More than four decades after independence, Zimbabwe continues to operate traditional leadership institutions shaped by British colonial administration. While some abolished chieftainships are being restored, descendants of other displaced royal families are still seeking recognition. Is the country correcting colonial injustices consistently, or has the legacy of colonial interference remained embedded in its traditional leadership system?

By Princess Eugene Majuru | News of The South

Zimbabwe gained independence from British colonial rule in 1980, but the country’s traditional leadership system continues to carry the historical consequences of decisions made by colonial administrators more than a century ago. Kings who once exercised sovereignty over extensive territories lost their political authority. Chiefs who resisted colonial occupation faced removal, displacement or restrictions. Royal succession arrangements were altered, while some traditional leaders were recognised or promoted because colonial officials considered them suitable for administrative purposes.

Today, descendants of certain royal families whose authority was disrupted during colonial rule continue to seek recognition of their hereditary institutions. Yet other chieftainships, including some whose succession arrangements were influenced by colonial authorities, remain officially recognised. This raises a fundamental question about historical justice. If Zimbabwe is committed to restoring traditional leadership institutions abolished during colonial rule, how should it address the colonial decisions that changed who became a chief, which royal families retained authority and which were excluded from official recognition? The recent controversy surrounding Chief Fortune Charumbira has brought these questions into sharper focus.

In September 2026, the Masvingo Provincial Assembly of Chiefs voted to recommend the recall of Charumbira and two other chiefs from the Senate. The assembly’s chairperson publicly accused the three of undermining President Emmerson Mnangagwa, including through opposition to the restoration of certain chieftainships abolished during colonial rule.

The government subsequently confirmed that the recall process had been initiated. Although the controversy concerns parliamentary representation rather than the automatic removal of hereditary chiefly titles, it has exposed disagreements within the traditional leadership establishment over restoration and political authority. But the larger issue extends beyond Charumbira. It concerns whether Zimbabwe’s traditional leadership institutions reflect authentic customary succession or whether some arrangements inherited from colonial administration remain insufficiently examined.

Colonialism did not create African traditional leadership

Before the British South Africa Company occupied Mashonaland in 1890, the territory now known as Zimbabwe possessed established political institutions. The Mutapa state, the Rozvi political system, the Ndebele Kingdom and numerous regional chieftainships operated according to their own historical and customary arrangements. Some rulers exercised authority over extensive territories, while others governed smaller communities through hereditary leadership, councils and recognised customary institutions. Succession was not uniform. Certain communities followed systems in which authority rotated between royal houses. Others recognised particular hereditary lines or used customary consultations to select successors from eligible families. These arrangements existed before colonial occupation. However, the arrival of the British South Africa Company fundamentally changed the relationship between traditional rulers and political power. Colonial authorities claimed jurisdiction over land, taxation, labour and administration. They also acquired powers to recognise, supervise and remove traditional leaders. The consequence was that customary authority increasingly operated within a system controlled by colonial officials. A chief’s position could depend not only on hereditary entitlement but also on government approval. This was one of the most consequential transformations of African political institutions under colonial rule.

How colonial administrators created and altered chieftainships

British colonial administrators relied upon traditional leaders to govern African communities. Native Commissioners supervised districts and exercised considerable influence over chiefly appointments, territorial jurisdictions and customary administration. In some cases, existing hereditary rulers retained their positions. In others, colonial officials removed chiefs, recognised different successors or reorganised traditional jurisdictions. Some administrative appointments elevated individuals or family lines whose authority was disputed under the community’s customary succession practices. This created different categories of traditional leadership. There were chiefs whose authority clearly predated colonial occupation and continued under colonial recognition. There were established royal houses whose succession arrangements were changed through colonial interference. And there were positions created, reorganised or elevated for colonial administrative purposes. These distinctions are essential. It would be historically inaccurate to suggest that every chief recognised during colonial rule was created by the British. Many were legitimate hereditary rulers who had little choice but to operate within the colonial system. Equally, it would be wrong to assume that every appointment made by colonial administrators reflected the authentic customary practices of the affected community. The challenge for independent Zimbabwe is determining where colonial intervention altered traditional legitimacy and whether those changes continue to influence present-day appointments.

