Zulu King Misuzulu KaZwelithini’s throne is under new threat as his uncle, Prince Mbonisi, and 23 royal family members have filed court papers asking the Constitutional Court to reconsider its refusal to grant them an opportunity to appeal the king’s recognition by the government.
In the papers filed last month, Mbonisi asked the court to reconsider and rescind its February judgment, in which the court dismissed their application to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA), which had overturned the Pretoria High Court ruling. According to the South African Government website, the Leadership Act plays a crucial role in the recognition of traditional leaders.
Background to the Dispute
In December 2023, Judge Norman Davis ruled in favour of Prince Mbonisi and Prince Simakade’s application, which challenged President Cyril Ramaphosa’s 2022 decision to recognise the then-Prince Misuzulu as the official AmaZulu monarch. However, the SCA overturned this, and the Constitutional Court refused a direct appeal by the two sides in February this year, citing a lack of reasonable prospects of success.
Mbonisi confirmed his application, pleading with the Constitutional Court at least to allow them to present oral arguments. He said their main argument is that in the meeting where Misuzulu was identified as the king, there were people who were not family members. In a veiled reference to the late Inkosi Mangosuthu Buthelezi, Mbonisi said: “You can be our close relative, and we referred to you as our uncle, but that did not make you a family member.” Buthelezi chaired a meeting where Misuzulu was identified as the new king.
Key Arguments
Some of the key points in Mbonisi’s argument include:
- The meeting that identified Misuzulu as the king was not a legitimate family gathering.
- The decision to recognize Misuzulu as the king was in breach of the Leadership Act.
- The Constitutional Court should reconsider its earlier decision and allow the royal family to appeal.
To back his application, Mbonisi quoted a case law (Mothulwe vs Labour Court), in which the Concourt agreed to rescind its earlier decision and listen to the matter again. He argued that his application meets this test and should be listened to. For more information on the Concourt and its decisions, visit the Constitutional Court of South Africa website.
