Long Live The King: The Problematic Nature of Davis J's Judgment in the case of Prince Mbonisi Bekithemba kaBhekuzulu v President of the Republic of South Africa

The Problematic Nature of Davis J's Judgment in the case of Prince Mbonisi Bekithemba kaBhekuzulu v President of the Republic of South Africa

Abstract

Shaka kaSenzangakhona and Dingane kaSenzangakhona would have never imagined that today their descendants would engage in judicial warfare over the throne. This article analyses the cases Zulu v Mathe and Prince Mbonisi Bekithemba kaBhekuzulu v the President of the Republic of South Africa. I take the view that Prince Misuzulu (as he then was) is the rightful king of the AmaZulu. It would rather be unjust to change that position based on some procedural irregularity when prospects show even in the presence of the procedure contemplated in S 8(4) and (5) of the Traditional Leadership and Khoi-san Act he would still be King. The role played by the court in Zulu v Mathe was that of an investigative committee contemplated in the Leadership Act. As such this is the exception to such a process being mandatory. In a hypothetical situation in which Prince Simakade is a contender to the throne, he falls short due to his mother being a spinster. The equality argument is not sufficient to change his position. As such prospects of invalidating King Misuzulu’s claim to the throne seem quite low.

Keywords: Kingship, Heir, Constitution, Zulu customary law, judicial warfare, the doctrine of finality, Traditional Leadership and Khoisan Act, investigative committee.