Zimbabwe has restored several traditional leadership institutions abolished during colonial rule, yet the Mbari royal house continues to seek recognition of its ancestral authority in the capital. More than 130 years after the establishment of Fort Salisbury, the dispute raises questions about historical justice, customary succession, government accountability and the preservation of Harare’s precolonial identity.
By Princess Eugene Majuru | News of The South
Harare is Zimbabwe’s capital, the seat of government, the centre of national political authority and one of the country’s most historically significant urban settlements. Yet behind its modern identity lies an unresolved dispute concerning the traditional leadership that existed before British colonial occupation. The Mbari royal house, associated with King Mbari and the Shumba Gurundoro lineage, maintains that its ancestors exercised traditional authority over Harare and surrounding territories before colonial rule disrupted their political institutions. More than four decades after Zimbabwe attained independence, the royal house continues to seek restoration of the Mbari chieftainship. The dispute raises an important national question: why have some traditional leadership institutions been restored while the Mbari claim remains unresolved?
It also raises broader questions about the treatment of indigenous royal families whose authority was displaced during colonial occupation. The recent controversy surrounding Chief Fortune Charumbira and opposition to the restoration of certain abolished chieftainships has brought renewed attention to the constitutional procedures governing traditional leadership.
For the Mbari royal house, however, this is not a new debate. It is a historical struggle involving ancestral identity, customary authority, colonial displacement and the responsibility of the independent Zimbabwean state to examine unresolved traditional leadership claims.
Harare existed before Fort Salisbury
The history of Zimbabwe’s capital is frequently told from September 1890, when the Pioneer Column established Fort Salisbury. That date is significant in the history of British colonial occupation, but it cannot be treated as the beginning of Harare’s history. Before the Pioneer Column arrived, African communities occupied the surrounding landscape, cultivated land, maintained sacred places and exercised authority through established indigenous institutions. The Mbari royal tradition identifies King Mbari as an important precolonial ruler associated with the area now occupied by Harare and parts of Mazowe. According to the royal house’s historical accounts, Mbari belonged to the Shumba Gurundoro lineage and exercised authority over subordinate traditional leaders within a wider territorial system. The family tradition also identifies Makombe, a younger brother of Mbari, as a successor to traditional authority, with later members of the lineage associated with resistance to colonial occupation. These accounts form an important part of the royal house’s claim, although the precise territorial boundaries, chronology and succession relationships require assessment alongside independent archival and customary evidence. The central historical point remains that the establishment of Salisbury did not occur on land without an African past.
Colonial occupation transformed an existing landscape into a settlement governed by British colonial institutions.
King Mbari, Makombe and the disputed history of succession
The Mbari royal house traces its hereditary authority through a lineage associated with King Mbari and his successors. Its historical narrative identifies Makombe as having assumed leadership after Mbari, with the wider royal family maintaining customary responsibilities over land, community governance and spiritual institutions. According to this tradition, the royal house’s territory extended beyond the present central business district of Harare into surrounding areas, including parts of Mazowe. The lineage also identifies relationships with subordinate traditional leaders whose jurisdictions formed part of the wider political landscape. Such claims require careful investigation because precolonial territorial authority did not always correspond to the fixed administrative boundaries established by colonial governments. A royal ruler could exercise influence through tribute relationships, alliances, customary recognition or spiritual authority rather than through boundaries resembling those of a modern municipality. The challenge for historians is to establish which aspects of the Mbari tradition are supported by contemporary records, which are preserved through oral history and where competing interpretations exist. That distinction should not be used to dismiss oral history. African political institutions frequently preserved genealogies and succession knowledge through oral transmission. But the historical investigation must remain sufficiently rigorous to distinguish established evidence from unresolved claims.
The First Chimurenga and the destruction of indigenous authority
The uprisings of 1896–1897, commonly associated with the First Chimurenga, represented a major challenge to colonial occupation. African communities resisted land dispossession, taxation, forced labour and the expansion of settler authority. The colonial response involved military operations, destruction of settlements and the suppression of resistance. The Mbari royal house maintains that members of its lineage participated in the resistance and suffered severe consequences during the colonial campaign. Its accounts identify Nyamadzawo and other members of the royal family with resistance in the wider Mazowe area. The royal house further maintains that the suppression of the uprising resulted in the displacement of its people and the destruction of its traditional political authority. These claims deserve detailed examination through colonial military records, Native Commissioner correspondence, genealogical material and community testimony. The broader historical record establishes that the First Chimurenga profoundly affected African political institutions. What remains to be determined in the Mbari case is the precise sequence through which its traditional leadership ceased to receive recognition and how that process affected subsequent succession. Was the institution formally abolished through a colonial administrative decision?
