Supreme Court of Appeal reserves judgment on President Ramaphosa's recognition of King Misuzulu
The Supreme Court of Appeal has reserved judgment in President Cyril Ramaphosa's appeal after he recognised King Misuzulu as the Zulu King, but the High Court had ruled against him.
Image: Independent Newspapers Archives
The Supreme Court of Appeal has reserved judgment in the appeal by President Cyril Ramaphosa against the High Court judgment that set aside the president's recognition of King Misuzulu kaZwelithini as King of the Zulu Nation.
The court is also due to rule at a later stage regarding a cross-appeal by Prince Mbonisi and his brother, Prince Simakade, in which they said the High Court should have set aside the identification of King Misuzulu as the new Zulu King.
Judge Norman Davis, in a judgment handed down in 2023, found that Ramaphosa had failed to follow due process in terms of the Traditional and Khoi-San Leadership Act when he failed to institute an investigating committee when a dispute over the Zulu throne arose.
Judge Davis ordered Ramaphosa to appoint an investigative committee into the matter, per the Leadership Act. However, he ruled that King Misuzulu remained on the throne in the meantime.
Advocate Thabani Maskuku, representing Prince Mbonisi, in opposing the appeal, argued that it was the president's responsibility to ensure that disputes between the Royal Family were resolved before he recognised the now-King Misuzulu as King.
Video Player is loading.
Play Video
Play
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
-:-
Loaded :
0%
Stream Type LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque
Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
Advertisement
Next
Stay
Close ✕
The court was told that the meeting held on May 14, 2021, during which the now-king was identified, was flawed.
It was called by the late Prince Mangosuthu Buthelezi, but the meeting was due to serve as a morning ritual and not a forum during which the new king should be identified.
It was argued that the Royal Family had no representative at the meeting, and absent were some of the most senior members of the Royal House.
Masuku argued that Buthelezi then decided to turn the morning ritual into an identification process to identify the new king. He said custom was not followed as the Royal Family was not the one to choose the new king.
According to him, the president was supposed to put together a committee when disputes arose, to look into how the king was appointed and to allow the Royal Family to elect their next king.
This was not done, Masuku said, adding that the president should also have consulted the KwaZulu-Natal premier and the COGTA minister before he announced Misuzulu as King.
The court was also told that if Ramaphosa had investigated the process of recognising Misuzulu as King, the issues would have been resolved and would not now be the subject of an appeal.
It was said that there are specific Zulu customs that had to be followed and that cannot simply be wished away. The court was told that the matter should be referred back to the Royal Family to do what should have been done.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
TimesLIVE
10 hours ago
- TimesLIVE
SCA sends home affairs minister packing in ZEP appeal
The Supreme Court of Appeal has rejected an appeal by the minister of home affairs against the Johannesburg high court order on Zimbabwe Exemption Permits (ZEPs), which give about 180,000 Zimbabweans a special dispensation to lawfully remain in South Africa. The judgment also clears the path for the Zimbabwean Immigration Federation to return to court and argue that it is only parliament, and not the home affairs minister, which can decide whether to extend the ZEP regime. In 2023, the Johannesburg high court set aside a decision by former minister Aaron Motsoaledi to terminate the ZEP regime and to reconsider his decision, following a fair process. The SCA's judgment on Friday said that counsel for the minister told the court that 'the order is being implemented, and ... the minister is following a fair process'. But the federation wants to go back to court to argue that ZEP-holders and their children enjoy constitutional rights in South Africa. If these are to be limited, only parliament may do so — 'by enacting a law of general application,' says the SCA's judgment. The SCA did not give a view on whether that argument was correct, but it rejected an appeal by the minister that would have prevented the federation from ever making it. When the high court gave its order, the federation was one of the parties in the litigation, along with the Helen Suzman Foundation (HSF). Theirs were two separate cases, which were heard together. While the federation and the HSF both wanted similar orders, at that time, from the high court, their grounds were different. And while the HSF asked the court for a final order, the federation only sought an interim interdict — it wanted to argue its main case at a later date. The court gave a final order, as sought by the HSF, and also the interim interdict sought by the federation. The minister had already tried, and failed, to appeal against the HSF order. In this case, the minister approached the SCA on appeal, saying the interim interdict was 'redundant' since the court had already granted a final order to the HSF. In Friday's judgment, the SCA disagreed. Judge of Appeal David Unterhalter said the federation's case 'raised distinctive grounds of review', which laid the basis for an argument that was not raised or argued earlier — about the powers of the minister when there were constitutional rights at stake. If the federation's argument was to be accepted, it 'would not permit the minister to terminate the ZEP regime'. 'That is a remedial outcome of a considerably more far-reaching kind because it reaches into the future and is not based on a reconsideration,' said Unterhalter. The redundancy argument could therefore not hold, he said.