Why were some royal families removed while others retained authority?

Colonial administrators sought to establish effective control over African territories. Traditional rulers who resisted colonial demands could present significant obstacles to taxation, land acquisition and administrative control. Those considered cooperative were often easier for colonial officials to work with. Consequently, political cooperation sometimes influenced decisions about traditional recognition. This did not necessarily mean that every cooperative chief lacked hereditary legitimacy. Some established rulers negotiated with colonial authorities to protect their communities under difficult circumstances. Others resisted and suffered serious consequences. But the colonial system created opportunities for administrative preference to influence customary succession. A royal house whose candidate was rejected could lose official recognition. A family favoured by colonial administrators might retain a position across generations. Where traditional succession required rotation among several royal houses, repeated recognition of one family could produce longstanding disputes. The effects could continue long after the original colonial officials had left office. That is why contemporary disputes over traditional leadership sometimes involve events that occurred before Zimbabwe became independent.

The Charumbira succession dispute demonstrates the problem

The Charumbira chieftainship provides a documented example of how allegations of colonial interference can become the subject of modern litigation.

In the 2019 High Court case Mapingure v Provincial Assembly of Chiefs, Masvingo Province, a claimant challenged the succession arrangements associated with the chieftainship.

The applicant argued that the relevant customary system required rotation between eligible royal houses.

According to the claim, colonial authorities interfered with that arrangement following the death of Chief Madyira in 1943, favouring the appointment of his son Mazhira.

The applicant maintained that the altered succession subsequently continued through the family line.

Fortune Charumbira became substantive chief in May 2000.

The High Court did not conclusively determine whether the historical allegations established an unlawful succession. The proceedings encountered a procedural difficulty involving the failure to join the President, whose role was central to the appointment dispute.

Nevertheless, the case demonstrates an important distinction.

A legally recognised chieftainship may still be the subject of a dispute about whether its succession arrangements accurately reflect customary law.

The existence of an official appointment does not automatically resolve the historical question.

Nor does an allegation of colonial interference establish that the current incumbent is illegitimate.

The evidence must be examined through the appropriate legal and customary procedures.

If colonial appointments were political, why should their consequences remain unquestioned?

Zimbabwe’s traditional leadership system has undergone significant changes since independence. The Constitution recognises traditional institutions and requires appointments and succession to respect the customs of the communities concerned. Yet some disputes concern arrangements that originated under colonial administration. This creates a difficult historical question. If colonial officials interfered with a succession system to favour a particular family, should that altered arrangement continue indefinitely? Or should the state investigate whether the original customary system can be established and lawfully applied? The answer cannot be determined through a blanket policy. Each community has its own history, and some succession arrangements may have evolved legitimately over time. A modern inquiry must consider the historical evidence, present customary practice, community recognition and applicable law. But the principle of historical accountability remains important. Colonial administrative records should be treated as evidence of what colonial officials recognised, not necessarily as conclusive proof of who possessed the strongest customary entitlement.

The restoration of Chimbwerere shows that colonial injustice can be addressed

The restoration of the Chimbwerere chieftainship in Guruve provides an important example of government action to reverse a colonial-era decision. The chieftainship was reportedly abolished in 1963 after its leadership refused to submit to the authority of a colonial district commissioner. The government subsequently announced its resuscitation following archival research into the circumstances of its abolition. This example demonstrates that historical records can be used to establish why a traditional institution lost official recognition and whether restoration is justified. It also raises a wider question. If archival research can support the restoration of one chieftainship abolished during colonial rule, what procedures are available to other royal houses claiming that their authority was suppressed? Are the same evidentiary standards applied? Are claimants informed of the historical documentation required? And are decisions communicated transparently? Restoration should not depend solely upon the visibility or political influence of a particular family. It should be based upon consistent legal standards, credible historical evidence and the customs of the community concerned.

