The battle for the AmaZulu throne reaches Supreme Court of Appeal
BLOEMFONTEIN - After two days of intensive legal arguments in Bloemfontein, from 28 to 29 May 2025, five Supreme Court of Appeal judges will now determine whether President Cyril Ramaphosa's recognition of Misuzulu as King of the AmaZulu Nation in March 2022 was right and proper.
The case represents more than four years of legal battles that have tested the boundaries between customary law and constitutional governance in South Africa.
The death of Prince Mangosuthu Buthelezi in September 2023 removed a key figure who had championed King Misuzulu's succession.
The Supreme Court of Appeal has reserved judgment in one of South Africa's most significant constitutional and customary law cases.
It's left King Misuzulu kaZwelithini in a precarious position within the AmaZulu Royal House. After four years of bitter legal battles that have exposed deep divisions within the royal family and raised fundamental questions about the intersection of traditional customs and constitutional governance in democratic South Africa.
The case has significant implications beyond the Zulu kingdom, as the Traditional and Khoi-San Leadership Act, which governs the recognition of traditional leaders, has come under intense scrutiny throughout these proceedings.
The legal battle stems from a succession crisis that began on 12 March, 2021, when King Goodwill Zwelithini kaBhekuzulu died from COVID-19 complications. The pivotal moment came on 14 May, 2021, when around 200 members of the AmaZulu Royal family gathered at KwaNongoma for what supporters described as a legitimate identification meeting, chaired by the traditional prime minister, late Prince Mangosuthu Buthelezi. The meeting identified Prince Misuzulu as the successor to the throne.
President Ramaphosa officially recognised King Misuzulu on 16 March, 2022, under Section 8(3)(a) and (b) of the Traditional and Khoi-San Leadership Act, following consultations with the Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs and the Premier of KwaZulu-Natal.
King Misuzulu subsequently underwent the traditional Ukungena Esibayeni ceremony at the KwaKhangelamankengane Royal Palace in October 2022.
However, Prince Mbonisi Zulu, the king's uncle, and Prince Simakade Zulu, the late king's other son chose to challenge the recognition. On 15 December 2023, Judge Norman Davis of the High Court in Pretoria delivered a bombshell ruling, setting aside Ramaphosa's recognition of King Misuzulu. He found that the president had failed to follow due process by not appointing an investigative committee to address disputes within the royal family.
In the Supreme Court of Appeal, President Ramaphosa's legal team, led by Senior Counsel Morumo Moerane, argued that the recognition was lawful and fully compliant with the Traditional and Khoi-San Leadership Act. "The president did not elect the king; he simply confirmed the one who was already identified," Moerane told the court. "We respectfully submit that the president's recognition decision was lawful, rational, and fully compliant with the act," he added.
King Misuzulu's representatives, led by Advocate Tembeka Ngcukaitobi, emphasised that the identification process had already been validated by Acting Judge President Isaac Madondo in March
2022 – a ruling that was never appealed or set aside. "The rule of law demands an end to this matter," Ngcukaitobi insisted, arguing that the same issues cannot be relitigated indefinitely.
However, Prince Mbonisi's legal team, represented by Advocate Thabani Masuku SC, maintained that the 14 May, 2021 meeting was fundamentally flawed. "The meeting was due to serve as a mourning ritual and not a forum during which the new king should be identified," Maskuku argued. "Custom was not followed as the Royal Family was not the one to choose the new king," he contended.
Prince Simakade's representatives, led by Advocate Alan Dodson SC, argued that he is the rightful heir as the eldest son and called for a fresh identification process.
The death of Prince Mangosuthu Buthelezi in September 2023 removed a key figure who had championed King Misuzulu's succession. Buthelezi served as traditional prime minister to the Zulu royal family from 1954 until his death. He'd played a crucial role in the controversial May 2021 identification process.
The case represents more than four years of legal battles that have tested the boundaries between customary law and constitutional governance in South Africa. The outcome will likely establish important precedents for the way disputes within traditional leadership structures are resolved and the extent of state intervention in customary succession processes.
In an effort to restore unity, King Misuzulu appointed Prince Zuzifa Buthelezi as chairperson of the royal council in April 2025.
As of 1 June 2025, the Supreme Court of Appeal has provided no timeline for delivering its judgment. King Misuzulu remains on the throne pending the outcome, with his supporters expressing confidence that the court will uphold his legitimacy.
Whatever the outcome, the case has highlighted the need for clearer procedures and better integration between customary succession practices and state recognition processes in South Africa's constitutional framework.
