THE PARAMOUNT CHIEF DEBATE:
ZAMBIA NEEDS A PRINCIPLE, NOT POLITICS OR FEAR
The debate surrounding the recognition of Chief Mukuni as a Paramount Chief should not be reduced to personalities or political preferences or fear of the outcome. Instead, it should be guided by history, customary law and the traditional governance systems that existed long before Zambia attained independence.
When President Kenneth Kaunda’s government recognised Paramount Chiefs, it largely acknowledged traditional institutions that already existed (Not installing any but recognising them). These were not new creations but long-established governance systems with clear structures of authority and allegiance.
In my view, the guiding principle should remain the same today.
A Paramount Chief should not merely be the most influential or well-known chief in a region. Paramount status should be based on an existing traditional hierarchy in which other chiefs owe allegiance to a supreme traditional authority. Where such a system has existed historically, formal recognition simply acknowledges an already established institution.
This principle explains why the Chitimukulu, the Litunga, Kalonga Gawa Undi and Paramount Chief Mpezeni have long held their positions. Each presides over a recognised traditional governance system with subordinate chiefs and clearly defined customary authority.
Applying the same principle raises another question: were there omissions to particular chiefdom(s)?
One possible omission is that of Mwata Kazembe. If Mwata Kazembe exercises supreme traditional authority within Zambia and does not owe allegiance to another traditional ruler, there is a legitimate case that his institution deserves the same level of recognition as the other Paramount Chiefs. However, if his traditional authority is constitutionally or customarily subordinate to the larger Lunda kingship under Mwata Yamvo, then the case becomes more complex because paramount status would already exist within that traditional hierarchy.
The Tonga people also deserve an objective examination in this matter. If there has historically been one supreme traditional authority to whom other Tonga chiefs owe allegiance, then recognition of a Paramount Chief would merely acknowledge that existing governance structure. However, if Tonga chiefdoms have historically operated as independent authorities without one chief exercising customary authority over the others, creating a Paramount Chief would amount to establishing a new structure rather than recognising an existing one and that in itself would bring confusion and we don’t want that
The same reasoning should apply to Chief Mukuni.
The question should not simply be whether Chief Mukuni is a respected traditional leader. The real question is whether the Bena Mukuni traditional system has historically functioned as a paramount authority with other chiefs owing allegiance to it. If such a hierarchy exists, then recognition may simply formalise an existing institution with easy. If it does not, then the title risks becoming largely ceremonial because customary authority cannot be created by government decree alone.
It is also important to distinguish between the Bena Mukuni royal establishment and the wider Tonga people. They are not necessarily the same. If the Bena Mukuni possess their own distinct traditional governance hierarchy, then any claim should be assessed on that basis rather than as a claim on behalf of all Tonga-speaking peoples.
Concerns raised by the four existing Paramount Chiefs in Zambia should not be dismissed either. They are right to caution against creating precedents that could encourage every chiefdom to seek paramount status. However, that concern should not prevent genuine historical omissions from being corrected where evidence supports them. Therefore, no fear should grip our existing Paramount Chiefs.
The good example for the other line of thought is of the Ngoni who demonstrate that traditional authority can exist peacefully across modern international borders. Zambia has Paramount Chief Mpezeni while Malawi has Paramount Chief Mbelwa. Neither diminishes the authority of the other because each heads a recognised traditional polity within its respective country.
Ultimately, Zambia does not need more or fewer Paramount Chiefs. Zambia needs one consistent principle and that is, if a Chief does not pay homage to any other in the region but everyone of Chiefs in that region do pay homage to him and there’s no other Paramounce in another country for that tribe then why not being installed as Paramount?
Additionally, the courts do not install the Paramounce on a Chief but the state does through the sitting President. If the facts I have given can lead to installing more Paramount Chiefs then it should not be one chief only but three and these would come from The Bena Mukuni, The Tongas and the Lundas of Mwata Kazembe in Luapula. The rest of the chiefs in Zambia cannot just wake up today and ask to be installed as Paramount Chiefs as it is feared because the state will ask them a question as to why and for what? Because they already have where they pay their tribute or homage.
Therefore, if ever the President decides after proven facts that out of these Chiefs I have mentioned can be installed as Paramount Chiefs then the existing Paramount Chiefs we have should not worry of the revolt or a Pandora’s box to being opened, no. If any, they would only come from the ones I have listed for the perceived ommission by the state during post-independence and that should not worry our existing Paramount Chiefs, they are safe.
Otherwise, other Chiefs will forever remain Senior Chiefs in Zambia especially those from the North-Western because of cultural conflicts e.g. between the Luvales and the Lundas and all of them have their Paramount Chief or King in the Mwata Yamvwa, so that is a “no go area” as by nature whoever is installed as Paramount Chief from that region should have all the chiefs under him and that is non-starter for the Kaondes or Lundas and Luvales not forgeting to mention the Chokwes, the Mbundas, Luchazis who have their authority in either Congo or Angola. Anyways!
Where there is an established customary hierarchy with subordinate chiefs owing allegiance to a supreme traditional authority, the State should recognise it. Where no such hierarchy exists, paramount status should not be created merely for political convenience or regional balance.
The Voice of Reasoning.