The Mbari royal house of Harare: A restoration claim still awaiting resolution

Among the royal families seeking historical recognition is the Mbari royal house, associated with King Mbari and the Shumba Gurundoro lineage. The royal house maintains that its ancestors exercised traditional authority over Harare and surrounding territories before British occupation. According to the family’s historical account, colonial conquest disrupted its political institutions and contributed to the disappearance of its traditional leadership from official recognition. The descendants have continued to campaign for restoration of the Harare chieftainship. Their case raises particular questions because the ancestral territory they identify now includes Zimbabwe’s capital city. The royal house argues that urban development should not erase the historical existence of traditional institutions. However, the proposed restoration would require examination of the claimed precolonial jurisdiction, hereditary succession, relevant community customs and the legal relationship between traditional authority and modern urban government. The historical claim cannot be settled simply by reference to the fact that Harare is now a municipality. Nor can it be automatically accepted solely on the basis of royal descent. It requires a transparent investigation.

Parliament receives letters, but the Mbari royal house reports continued silence

The Mbari royal house maintains that it has pursued restoration through formal communication with government offices, Parliament and the relevant parliamentary committee. According to the family, letters submitted to Parliament have been stamped and acknowledged as received. It says that despite these communications, substantive responses have not been forthcoming. The royal house has also publicly raised its concerns through an open letter to the National Council of Chiefs and other correspondence concerning the historical basis of its claim. The existence of formal correspondence is significant because it allows the administrative history of the claim to be investigated. Receiving a letter does not mean an institution has accepted the merits of the request. However, where a matter has been repeatedly referred to public authorities, questions arise about how it has been processed. Has the application been formally assessed?

Has the historical evidence been examined? Has the matter been referred to the appropriate traditional leadership institution? Are there legal obstacles? Or does the claim remain unresolved because no final administrative determination has been made? The family says it has not received adequate answers. This is an issue of administrative accountability, separate from whether the restoration claim will ultimately succeed.

Ancestral responsibilities without formal recognition

The Mbari royal house has also raised concerns about what it describes as selective acknowledgement of its traditional spiritual responsibilities. According to the family, individuals occasionally approach selected clan members when customary or spiritual difficulties are believed to have arisen within territory historically associated with the lineage. The family alleges that these consultations are sometimes conducted privately, without wider consultation among members of the royal house. It further maintains that once the requested ceremonies have taken place, engagement often ends while its formal restoration claim remains unresolved. These allegations require independent corroboration, including the identities of those involved and the customary authority under which ceremonies were performed. Traditional spiritual practices should be understood within the beliefs and customs of the communities concerned, rather than as proof of supernatural events. Nevertheless, the allegations raise questions about representation within hereditary institutions. Who is authorised to act on behalf of a royal house? Can selected members undertake ceremonies presented as clan responsibilities without consulting other recognised custodians? And how should customary spiritual authority be distinguished from legally recognised political leadership? The answers depend upon the traditions of the particular community. The broader issue is whether historical royal institutions can receive cultural acknowledgement in some circumstances while their formal claims remain unresolved.

Are some chieftainships protected by the very system that should investigate them?

The National Council of Chiefs has responsibilities concerning traditional leadership, cultural heritage and the integrity of customary institutions.

However, disputes over restoration may involve existing chiefs whose jurisdictions or succession arrangements could be affected by the recognition of another royal house. This creates a potential institutional challenge. A chief may have legitimate customary objections to a proposed restoration. But an incumbent should not be able to prevent a competing historical claim from receiving fair consideration merely because the outcome might affect existing authority. Equally, a claimant should not be permitted to bypass established customary rights by presenting an unsupported restoration claim as historical justice. The proper solution is an impartial process. The relevant evidence should be examined, competing claims should be heard and decisions should be explained. The objective should not be to weaken traditional leadership. It should be to ensure that traditional institutions derive their legitimacy from authentic customary arrangements rather than political preference.

The Constitution promises fairness and protection from political interference

Section 283 of Zimbabwe’s Constitution provides for the appointment, succession, removal, creation and resuscitation of traditional leadership institutions.