The eventual judgment will determine not just King Misuzulu's fate, but could reshape the way traditional succession disputes are handled across South Africa's diverse cultural landscape.
by Nkateko Muloiwa
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
6 hours ago
Oscar Pistorius 'not guilty' claims: Reeva's reps respond
Reeva Steenkamp's family legal representative has responded to Oscar Pistorius's claims that he had 'no intent' to murder the model. Last week, Henke Pistorius claimed that his son was 'not guilty' of killing his girlfriend. He believes the former Paralympian was, however, responsible for manslaughter and has since accused the state of being 'incompetent' and 'liars'. Reeva was shot and killed after being mistaken for a home intruder at Oscar's Pretoria mansion. He has since served half of his 13 years and five months behind bars, and is now on parole. Last week, OscarPistorius's dad, Henke, appeared on the Piers Morgan Uncensored show, where he made bold claims about his son's murder trial. In it, he accused the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) of being 'incompetent and dishonest'. He also accused state prosecutor Gerrie Nel of 'misleading and lying to the court' Henke repeatedly claimed that Oscar had 'no intent to kill' Reeva Steenkamp. He referred to evidence of his son using just four bullets to murder Reeva Steenkamp through a toilet door. Henke also claimed that Oscar did not know that his girlfriend was in the bathroom. Oscar Pistorius – who shot and killed Reeva on 14 February 2013 – was convicted of culpable homicide in October 2014. This was later upgraded to murder in December 2015. At the time, he was handed a six-year prison sentence. However, in November 2017, following an unsuccessful appeal, the Supreme Court of Appeal increased his jail term to 13 years and five months. Oscar Pistorius's dad Henke says his son is not guilty of murder. Images via SIPHIWE SIBEKO for AFP/ YouTube screenshot: Piers Morgan Uncensored. In a statement to The South African, Tana Koen, the legal representative for Reeva Steenkamp's family, expressed her shock at Henke's claims. 'It is on record that the learned judges of the Supreme Court of Appeal found that in firing the fatal shots, the accused must have foreseen, and therefore foresaw that whoever was behind the toilet door might die. 'The judgement further stated that the contradictions were so serious that one really does not know that his explanations are for having fired the fatal shots. No similar statements were made about the state's conduct. During his interview with Piers Morgan, Henke Pistorius also challenged the former NPA prosecutor to debate him on Oscar's murder trial. Henke demanded the 'same rules as court' in his face-off with Gerrie. He said: 'I ask the questions, he can just say 'yes or no'. Let's see if he will accept that, please'. Gerrie – who now works for AfriForum's private prosecuting unit – has yet to respond. Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1 .
Daily Maverick
7 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
When we think about hunger we don't think about peace — here's why we should
Hunger isn't just about food. It's about power. It's about who gets to eat, who decides and who is heard. If we're serious about justice, then no one should be hungry. In South Africa, hunger is not just about empty stomachs, but also about unequal systems. It exists in crèches that exclude children whose parents can't pay fees, in homes where grant applications fail quietly, and in the lives of people with disabilities navigating systems that overlook their most basic needs. The student who is excluded from funding because they are considered too poor to afford university, yet not poor enough to qualify for state assistance, caught in the gap of eligibility. The woman who sits at the traffic lights with her child asking for small change or food. The problem is not that the country does not produce enough food, the problem is about who eats and who does not. Hunger is not just about food, it is about power, it is about peace, and it is deeply gendered. Women, especially Black women, carry the heaviest load in South Africa's food crisis. They cook, stretch budgets, sell in the informal economy and absorb the emotional violence of food insecurity. They go hungry so children can eat. And when food runs out, so does safety. As we've seen time and again, from the Covid lockdowns to the July KwaZulu-Natal unrest, scarcity breeds violence and is expressed against Black bodies. Despite producing enough food to feed everyone, South Africa has more than 63.5% of households facing food insecurity. We live in a country with one of the world's most progressive constitutions, in which section 27 guarantees the right to food and water. Yet every day millions go hungry. And too often we forget who exactly is being left behind. Hunger is a multidimensional crisis that undermines health through malnutrition, poor disease resistance and skipped medication. It fractures social cohesion, creating stigma, shame and desperation, worsening economic outcomes, especially for women and young people already at the margins. Women in informal settlements skip antiretrovirals because they can't take them on an empty stomach. The missing population that is not reported on include those not in employment, education or training, outside of the Not in Education, Employment or Training (Neets) active or inactive. There are people who are not in employment who are not receiving social grants and are not in the youth category, including children who are not in early childhood development, and are left without resources to access food. Despite policy interventions such as school feeding schemes, social grants and the 2023 SAHRC-led right-to-food study commissioned by the Department of Agriculture, significant structural gaps remain. Many interventions are not reaching those outside formal systems – such as children excluded from early childhood development programmes or people with disabilities navigating inaccessible services. These omissions reveal a deeper issue: our food security mechanisms are not designed with the most marginalised in mind, reinforcing cycles of invisibility and exclusion. This is not just a failure of delivery. It is a failure of vision. If we think of hunger only as a developmental or nutritional issue, we miss its full impact. Hunger is relational. It creates shame, fuels desperation and destabilises communities. We need to stop treating hunger like an economic inconvenience and start addressing it as a political and peace issue, one that is deeply gendered. The Centre for Social Justice, under the leadership of Professor Thuli Madonsela, has reframed hunger as a constitutional crisis. In the recent expert symposium I attended on 10 April in Pniel discussions rightly rooted the right to food in section 27 of the Constitution, making the case for structural change that is