal family without occupying a recognised chiefly office.
Similarly, the existence of a government-recognised chieftainship does not automatically establish that its incumbent possesses the strongest hereditary claim under the community’s historical succession rules. Royal descent, customary entitlement, community recognition and statutory appointment are related but distinct questions. A government may legally recognise an individual as chief, but the appointment alone does not settle every historical dispute concerning that community’s royal ancestry. Equally, royal ancestry does not automatically confer a present-day legal right to govern a community. This distinction matters particularly where royal institutions were suppressed or ceased to receive official recognition during colonial occupation. The disappearance of a royal title from an administrative register does not necessarily mean the associated family history ceased to exist.
The forgotten royal houses of Harare and the colonial occupation
The history of Harare provides an important example of why traditional leadership must be examined beyond the records of colonial administrators. Before the Pioneer Column occupied the area in September 1890 and established Fort Salisbury, the wider landscape was already inhabited by African communities with established political, social and spiritual institutions. The Mbari royal house, associated in its hereditary tradition with King Mbari, is among the families whose descendants maintain claims concerning precolonial authority in the Harare area.
Descendants have called for historical recognition and the restoration of traditional leadership associated with their ancestry. Such claims raise questions about the consequences of colonial occupation for communities whose political institutions were displaced or no longer formally recognised. The historical investigation must establish the extent of the original authority, the succession arrangements, the impact of colonial occupation and the relationship between the claimed royal lineage and the present community. The wider principle applies beyond Harare.
When a community’s historical leadership was displaced during colonial rule, its descendants should have access to fair processes through which documentary evidence, oral history, genealogy and customary practice can be examined. Recognition should depend upon the evidence and applicable law, rather than political influence or the prominence of individual claimants. Zimbabwe cannot fully understand its traditional leadership history if it examines only those chiefs whose names survived in colonial administrative records.
Independence came in 1980, but did the colonial succession system end?
Political independence transformed Zimbabwe’s constitutional and governmental structures. However, traditional leadership continued to operate within a framework of statutory recognition and state supervision. The modern Constitution requires appointments, succession, removal and restoration of traditional leaders to respect the prevailing customs and practices of the communities concerned.
Section 283 also provides safeguards against political interference. These provisions are important because they recognise that traditional leadership cannot be treated simply as an ordinary government appointment. Customary succession is not supposed to be replaced by political preference. Nevertheless, the President retains a constitutional role in the appointment and removal of chiefs, acting through specified institutional procedures. This creates a continuing relationship between hereditary authority and the modern state. The central challenge is ensuring that the state’s administrative role does not override the customs it is constitutionally required to respect. Where a succession dispute involves competing royal houses, the investigation must determine the relevant customary rules and how they were historically applied. Where colonial officials altered those rules, the nature and consequences of the alteration should be examined. Where communities disagree, the process must allow competing evidence to be heard fairly. Independence alone could not automatically resolve every historical succession dispute inherited from colonial administration.
The restoration of abolished chieftainships: Who qualifies?
President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s administration has pursued the restoration of some chieftainships previously abolished under colonial rule. Supporters regard the programme as an important recognition of historical injustice. However, restoration raises questions that require clear answers. Which chieftainships have been identified for restoration? What historical evidence supports each claim? Who determines whether a chieftainship was abolished, suppressed, merged or simply left without a recognised successor? Are the descendants of displaced royal houses consulted?
And what opportunities exist for communities whose restoration applications have not progressed? These questions become particularly important when restoration decisions encounter opposition from existing traditional leaders. An established chief may have concerns about jurisdictional boundaries, overlapping customary authority or competing hereditary claims. Those concerns should be examined on their merits rather than automatically dismissed as political resistance. At the same time, existing chiefs should not be able to prevent legitimate historical claims from receiving independent consideration simply because restoration might alter traditional jurisdictions. The integrity of the restoration process depends upon transparency, evidence and consistent application of customary law.
Can Zimbabwe establish who its rightful chiefs are?
