REFLECTIONS ON HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS CHIEF MUKUNI PROSPECTIVE ENTHRONMENT AS PARAMOUNT CHIEF
==================
His Royal Majesty Chief Mukuni (Munokalya Mupotola IV Siloka III, the 19th ruler of the Leya people), acceded to the chieftaincy in 1986. He leads the Toka-Leya people from the historic Mukuni Village near Victoria Falls.
Nine years ago, HRH Chief Mukuni and Chief Hamusonde of Bweengwa in Monze District, made a surprise visit to Kitwe, specifically to thank me for my role in the mediation of the release of President Hakainde Hichilema from Mukobeko Prison.
The two royal highnesses was accompanied by Chief Mukuni’s wife, Queen Consort Veronica Mukuni, traditionally referred to as Ina’nkwazi.
It was humbling to receive the royals at my small office. Since then, we established a very warm relationship.
In the recent past, I saw a petition filed before the Constitutional Court by the Mukuni Royal Dynasty Committee on behalf of Chief Mukuni (Munokalya Mupotola IV Siloka III Mukuni XIX).
The petitioner, Hon Jonas Shakafuswa is seeking several specific constitutional and administrative reliefs among them adeclaration that the continued government classification of Chief Mukuni as an ordinary chief is unconstitutional and inconsistent with Articles 1, 165, 166, 167, and 266 of the Constitution of Zambia.
Secondly, Hon Shakafuswa is seeking elevation of HRH Chief Mukuni to Paramount Status. He seeks official classification and recognition of Chief Mukuni as a Paramount Chief / Paramount Ruler over the Bene Mukuni kingdom, in recognition of the culture, customs, and historic multi-provincial presence of the dynasty.
Thirdly, Hon Shakafuswa wants HRH Chief Mukuni to be entitled to State privileges. This entails granting him all associated benefits, protocol, emoluments, elevated security detail, and support staff fitting the status of a Paramount Chief.
Fourth, Hon Shakafuswa is seeking formal confirmation of powers, capacities, and traditional authority entitled to Paramountcy, including administrative oversight within his domain.
King of Barotseland (Lozi People) His Majesty Litunga Lubosi Imwiko II, Paramount Chief Kalonga Gawa Undi of the Chewa empire spanning Zambia, Malawi, and Mwinelubemba / Paramount Chief Chitimukulu Kanyanta Manga II, applied to join the Concourt action. However, the applications were all dismissed on pedantic grounds.
However, my considered view is that the court should have allowed the three royal highnesses to join the proceedings. I think that the court would have benefitted from the trio rich customary knowledge. They pissess unequalled chiefdom and chieftaincy history in our country since the 1700s.
It is now a pity that the case will be determined purely on basis of the Constitution of Zambia Amendment 2016.
Under Article 128 of the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Act No. 2 of 2016, the Constitutional Court holds exclusive jurisdiction over constitutional interpretation, determining whether an act or omission by the state is unconstitutional, and determining whether a written law or statutory classification breaches constitutional provisions.
Summary of Jurisdictional Scope:
1. Declaration of Unconstitutionality (Has Jurisdiction):
The Court possesses full jurisdiction to determine whether the state’s continued statutory gazetting, classification, or administrative treatment of Chief Mukuni as an ordinary chief violates Articles 1, 165, 166, 167, and 266 of the Constitution. The Court can declare statutory provisions or state practices that infringe on traditional institutions unconstitutional and void (as established in Mwene Mutondo v. Attorney General).
2. Formal Recognition & Conferment of Paramount Status (Lacks Jurisdiction):
The Court lacks the jurisdiction or mandate to directly confer, create, or formally reclassify a paramount chief. Article 165(1) explicitly guarantees that chieftaincies and traditional structures exist strictly in accordance with the culture, customs, and traditions of the people. Furthermore, Article 165(2)(a) prohibits state authorities (including Parliament or executive bodies) from recognizing or withdrawing recognition from chiefs. Determining who holds paramount status is a purely customary and traditional matter, not an administrative or judicial appointment.
3. Jurisdictional & Traditional Powers over Subordinate Chiefs (Lacks Jurisdiction):
The Court lacks original jurisdiction to declare or define traditional hierarchical authority or customary jurisdiction between chiefs. Issues concerning customary boundaries, hierarchy, or traditional oversight fall under customary law and traditional councils, or under the dispute resolution mechanisms established by traditional leadership frameworks, rather than direct original determination by the Constitutional Court.
4. Entitlement to Entourage & Security (Conditional Jurisdiction):
The Court has partial jurisdiction to declare whether a traditional leader is entitled to administrative protocols and emoluments provided under written law or constitutional guarantees. However, directly ordering specific operational security details or enhanced protocols goes beyond pure constitutional redress into executive/administrative discretion.
5. The Distinction:
The Constitutional Court can rule that state actions or statutory classifications unconstitutionally interfere with or fail to respect traditional institutions under Article 165. However, it cannot sit as a customary authority to confer or create paramount status, as doing so would violate the very constitutional principle that chieftaincy is derived solely from customary tradition, not judicial or state decree.
Like the ECL eligibility case, will this be another judicial decision made per incuriam? Time will tell!
By Peter Sinkamba