systems-based and a rights-driven approach to food insecurity. The research on Gendered Dimensions of Hunger and Peacebuilding by the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation and University College Dublin drives the conversation further, urging for a widened lens where food security is a catalyst for peace. Because hunger, when it intersects with gender, exclusion and poverty, becomes something even more dangerous – a disruptor of peace. A participant in the ongoing research said that in one of the dialogues they conducted a man asked: 'How do you expect me and my people to engage on peace when we are hungry?' Let's be clear: we have the policy tools, we have the research and we have the constitutional mandate. What's needed now is a shift in mindset from hunger as a welfare issue to hunger as a peace and justice imperative. When hunger intersects with gender inequality, disability and exclusion, it fuels gender-based violence, erodes trust in the state and drives protests, looting and resentment. As the UN Security Council warned in 2025, hunger isn't just a consequence of conflict. It's a cause. We must act like it. That means embedding gender, peace and inclusion into every food policy. It means tracking how hunger affects social cohesion, how it exacerbates violence, how it chips away at democratic trust. It means giving voice and space to those most affected not after the fact, but as architects of the solutions. If we are serious about building a future rooted in justice and peace, then we must start treating hunger as both a political emergency and a moral failure. This means going beyond food parcels and short-term aid. We need women-led food and peace councils that place care, equity and lived experience at the heart of decision-making. We need disability-sensitive food access tools that acknowledge the everyday barriers disabled people face in reaching nourishment. And above all, we must ensure that no child goes invisible simply because their stomach is empty outside of school hours. Hunger is not just a symptom it is a warning signal. And ignoring it now means paying the price in conflict, unrest and fractured futures. Hunger isn't just about food. It's about power. It's about who gets to eat, who decides and who is heard. If we're serious about justice, then no one should be hungry – not a mother, not a child, not a person navigating hunger with a disability. Because food justice is peace work. Because peace doesn't start in Parliament – a place where conflict should be dealt with – it starts in homes where children eat, with women who aren't forced to trade their bodies for bread, and with the ability of persons with disabilities to access food without stigma. Where food security is not a charity but a human right. So, what would it look like to build a hunger strategy rooted in gender justice and peace? We are at a turning point. With the National Food and Nutrition Security Plan (2024-29) in development, and a government of national unity on the table, the political moment is ripe. But the question remains: will we continue with business-as-usual? Or will we reimagine hunger as the crisis of dignity, justice and peace that it is? As one working at the intersection of gender, hunger, and peace, I say this: until hunger is addressed as a breach of peace and women are recognised as leaders in healing it, our democratic promises remain half-written. We don't often think of food when we talk about peace. But we must – because in every empty stomach lies a silent protest against injustice. If we want peace to flourish, it must begin with food security, dignified women and inclusive food systems. DM Naledi Joyi is a gender programme officer at the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation. Her work focuses on the intersections of gender-based violence, food systems and structural inequality. She has conducted research across rural and urban South Africa and post-conflict Liberia, exploring how violence is embedded in institutions, economies and everyday survival.
IOL News
8 hours ago
- IOL News
KZN Finance MEC highlights says municipalities are paying the price for poor national decisions
KwaZulu-Natal Finance MEC Francois Rodgers and provincial treasury's municipal finance chief director Farhad Cassimjee addressing representative of municipalities in Pietermaritzburg on Wednesday. Image: Bongani Hans KwaZulu-Natal Finance MEC Francois Rodgers, who described himself as a straight talker when it comes to money matters, has blamed the national government's 'bad policy decisions' for the suffering of the municipalities and key provincial government departments. He was addressing mayors, municipal managers, and chief financial officers of seven municipalities who attended a workshop on the implementation of the Cash Management System (CMS) in Pietermaritzburg on Wednesday. The CMS is expected to help the municipalities monitor and control the movement of money in and out of their fiscal system. He said most municipalities were not interested in their financial flow until they ran out of money to deliver services, service debts, and pay salaries. 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 ✕ Ad loading He said the Government of Provincial Unity (GPU) inherited a process of budgeting that would 'never get us out of trouble.' He said the province was facing a huge crisis in the education, health and social development, and transport departments. 'Lots of what we are facing now is not out of our own making, [but] it is because post-COVID, and by some really bad policy decisions at the national level, like paying R600 million to state-owned entities when that money could have come to our provincial and local governments. 'We now have R5.7 trillion debt and we have to pay R1.2 billion interest on that debt,' said Rodgers. He said bad policy decisions led to the government failing to save money, but instead, inequitable shares had to be cut by R70 billion over four years. He addressed the municipalities a few hours after the provincial cabinet and Premier Thami Ntuli held a meeting about the state of local governments. 'One of the issues that the premier made clear is that both Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs, and Treasury, need to ensure that we get clean audits in the entire province,' he said. Rodgers said when it came to money matters, he makes sure that 'there has to be straight talk'. 'There is no grey area when it comes to money, and if you are gonna spend money and you put politics ahead of principles, you are gonna make the wrong decisions. 'But if you put principles ahead of politics, and you implement your Municipal Finance Management Act and Public Finance Management Act, and any other legislations, then you are deciding for the right reasons,' said the DA provincial leader. He said only political will would help the municipalities to transform their pattern of expenditure and patterns of poor fiscal control.