The question cannot be answered by producing a single list of approved names. Zimbabwe’s traditional leadership systems developed through different histories and customs. A succession principle applicable to one community may not apply to another. A credible process of historical verification would need to examine precolonial records where available, oral traditions, royal genealogies, customary succession systems, colonial correspondence, previous administrative decisions and court judgments. It would also need to distinguish between a dispute over the rightful incumbent and a dispute over whether the chieftainship itself historically existed. These are different questions. A chieftainship may be historically legitimate while its present succession is contested. A colonial administration may have recognised an established ruling house but interfered with the choice of successor. Alternatively, a colonial administrative position may have developed into a recognised traditional institution whose contemporary status must be assessed under current law and community custom. Historical investigation should not be designed to delegitimise communities or remove traditional leaders collectively. Its purpose should be to establish the truth about particular institutions and provide fair remedies where historical injustice can be demonstrated.
Why the National Council of Chiefs must confront historical disputes
The National Council of Chiefs has an important role in preserving customary institutions and representing traditional leaders. Its credibility depends partly upon its ability to address disputes involving powerful members of the traditional leadership establishment. The Charumbira succession litigation illustrates the difficulties that can arise when disputes involve influential incumbents. The recent recall controversy adds another dimension by raising questions about the relationship between traditional leadership and political authority. The Council must be capable of examining customary disputes without allowing institutional loyalty, political pressure or personal relationships to determine the outcome. Where a royal house challenges an appointment, its evidence should receive proper consideration. Where an incumbent chief possesses a legitimate customary claim, that claim must also be protected. Neither political connections nor historical grievances should substitute for proof. A traditional leadership institution that cannot investigate its own succession disputes risks weakening public confidence in the customary authority it represents.
The danger of replacing colonial influence with political influence
The historical concern is not limited to what British colonial administrators did more than a century ago. It also concerns how traditional leadership decisions are made today.
If colonial authorities once favoured candidates considered loyal to their administration, the modern constitutional system must ensure that political loyalty does not become a substitute for customary entitlement. Traditional leaders are required to respect the Constitution and remain politically neutral. Their responsibilities are owed to their communities, not exclusively to political officeholders. The government, in turn, has a responsibility to protect the independence of traditional institutions. These principles must apply consistently, whether a chief supports or disagrees with a particular government decision. The restoration of historical authority should therefore be separated from political reward or punishment. Otherwise, the country risks reproducing the very administrative distortions that historical restoration is intended to correct.
A national historical audit of chieftainships: Is it time?
Zimbabwe could benefit from a comprehensive, independent historical review of disputed traditional leadership institutions. Such a review would not begin with the assumption that existing chiefs are illegitimate. Instead, it would establish which disputes remain unresolved, what evidence exists and which legal or customary processes are appropriate. It could examine claims involving colonial interference, altered succession arrangements, abolished chieftainships and royal houses seeking restoration. The process would require historians, customary-law specialists, archivists, traditional leaders, genealogists and representatives of affected communities. It would also require procedural safeguards to ensure that powerful families do not dominate investigations and that minority or historically marginalised claimants receive fair hearings. Most importantly, its findings would need to distinguish historical conclusions from legal decisions about present-day appointments. A historical claim may deserve recognition even where its legal consequences require further consideration. The objective should be to establish a trustworthy record of Zimbabwe’s traditional institutions while protecting communities from arbitrary changes to their leadership.
The rightful chief must be determined by history, custom and law, not political favour
The controversy surrounding Chief Fortune Charumbira has opened a debate that Zimbabwe should not confine to one individual. The documented challenge to his succession illustrates how allegations of colonial interference can remain unresolved across generations. But the larger issue concerns the foundations of traditional authority throughout the country. Zimbabwe’s precolonial societies possessed their own rulers, dynasties, succession systems and customary institutions before British occupation. Colonial administrators subsequently altered aspects of those systems, sometimes changing who could exercise authority and how successors were selected. Political independence did not automatically settle every resulting dispute. Today, the country faces the challenge of reconciling hereditary tradition, historical evidence, community recognition and constitutional law.
The descendants of historically displaced royal houses deserve fair consideration of their claims. Existing chiefs deserve protection from unsupported accusations. Communities deserve leadership institutions that reflect their customs and constitutional rights. The question of Zimbabwe’s rightful chiefs is therefore not a competition over who possesses the most impressive title or the strongest political connections. It is a question of historical legitimacy, customary succession, institutional independence and justice. A chief may be recognised by government, but where that recognition is disputed, the deeper question remains: does the appointment reflect the community’s authentic customary system of leadership? Until that question is addressed fairly and consistently, the legacy of colonial interference will continue to shape Zimbabwe’s traditional leadership disputes. And the debate over who Zimbabwe’s rightful chiefs are will remain unfinished.
Comments
About Author
