Princess not considered for traditional throne - because of being a woman

18 April 2019 · Carmel Rickard

For all its constitutional commitment to the equality of women, South Africa still experiences difficulties when it comes to matters of traditional leadership. That’s because these are often resolved at the local level in a way that assumes women are ineligible for traditional leadership roles. Take for example the question of who should fill the vacant Vhavenda throne. The Supreme Court of Appeal was asked to decide whether the traditional council acted in a way that promotes gender discrimination and, in answering that question, the court has now given a potentially far-reaching judgment.

Read judgment

When the traditional mechanisms to fill the Vhavenda throne began work, no-one seems to have given much thought to whether Princess Masindi Clementine Mphephu might be the right person to occupy the position.

At the end of the process, involving the Mphephu-Ramabulana Royal Family Council and others, the SA President officially recognized someone else - Regent Toni Peter Mphephu-Ramabulana, half-brother to the deceased king and uncle of Princess Mphephu. And in September 2012 that recognition was published in the Government Gazette.

Three months later Princess Mphephu went to court to argue that the decision ought to be reviewed and set aside. One of her chief points is a claim that she should have been considered for the throne, but was overlooked because of her gender.

At the start of that case, both sides raised preliminary points, some of which the high court upheld and some of which it dismissed. But the final result in that court was that her application to have Regent Toni Peter Mphephu-Ramabulana’s “identification and recognition” as the King of Vhavenda, set aside was dismissed. So was her application for leave to appeal.

But she was determined that her claim that she was not considered just because she was a woman should be heard by a higher court. For that reason, she brought an application for his coronation and installation to be stopped pending her further legal action in the matter. Successful in putting his installation on hold, she has now won a further round in her dispute.

The background to her claim to be considered is this: her father was the king and his half-brother, Regent Toni, was his official advisor. When the king died in an accident, the half-brother was recognized as the correct person to take over the throne.

The dispute is extremely complicated in terms of the applicable legal framework and the consultations with traditional councils and families that must precede any formal recognition, as well as more arcane matters of custom among other issues. But though the high court held that the matter of her challenge was closed, the Supreme Court of Appeal had other views.

Now that court, in its new decision on the case, has made a number of significant findings and has referred the matter back to the traditional authorities and to the high court for reconsideration.

Of particular interest for anyone concerned about whether women are treated equally in qustions of inheriting traditional leadership positions, are the minutes of a meeting of the royal family in the Vhavenda dispute. Quoted by the appeal court, these minutes record an official explanation of the criteria necessary to ascend the throne. Throughout that explanation of the qualifying characteristics, the potential new leader was referred to as “he”. “He should be from the royal family”; “he should not have criminal records”; “he should be a good leader”. “In the Mphephu-Ramabulana family in particular the chief or king must come or must be a man (sons).”

In the view of the appeal court, this first meeting to identify someone to ascend to the throne thus effectively declared that only men would qualify and that Princess Mphephu “and any other woman who may meet the other criteria to succeed as queen in the Mphephu-Ramabulana Royal Family, would be disqualified by her gender.”

Normally a criterion such as this, clearly promoting gender discrimination, would be set aside and declared unconstitutional. However, said the appeal court, the Constitutional Court and the legislature preferred a different approach: traditional authorities should themselves develop the rules affecting their communities, while the courts should use their powers in a way that “will empower the community itself to continue the development”.

The law under which a new ruler would be identified and recognized says that customary law in relation to “kingship or queenship” must be transformed and adapted to comply with the constitution by way of preventing unfair discrimination, promoting equality and “seeking to progressively advance gender representation in the succession to traditional leadership positions”.

The royal council’s view that only men should fill the Mphephu-Ramabulana throne of the Vhavenda, impeded the development that the constitution required. “The Vhavenda traditional communities have an obligation to develop the criteria for identification of a king or queen to bring (these criteria) in line with the Bill of Rights,” said the court.

In the view of the appeal court, the matter ought to go back to a differently constituted high court, for it to hear evidence on a number of contentious issues before the matter could be finally resolved. The question of how traditional customs should be developed to allow women to contend for a throne is just one of these.

Legally speaking, the appeal was successful, with the identification and recognition of the regent reviewed and set aside, and the unconstitutional approach via gender exclusion identified, but other points of dispute were still far from resolved. For this reason, the appeal court held it would be premature to decide a final outcome at this stage. All the outstanding issues it had identified should still be considered by the high court and they should be resolved before the start of the next process to identify someone to take the throne.

The appeal court said that the specialist bodies meant to advise the authorities on technical issues related to traditional leadership should consider the questions it (the appeal court) had identified and give its views and guidance to the high court when the matter returned to that forum.

Though the judgment is filled with legal technicalities, for Princess Mphephu it represents a way forward. The matter is so important, she says, that she will take her dispute all the way to the Constitutional Court if necessary.

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.