Too many heirs to this traditional Zambian throne

22 February 2019 · Carmel Rickard

ZAMBIA’S courts have been wrestling with how to resolve a dispute over a “novel situation”: too many contenders to the throne of Chief Kapijimanga, leader of the country’s Kaonde people. The high court proposed an unusual remedy for this dilemma, namely that all subjects should be involved in considering the way forward. But this apparently democratizing approach was overturned on appeal with the supreme court finding that the electoral college of royal family members traditionally made such decisions – not their “subjects”.

Read the judgment here

BY tradition, for a year after the death in 2008 of Ostralia Katuka, Chief Kapijimpanga IV, no new leader was installed over Zambia’s Kaonde people of NorthWestern Province. But behind the scenes a number of family groups engaged Sandangombe, the “kingmaker”, to discuss who they thought should succeed to the throne.

When it was time to choose the heir to the throne, there were just too many contenders. Claiming there was no agreement on the way forward, one candidate applied to the courts for help in resolving the customary law issues related to succession.

Opa Kapijimpanga, who brought the case, said he was the rightful heir. He contended that Kilolo Ng’ambi, against whom the application had been brought, and who was purporting to be the current Chief Kapijimpanga, was not properly installed according to traditional processes.

According to Kapijimpanga, the traditional process involved consensus by all contending families. Once chosen, the name of the successful candidate was submitted to Sandangombe, the "kingmaker'', who then made the final decision.

On the appointed day, the chosen successor was supposed to be "caught", kept overnight in a special lodge and then installed on the instruction of Sandangombe, a process followed since Chief Kapijimpanga I.

Kapijimpanga said he was duly “caught” by Sandangombe’s men and was then confined in the traditional shelter where he spent the night expecting the customary process to follow. But when he was brought out the next morning, confusion and violence erupted. According to Kapijimpanga this was orchestrated by one of the royal families who threatened Sandangombe, and the senior chief then appointed Ng’ambi as the new Chief Kapijimpanga.

Ng’ambi’s version, however, was that it was against custom and tradition for Sandangombe to arrange the new leader’s “capture”. In terms of proper customs he, Ng’ambi, had been “caught” on the second day of the installation process and confined overnight but when he emerged on the third day the atmosphere was tense.

The families of the many contestants – he said there were six – were then called to explain their family lineage. The council of chiefs decided that the royal families should choose one from the six candidates, but they could not reach agreement. Then the families selected three representatives for each family and these 18 people were then to decide on a candidate. This also failed.

Finally, the royal families mandated the senior chief, along with the other chiefs, to announce the new leader. All the families also accepted to be bound by the chiefs’ announcement. When the chiefs returned, the name they announced was his own. Ng’ambi said that he was then declared and installed by the senior chief according to the Kaonde traditional process.

Faced with this complex dispute, the high court judge said the main issue for her to decide was whether Kapijimpanga had been properly installed.

In her view, the responsibility for selecting a chief belonged with the royal family and it was these family members, rather than Sandangombe, who were the kingmakers. She also noted that, for the first time, members of the royal family could not agree on the person who was to be crowned. This stalemate triggered confusion and violence on what was meant to be the day of installation. In other words, the traditional way of deciding who should be the next leader appeared to be inadequate for the situation that had developed.

She concluded that the senior chief had not acted in accordance with custom and tradition in selecting a successor to this throne. Though Ng’ambi was eligible in terms of his lineage, she nullified his selection because the whole process was so marred by wrangles and confusion.

She then decided that the “novel problem” of so many candidates should be put to “all stakeholders” for a solution. It could not be “left to one person” but that everyone, including the subjects of the chiefdom, should be involved in finding an acceptable way forward. She gave them 90 days to resolve the situation, work out how to address the present situation, and decide what to do in the future if so many candidates again presented themselves.

Ng’ambi then appealed, saying it was not true that tradition had been inadequate to resolving the situation. Moreover, it was “wrong to ask the community to evolve a new system”.

Chief Justice Irene Mambilima, with Judges Mumba Malila and Michael Musonda, heard the appeal.

According to Ng’ambi, the high court should not have substituted its own opinion about what was the fair way to resolve the dispute. Subjecting the selection of the chief to “all the subjects” of the chiefdom was contrary to Kaonde tradition which restricts the selection to royal families.

