The Mugabe family has finally won a legal battle against a Zvimba Chief over the former president’s remains.
Zimbabwe’s late long-time ruler, Robert Mugabe’s family, continues to grapple with legal challenges surrounding his final resting place. Mugabe, who passed away in 2019, was buried at his rural homestead in Kutama village, reportedly to safeguard his grave from potential exhumation.
His children—Bona, Tinotenda, and Chatunga—recently secured a significant legal victory not to have his remains exhumed.
Legal Proceedings Surrounding the Grave
A local traditional leader, Headman Tinos Manongovere, had sought a court order to inspect the gravesite as part of efforts to argue for the exhumation of Mugabe’s remains.
However, Magistrate Kudzanai Mahaso dismissed the application, siding with Mugabe’s children. This ruling marked a significant milestone in the ongoing dispute, drawing national and international attention.
Manongovere argued that Mugabe’s burial inside his homestead contravened Zvimba cultural traditions. He contended that an inspection in loco, a legal process involving on-site visits to gather evidence, was essential to resolve the factual disagreement over whether Mugabe was buried inside a house or in compliance with cultural norms.
Objections Raised by Mugabe’s Children
The late leader’s children opposed the inspection, arguing that Manongovere’s application was procedurally flawed. They pointed out that the headman failed to submit an adequately commissioned affidavit to substantiate his claims. Magistrate Mahaso concurred, emphasizing the importance of a sworn statement to outline the case’s foundation.
Key Findings from the Court Ruling
Magistrate Mahaso highlighted several critical issues in his ruling:
- The absence of a founding affidavit was deemed a critical procedural error, rendering the application defective.
- An inspection in loco is not an automatic right but a matter left to the court’s discretion.
- Previous inspections conducted in this case were limited to public sites, such as the National Heroes Acre, and did not involve private property.
Respecting Privacy and Property Rights
One of the pivotal arguments in the case revolved around property rights. The court noted that inspecting a private residence without consent would constitute trespassing. Magistrate Mahaso underlined the constitutional right to privacy, which protects individuals from unlawful interference with their homes or personal spaces.
He further stated that alternative methods, such as witness testimonies, could resolve disputes without infringing on property rights or privacy.