Was its authority progressively transferred to other recognised chiefs?
Was its territory incorporated into new administrative jurisdictions?
Or did displacement and the destruction of traditional political structures prevent the institution from continuing in its earlier form?
These are essential questions for any restoration process.
The naming of Harare and Mbare: History, identity and competing explanations
The names Harare and Mbare are central to the royal house’s historical narrative. Mbari family tradition associates the name Harare with King Mbari, including an account connecting the name to a ruler known for remaining awake to attend to the needs of his people. The family also associates the name Mbare with its ancestral identity. These interpretations are culturally significant, but the etymology of Harare has been explained in different ways in historical and popular accounts. The precise origins of these names should therefore be investigated rather than treated as conclusively settled. Place names can preserve memories of earlier inhabitants, political authority and cultural relationships. They can also change through language, migration and administrative practice. A comprehensive historical inquiry into the Mbari claim should examine early maps, recorded place names, oral traditions and colonial correspondence to establish how the names developed. Regardless of the final conclusions, the inquiry would contribute to a fuller understanding of the capital’s indigenous history.
Why has the Mbari chieftainship not been restored?
The Mbari royal house has publicly campaigned for the restoration of its claimed traditional leadership institution. Its advocacy has included historical publications, representations concerning ancestral heritage and calls for government recognition. Yet the available public record does not establish that the Mbari chieftainship has been formally resuscitated or that a substantive chief has been installed under that title. The reasons require greater transparency. Has the Ministry of Local Government completed a historical assessment of the claim? Has the matter been referred to the relevant traditional leadership institutions? Have provincial chiefs considered the evidence? Has the government identified legal or administrative obstacles? And if the application has not progressed, what specific requirements remain outstanding? These are questions the responsible authorities should be able to address through the appropriate administrative processes. An unresolved restoration claim should not remain indefinitely without a clear explanation of the procedures being followed. Equally, a restoration decision must be based on verified historical evidence, prevailing customary law and the rights of affected communities.
The constitutional question: Can Harare have a chief?
One of the most important issues concerns whether the modern capital can accommodate a recognised traditional leadership institution.
Section 283 of Zimbabwe’s Constitution provides for the creation and resuscitation of chieftainships in accordance with the prevailing culture, customs, traditions and practices of the communities concerned.
Section 282 recognises traditional leaders’ responsibilities in preserving history, culture, traditions and sacred shrines.
However, the application of these provisions within an urban municipality raises legal and administrative questions. Harare operates through urban local government institutions. The city contains residents from numerous ethnic, cultural and historical backgrounds. Restoration of a traditional institution would therefore require clarity about jurisdiction, community recognition and the relationship between customary leadership and elected municipal authority. It would be incorrect to assume that constitutional recognition of chieftainships automatically authorises a chief to govern the entire modern city. But it would also be premature to conclude that the capital’s urban status makes every form of historical traditional recognition impossible. The appropriate question is what forms of restoration or recognition the Constitution and legislation permit, and whether any legal changes would be necessary. A historical royal house could potentially seek cultural recognition, protection of ancestral heritage or a legally defined traditional leadership role, depending on the evidence and applicable law. These possibilities should be examined separately rather than confused.
The 2026 dispute over alleged conquest by another clan
The restoration debate has also involved a contested historical assertion concerning the relationship between the Mbari lineage and the Mhofu/Chiweshe lineages. In correspondence dated 10 March 2026, Princess Eugene Majuru, acting as custodian of Mbari heritage, requested documentary evidence from Local Government Minister Daniel Garwe concerning an assertion she attributed to him during a telephone conversation on 5 March. According to the published correspondence, the minister had allegedly stated that the Mbari clan was conquered by the Mhofu/Chiweshe brothers before British colonial occupation and had therefore lost its claim to the Harare chieftainship.
The correspondence asked the minister to identify the archival or documentary basis for that assertion. The alleged conversation and the historical conquest claim have not been independently established through the available records, and the minister’s complete response has not been verified. Nevertheless, the exchange highlights an important issue. If a government decision concerning hereditary authority relies upon an assertion of historical conquest, the evidence supporting that assertion should be available for scrutiny. Such an investigation would need to establish when the alleged conquest occurred, who participated, what territory was involved and whether the event actually extinguished the relevant customary authority. It would also need to consider whether political conquest necessarily transferred hereditary entitlement under the customary systems concerned. A claim of conquest cannot be treated as a substitute for historical proof.