The appeal judges agreed. The records “conclusively established” that under Kaonde custom, the electoral college comprised the royal families and not the entire community of subjects. It was thus a misdirection for the court to have directed that the community should be represented in coming up with a formula for finding a new chief.

In any case, the royal families had actually worked out a way to make a choice, with Ng’ambi announced the new leader.

Having overturned the high court’s findings, the supreme court declared that Ng’ambi was properly appointed and installed as Chief Kapijimpanga V, and costs in both courts were awarded against Kapijimpanga.

Carmel Rickard

About the author

Recent articles by Carmel Rickard

‘No justification for the unjustifiable’: Lesotho’s ombud slams grand-scale torture, assault in Maseru prison

22 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Lesotho’s national ombud, Tlotliso Angelina Polaki, has issued a scathing report on massive-scale torture and assaults that took place in Maseru’s central correctional institution during December 2023, leaving about 95% of the inmates of the prison injured, one dead and one who is now wheelchair-bound and will never walk again.

Major court decision on image rights benefits Ugandan soccer players

21 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Members of Uganda’s national soccer team from the period around 2007/8 have just been awarded a payout against MTN Uganda by the commercial court. The telecom giant had a year-long contract with Proline, the players’ originating development soccer club, allowing it to use the players’ images for advertising. But MTN had continued to use their images even after that contract expired on the basis that it had a sponsorship agreement with Fufa, soccer’s governing body in Uganda. The players then challenged MTN in court, through Proline, and have now won a significant damages award. But the judgment exposed some serious flaws in the way that Fufa has approached the question of using the image rights of its senior players, and the court commented that this is a ‘case study’ for why Fufa needs to sort out its contractual arrangements with senior players.

Executive interference in Ugandan court decisions continues – this time by the justice minister

21 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Uganda’s minister of justice, Norbert Mao, has taken a leaf straight from the book of the country’s president, Yoweri Museveni. This week, the minister wrote to the principal judge of the Ugandan high court, asking that the judge directly intervene in a matter that has been brought to his attention by an MP on behalf of a constituent. Mao asked for the ‘immediate administrative intervention’ in the matter by the principal judge. Earlier this year, Museveni wrote a similar letter to the chief justice of Uganda, also requesting intervention in a matter, and the CJ later indicated that this was not the first time it had happened.

Is rape by family members treated too lightly by the law?

19 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

The high court has sent the case of a Malawian teenager, charged with raping his 89-year-old grandmother, back to the magistrate’s court for a possible re-trial because the court had wrongly prosecuted a case of rape instead of incest. If convicted in a re-trial, however, Malawi’s incest law could see the accused sentenced to a mere five years. Malawi’s penal code provides for a significant difference between the sentence to be imposed when a man rapes a close family member, and in a case where the two are not related. When they are unrelated, the code provides that a rape offender ‘shall be liable to be punished with death or with imprisonment for life’ (However, Malawi has had what amounts to a moratorium on carrying out the death penalty since 1992.) By contrast, ‘incest by males’, is categorised in the code as a ‘felony’, and anyone convicted ‘shall be liable for imprisonment for five years’. There is an exception: if it is proved ‘that the female person is under the age of 16, the offender shall be liable to imprisonment for life’.

Prominent SA advocates lose battle over conviction in Namibian courts for working without a permit, misleading immigration officials

6 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Two prominent South African advocates have just lost their last hope of squashing their convictions in the Namibian courts. Johannesburg advocates, Mike Hellens SC and Dawie Joubert SC, had been found guilty on two counts, first, working as legal practitioners without an employment permit, and second, giving false or misleading information to immigration officers when they entered the country in 2019. Though they had gone to Namibia to appear in court in a bail application, they told the immigration officials they were there for a ‘visit’ and for a ‘meeting’. Both appealed against their conviction but they had also asked for a judicial review of the decision. In the high court they lost their appeal but won on the review. The outcome in both matters were taken to the apex supreme court for a final word. In December 2023, they lost their appeal at the supreme court. What would that same court say when the state appealed against the review finding? The supreme court has now given its answer: it found the review, that had favoured Hellens and Joubert, was wrongly decided, and set it aside, awarding costs against the two advocates in both the high court and the supreme court.