Cyril Ramaphosa again under scrutiny in battle over Zulu throne

President Cyril Ramaphosa’s decision to certify king Misuzulu ka Zwelithini to the AmaZulu throne came under scrutiny for the second day in the Pretoria high court.

The king’s half-brother Prince Simakade ka Zwelithini Zulu and other members of the royal family want the decision reconsidered as various factions vie for the throne.

According to Simakade, Ramaphosa’s decision to certify Misuzulu was unlawful because the processes that led to identifying the successor to the throne were unlawful. The previous king, Goodwill Zwelithini, died in 2021.

Simakande argues he should be the successor and there are other court disputes concerning factions within the royal family that must be adjudicated first.

Aside from Misuzulu, the president and co-operative governance and traditional affairs minister Thembi Nkadimeng are opposing.

Challenging Misuzulu’s claim is Prince Mbonisi Zulu, the late king Goodwill’s brother.

The late Mangosuthu Buthelezi announced Misuzulu as Goodwill’s successor, but Ramaphosa was not obliged to certify that, say the princes.

Mbonisi’s advocate, Thabani Masuku, told judge Norman Davis that “the moment there is a dispute ... or allegation” regarding succession, that is all that was needed before Ramaphosa’s obligation “kicked in” to certify the nominated person.

Masuku faced mutterings from supporters in the court gallery when he told the court Misuzulu was “not representing the royal family, he’s representing himself”.

Simakade’s advocate, Alan Dodson, noted that Buthelezi chaired a 2021 meeting of the royal family that identified Misuzulu as the new king. Dodson noted there are usually “criteria” outlined for a successor’s identification, but here Misuzulu was already spoken of as the new king. This means the decision to identify Misuzulu was “prejudged”. There were also “important people missing from that meeting”.

This relates to the challenge to Ramaphosa because, says Dodson, he had an obligation “to check” the validity of that 2021 meeting.

Such meetings are governed by customary law and legislation, said Dodson. If a meeting is not made up of the proper number of members according to law, then anything that flows from the meeting can be set aside. Therefore, Ramaphosa’s decision to certify Misuzulu, whose identification arose as a result of this meeting, must also be set aside, Dodson argued.

Simakade and Mbonisi noted there were many other court cases involving the royal family’s contestations that should also have been noted, including one that alleged the will was forged.

Ramaphosa and the minister’s advocate, Marumo Moerane, on Tuesday argued these judgments were either dismissed or on appeal.

Ramaphosa, in certifying Misuzulu, relied on one of these judgments from the Pietermaritzburg high court in 2022. It dismissed a challenge to Misuzulu being crowned. Ramaphosa was “entitled ... if not obliged to rely” on the judgment’s findings, which effectively gave the “green light” for Misuzulu to be crowned.

Moerane said allegations about succession, which could have stopped Ramaphosa’s certification, apply only if there is an allegation regarding the procedure in identifying a successor. It does not apply when there is a dispute about the preferred person.

Cedric Puckrin for Misuzulu argued that the remedies sought by Simakade and Mbonisi are “bound to [lead to] further court applications”.

Puckrin said the case to review the president’s decision can happen only if Simakade and Mbonisi can show the identification of Misuzulu was irregular. But this was not the case, argued Puckrin, as there is a binding Pietermaritzburg high court finding that the process was done properly.

Puckrin also said there is “absolutely no authority” for the view that there are a number of heirs who are chosen. He cited the Buthelezi as saying “Zulu kings are born, not elected”. The royal family “identifies” the successor, it does not elect, and that is done “ritualistically”.

The matter continues.

moosat@businesslive.co.za