SCA reserves judgment in Zulu king recognition case
The SCA has reserved judgment in the appeal by President Cyril Ramaphosa against the High Court ruling that set aside the President's recognition of King Misuzulu kaZwelithini as king of the Zulu nation.
The Mercury reports the court is also due to rule at a later stage regarding a cross-appeal by Prince Mbonisi and the king's brother, Prince Simakade, in which they said the High Court should have set aside the identification of Misuzulu as the new Zulu king.
Advocate Thabani Masuku SC – 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 Misuzulu as king.
The court was told that the meeting held in May 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 mourning ritual and not a forum during which the new king should be identified. It was argued that some of the most senior members of the royal house were absent.
Masuku argued that Buthelezi then decided to turn the mourning ritual into an identification process to identify the new king.
According to The Mercury, 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 have also consulted the KZN Premier and the Co-operative Governance & Traditional Affairs Minister before he announced Misuzulu as king.
The court was told that the matter should be referred back to the royal family to do what should have been done.
Advocate Alan Dodson SC, during his cross appeal, argued that Judge Norman Davis was correct in referring the matter for an investigation.
However, he said the issues should be determined afresh, adding that the matter should not be referred back to the royal family, as it would just advance more disputes.
Article disclaimer: While we have made every effort to ensure the accuracy of this article, it is not intended to provide final legal advice as facts and situations will differ from case to case, and therefore specific legal advice should be sought with a lawyer.