Eyewitness News
13 hours ago
- Eyewitness News
Farm murders and rural safety take prominence on parliamentary agenda
CAPE TOWN - Farm murders and rural safety were back on the parliamentary agenda on Friday, where parties debated the need for a better response to rural crime to ensure food security. The debate comes not too long after President Cyril Ramaphosa and a South African delegation visited the US to convince the country that there's no targeting of white farmers, saying the farmers are just victims of high crime. The Democratic Alliance (DA) has also used the debate to reiterate its opposition to land expropriation without compensation, saying it threatens investor confidence. DA member of Parliament (MP) and spokesperson Willie Aucamp opened the debate, saying the issue of rural safety cuts to the heart of the country's stability and food security. "For too long, the brutality of farm attacks as well as the effect that it has on food security have been ignored. But, finally, this house has been forced to confront the truth." But the uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) Party's Andile Mngxitama says the commercial agriculture sector is still oppressive towards black people, who he says suffer the most on farms. "The commercial agricultural sector remains the bastion of naked racism and systemic violence against black people. The oppressive relations inherited from the past continue in democratic South Africa."
The Citizen
20 hours ago
- The Citizen
Comrades demands grit but so does the courtroom
Advocate Charles Mnisi's request to miss court after the Comrades Marathon sparked debate on balancing personal ambition with professional and ethical obligations. Judge Ratha Mokgoatlheng put his foot squarely in it yesterday in the High Court in Pretoria when he went on a tirade about a request from a defence lawyer in the Senzo Meyiwa trial to be excused from court on Monday because he is running the Comrades Marathon on Sunday. After angrily speaking about 'justice delayed is justice denied' in a case in which family members have been waiting for closure for a decade, Mokgoatlheng fumed: 'This is what happens in a South Africa run by blacks. A white advocate will never have the gall to ask me that.' While many took offence at what one of them, Good party's Brett Heron, called 'racially divisive language', which is 'entirely unacceptable', I was more intrigued about the fact that a senior advocate, Charles Mnisi, would have thought that taking part in the annual KZN athletic spectacle was more important that defending an accused in a murder case. I wondered, initially, whether advocates have to swear an oath, similar to the Hippocratic one taken by doctors, to act at all times in the best interests of their clients and the legal system. Then I thought about it a little more. Mnisi was, after all, asking to be excused from attending court on Monday, which would be a recovery day and not race day itself. ALSO READ: 'This is what happens in a SA run by blacks': Senzo Meyiwa trial judge fires off explosive rant He said he was planning to drive back to Johannesburg after the race and, obviously, would not make it in time. Now, as an advocate who presumably gets paid a decent whack for his time, I ask; could he not have afforded to fly back to Gauteng, either late on Sunday night or early on Monday morning? As someone who has five Comrades marathons under my belt (although many years ago now), I do remember the post-race agony. That post-race agony for me, I remember, was made worse by hobbling down the aircraft steps at the then Jan Smuts airport on one occasion. That hobbling – everybody knew what it was caused by – was worn as a badge of honour, though. What an entrance to court it would have made had Mnisi got back in time and hobbled in on Monday morning and asked for the court's indulgence for his gait, by explaining to the judge that he had just travelled 90km on foot from Pietermaritzburg to Durban but that, while his legs may be hurting, his mind was ready for the fight… ALSO READ: Meyiwa trial becomes a courtroom spectacle without justice Completing the Comrades is, for all entrants, a triumph of mind over matter because human bodies are simply not made for that sort of effort. Will power and not muscle power gets you over the finish line. I do realise that many runners put their lives on hold for the first half of any given year in getting ready for the race. I know I did. Job, family, friends all took a back seat to joining the '100 Club' (100 miles, or 160km, in one training week). But I never missed a commitment – or ducked work – because I was a runner. If you can commit yourself to finishing the Annual Pilgrimage to the Shrine of Pain, surely you can suffer a little more discomfort on a recovery day to honour a professional appointment? The Comrades Marathon – the gruelling training, the arduous competition itself and the agony of recovery – is not for sissies. It's a quest you can't walk, or hobble, away from. Pretty much the same as life in general. NOW READ: 'No proper investigation was done': Defence frustrated over missing evidence in Senzo Meyiwa murder trial