It requires these matters to be addressed in accordance with the prevailing culture, customs, traditions and practices of the communities concerned. The Constitution also requires safeguards to ensure fairness and protect traditional institutions from political interference. These provisions establish an important standard. A government cannot properly determine hereditary entitlement simply by selecting a politically convenient candidate. Nor should traditional leadership institutions use their authority to exclude legitimate claimants without considering the relevant evidence. The Constitution provides a framework for balancing state recognition with customary legitimacy. The challenge lies in how those principles are applied.

Should every colonial-era chieftainship be investigated?

A national historical review could help clarify which traditional institutions were altered, abolished or reorganised under colonial administration. Such a review would not begin by declaring existing chiefs illegitimate. Instead, it would identify documented disputes and examine their historical foundations. It could investigate cases where colonial administrators changed customary succession, recognised disputed candidates, abolished chieftainships or transferred jurisdiction between ruling houses. It could also consider claims from royal institutions whose authority disappeared during colonial occupation. However, the review would need clear safeguards. Historical evidence should be assessed independently.

Affected communities should participate. Existing chiefs should be allowed to defend their customary claims. And any legal changes should follow constitutional procedures. A historical inquiry should not become a mechanism for distributing traditional titles according to political favour.Its purpose should be to establish a reliable record and provide fair processes for resolving legitimate disputes.

Historical justice cannot be selective

The restoration of traditional leadership institutions is an important opportunity to address the consequences of colonial rule.But the credibility of that process depends upon consistency.

If one chieftainship is restored because colonial officials abolished it, another community with a comparable historical grievance should be entitled to have its evidence considered under the same legal principles. If an existing succession arrangement is challenged because of documented colonial interference, the claim should be examined without assuming either that the incumbent is illegitimate or that the historical complaint is unfounded. If a royal family seeks recognition of an institution displaced before colonial administrative registers were established, the absence of a colonial appointment record should not automatically end the inquiry. The state must distinguish between the existence of a historical institution, the identity of its rightful hereditary successor and the form of authority that can lawfully be recognised today. These are separate questions. They require careful historical investigation rather than political assumptions.

Independence should not leave colonial injustices beyond examination

Zimbabwe’s traditional leadership system reflects centuries of indigenous history alongside the profound disruptions caused by British colonial occupation. Some hereditary institutions survived conquest. Others were transformed. Some ruling families retained recognition, while others lost their positions or disappeared from official registers. More than four decades after independence, the consequences of those decisions continue to influence debates about chieftainship, royal succession and historical restoration. The government has demonstrated through certain restoration programmes that colonial-era decisions can be revisited. The remaining challenge is to ensure that all credible claims receive fair and transparent consideration.

The Mbari royal house’s campaign for restoration in Harare illustrates the importance of administrative accountability when historical claims remain unresolved. The Charumbira succession litigation demonstrates that even recognised chieftainships may face questions about colonial interference in customary succession. Neither case can be resolved through assumptions. But both show why historical evidence, customary legitimacy and constitutional safeguards matter. The fundamental question is not whether Zimbabwe should abolish existing chieftainships because they were recognised during colonial rule. It is whether the country has adequately examined the colonial decisions that altered hereditary authority while leaving some displaced royal families without formal recognition.

A credible restoration system must protect legitimate traditional institutions while allowing historically disadvantaged royal houses to present their claims. It must distinguish colonial administrative convenience from authentic customary succession. And it must provide clear decisions rather than leaving applicants without answers. Zimbabwe’s independence ended colonial government. The task of examining how colonial rule transformed indigenous political authority remains an important part of the country’s historical and constitutional development. For descendants of displaced royal families, the issue is not simply who holds a title today. It is whether the historical record will be examined fairly, whether their ancestral institutions will receive appropriate recognition and whether the country’s restoration procedures will provide them with a reasoned determination. Historical justice requires more than restoring selected chieftainships. It requires a consistent process through which every credible claim can be heard, tested and decided according to history, custom and law.