The succession battle within the royal family of South Africa’s 11-million-strong Zulu nation kicked into high gear this month. After a reign that lasted half a century, King Goodwill Zwelithini kaBhekuzulu died March 12. The king, or Ingonyama, chose one of his six queens, Queen Shiyiwe Mantfombi Dlamini-Zulu, as his regent.
This smooth transition of power was upended after Queen Mantfombi died April 29, which precipitated a succession battle. Multiple branches of the royal family have laid claim to the throne, alleging the illegitimacy of the king’s heirs and lodging accusations of forged wills and poisoning attempts. This isn’t just royal family drama — here’s what’s at stake.
In post-apartheid South Africa, traditional authorities hold local power and national influence. In the South African province of KwaZulu Natal, Zwelithini’s successor will have control over 2.8 million hectares of land where 5.2 million people live and hold rights to land through the Ingonyama Trust.
Research from the Land and Accountability Research Centre at the University of Cape Town suggests that existing traditional leaders have expanded their powers and profits in a manner that is unaccountable to the people they claim to represent. The African National Congress (ANC), South Africa’s ruling party, has been all too amenable to these efforts by passing laws that undercut customary and constitutional processes of holding traditional leaders accountable.
The late queen named her son, Prince Misuzulu Zulu kaZwelithini, as the next Zulu monarch in her will. Yet family members questioned his appointment at the formal announcement. Other claimants to the late king’s estate include Misuzulu’s brothers. The late king’s first wife, Queen Sibongile Dlamini, legally challenged the king’s other marriages and asked for half of his estate. In separate case, two of her daughters want to block Misuzulu’s coronation, alleging the will was forged.
What powers do traditional authorities have?
The apartheid state that ruled from 1948 to 1994 incorporated many African traditional leaders into governance structures, giving them largely unaccountable powers. The ANC has always had a tentative relationship with these rulers, but it struck a series of deals with traditional authorities to ensure a peaceful transition to democracy in 1994. Dealmaking was especially prominent in KwaZulu Natal, where there was violence between the ANC and the apartheid government-sponsored Zulu nationalist Inkatha Freedom Party.
To calm the conflict and ensure a smooth transition to the post-apartheid era, the apartheid state granted the Ingonyama sole trusteeship of the land that made up the Zulu communal areas through the Ingonyama Trust. The newly elected ANC government later confirmed these powers. This means the Zulu king controls the land on behalf of the rural Zulu residents of KwaZulu Natal who live on this land, a degree of power that other traditional leaders in South Africa do not have.
South Africa’s ruling party is going after corrupt leaders. That’s only half the problem.
Since 1994, South Africa’s democratic government has pursued policies to boost the power of traditional authorities over land, local politics and legal disputes. Much of this occurred under former South African president Jacob Zuma, who relied on traditional authorities for electoral support. Analysts believe the current administration’s new Traditional Courts Bill and the Traditional and Khoi San Leadership Act could further entrench the power of certain traditional authorities at the expense of rural people, especially women.
Most rural individuals and communities hold rights to land in terms of long-standing customs that vary between and within groups, which South Africa’s Constitutional Court has referred to as “living” or evolving and dynamic, customary law. Depending on the applicable system of customary law traditional leaders can play an important role in facilitating the operation of customary rights to land — rights that South Africa’s Constitution protects alongside additional legislation meant to safeguard customary and informal land rights. Unfortunately, these safeguards are ignored and many of the government’s attempts to properly recognize and protect these rights have relied too heavily on a top-down approach that undermines tenure security.
Rural residents risk losing their customary land rights
Rights to land held by rural individuals and communities remain incredibly vulnerable and no illustration of this is starker than on land controlled by the Trust. After 2007, the Ingonyama Trust converted many people’s customary or informal ownership rights over the Trust land into lease agreements, which is generally a weaker type of right. The Trust has largely stopped providing other forms of tenure security to many of South Africa’s poorest people who live on the land and has even been raising rents. Many poor Zulu residents of KwaZulu Natal — especially women — have been evicted, or fear eviction. While the Trust has claimed that lease agreements strengthen the rights of the people living on Trust land, in reality, these people now pay rent to live on land that they already own under customary law.
Don’t miss any of TMC’s smart analysis! Sign up here for our newsletter.
These leases generate considerable revenue for the Trust — an estimated $12.3 million in the 2020 financial year. But the Trust is under increasing scrutiny as it has been unable or has refused to account for many itemized expenditures from this revenue. There’s little evidence that this income helps the Trust’s intended beneficiaries — the Zulu people. Last year, a group of rural landholders challenged the legality of converting customary land rights to leaseholds; the final judgment in the case is still pending.
The succession will shape South Africa’s land debates
Although the palace intrigue in this succession dispute captures the international spotlight, for the many rural communities that live on land the Trust controls, the more critical issue is the Zulu monarch’s power over land. While there have been serious calls to dissolve the Trust, new legislation and continued government inaction in holding the Ingonyama Trust to account could grow the revenue of future Ingonyamas at the expense of poor and vulnerable rural communities.
In a recent parliamentary session, the chair of a parliamentary committee pressed the CEO of the Ingonyama Trust Board on who exactly controls land: the incoming monarch, local traditional leaders or the people who own land? While the CEO vacillated in the meeting, it is clear that the new monarch will have sway over the futures and livelihoods of many rural Zulu people.
Professors: Check out TMC’s expanding list of classroom topic guides.
Janet Bellamy is a senior research associate at the Land and Accountability Research Centre (@LarcUCT) at the University of Cape Town.
Sithembiso Gumbi is a senior research associate at the Land and Accountability Research Centre (@LarcUCT) at the University of Cape Town.
Alex Dyzenhaus (@dyzenhaus) is a PhD candidate in government at Cornell University.