Supreme Court of Appeal hears challenge on King Misuzulu's legitimacy, not his recognition

The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) is currently deliberating on a highly charged legal challenge regarding the recognition of King Misuzulu kaZwelithini as the King of the Zulu Nation.

As President Cyril Ramaphosa seeks to overturn a 2023 Gauteng High Court ruling that deemed his acknowledgment of the king as unlawful, the focus of the appeal has shifted from the legitimacy of King Misuzulu himself to the legality of the recognition process employed by the president.

Advocate Morumo Moerane SC, representing Ramaphosa, laid out the case for the defence, asserting that the process leading to King Misuzulu's recognition was firmly rooted in Zulu customary law.

“The president has the right to recognise the king if the royal family has already identified him according to customary law,” Moerane argued before the court. The core question was not whether King Misuzulu was suitable for the throne, but whether the president's actions in confirming his ascendance were within legal boundaries.

During a pivotal meeting on May 14, 2021, attended by members of the Zulu royal family, King Misuzulu was identified as the next king.

Moerane emphasised that this identification adhered to customary protocols. However, the legitimacy of this meeting has been challenged by King Misuzulu's uncle, Prince Mbonisi, and his brother, Prince Simakade. They claimed that the meeting lacked the necessary representation, as certain family members were absent.

Judge Norman Davis of the Gauteng High Court had previously ruled that Ramaphosa's decision to issue a certificate of recognition for King Misuzulu was unlawful and invalid.

He based this decision on Ramaphosa's failure to follow due process as defined by the Traditional and Khoi-San Leadership Act, particularly regarding the necessity to initiate an investigative committee upon the emergence of a dispute over the throne between King Misuzulu and Prince Simakade.

Despite this ruling, it was established that King Misuzulu remained in the position of King, as reaffirmed by Acting KwaZulu Natal Judge President Isaac Madondo in an earlier ruling.

The court found itself navigating a labyrinth of conflicting claims to legitimacy, as both sides presented their arguments before the judicial panel.

Moerane, alongside advocate Tembeka Ngcukaitobi—representing King Misuzulu—contended that Davis's findings were flawed. “The president did not elect the king; he simply confirmed the one who was already identified,” stated Moerane.

Ngcukaitobi reinforced this position by insisting that the identification was borne out of a lawfully convened meeting that complied with customary law. “The rule of law demands an end to this matter,” he asserted, emphasising that many of the legal disputes had already been addressed in previous litigation.

The contrasting arguments presented on behalf of Prince Mbonisi and Prince Simakade called into question their motives.

They insisted that their right to identify an heir was non-negotiable, expressing dissatisfaction that the process didn't fall under their purview.

This led Justice Dumisani Zondi to challenge their stance, questioning how the royal family could pursue legal action without naming a preferred candidate for the throne. “If you recognise King Misuzulu, then this whole exercise would be futile,” he noted, suggesting a resolution might be more complex than anticipated.

The royal family's reluctance to have their internal matters dissected in court adds an additional layer of complexity.

They insisted that they only wanted to identify their next king while maintaining that the president overstepped his boundaries by recognising King Misuzulu without proper consultation with the family.

DAILY NEWS