Can colonial dispossession extinguish hereditary identity?
The Mbari dispute raises a broader question affecting many traditional communities. If a royal family was displaced by colonial military action, does that displacement extinguish its hereditary identity? The answer requires distinguishing historical ancestry from contemporary legal authority. Military conquest may destroy a kingdom’s independence, displace its rulers and replace its governing institutions. It does not automatically erase the genealogical history of the ruling family. However, the survival of royal ancestry does not necessarily mean that the descendants retain an enforceable legal right to exercise all the powers previously associated with the institution. Restoration therefore involves both historical recognition and legal determination. The historical inquiry establishes what existed and what happened to it. The legal inquiry determines what recognition or authority can now be granted under Zimbabwe’s constitutional system. For the Mbari royal house, both questions remain central.
Traditional leadership should not be decided by political connections
The Constitution requires traditional leadership matters to be handled in accordance with customary practice and without improper political interference. This principle is particularly important where claims involve families whose institutions were displaced during colonial occupation. The government has a legitimate role in administering recognition and resolving disputes. But historical legitimacy cannot be created solely through political endorsement. Nor should a royal house’s claim be rejected merely because it lacks influential political supporters. The same standard must apply to every applicant. The Mbari claim should be assessed according to its historical evidence, customary succession arrangements and the interests of the relevant community. Existing traditional leaders whose jurisdictions could be affected should also have opportunities to present evidence. A fair process must protect both the rights of claimants and the rights of communities already operating under recognised traditional institutions.
Why historical recognition matters to Harare’s future
Harare faces significant contemporary challenges involving urban planning, deteriorating infrastructure, heritage preservation and public administration. Restoring historical knowledge cannot by itself solve these problems. Nevertheless, understanding the city’s indigenous history can contribute to its cultural identity and heritage policies. The history of Harare should not begin and end with colonial architecture, Pioneer Column monuments and the administrative development of Salisbury. It should also examine the African communities who occupied the land before 1890.
Their settlement patterns, traditional institutions, sacred places and relationships with the surrounding landscape deserve recognition in the city’s historical narrative. A properly researched Mbari heritage project could contribute to public education, museum exhibitions, archival preservation and the identification of historically significant sites. Such work could proceed even while the legal question of restoring a chieftainship remains unresolved. Historical recognition and legal restoration are related, but they are not identical.
What should the government do?
The most constructive next step would be a transparent assessment of the Mbari royal house’s restoration claim.
The Ministry of Local Government could clarify the status of the application, the evidence considered and the legal process applicable to an urban traditional leadership claim. Historical researchers could examine the lineage’s genealogical records, relevant colonial archives, oral traditions and territorial relationships. The National Council of Chiefs and other appropriate traditional institutions could consider the customary issues within their lawful responsibilities. Representatives of affected communities should also be heard. Any final decision should explain the evidence, applicable law and reasons for accepting or rejecting the claim. Such a process would be valuable regardless of the outcome because it would establish a clearer historical record. It could also provide guidance for other royal families seeking recognition of traditional institutions disrupted by colonial occupation.
Harare cannot understand its future without confronting its past
The restoration of the Mbari chieftainship is more than a dispute over a traditional title. It raises questions about the history of Zimbabwe’s capital, the consequences of colonial occupation and the responsibility of the modern state to examine claims concerning displaced indigenous authority. The Mbari royal house maintains that its ancestors exercised traditional authority over Harare and surrounding areas before British occupation and that colonial rule disrupted that institution. Those claims deserve a fair and evidence-based examination. The government, traditional leadership institutions and historical researchers have a responsibility to distinguish verified history from contested interpretation and to establish what remedies are available under the law. For a country that celebrates the defeat of colonial rule, the history of the communities displaced by that rule should not remain an afterthought. The question is not whether Harare should abandon modern municipal government in favour of an ancient political system. It is whether the capital can acknowledge its precolonial history and provide a lawful, transparent process for considering the claims of the royal institutions associated with that history. Harare did not begin in 1890. Its history extends beyond Fort Salisbury, beyond colonial administration and beyond the political institutions inherited at independence. The unresolved Mbari claim is part of that longer history. And until the historical evidence has been fully examined and the restoration question properly determined, the debate over Harare’s ancestral traditional authority will continue.
Comments
About Author
