Zimpapers Logo

Minister Morgan Tsvangirai. Before the coming of the white settlers chiefs were the rulers of the land. It was from them, that land ownership was confiscated in 1890 by Rhodes.
It must be known by every Zimbabwean that chiefs fought the first war of resisting colonisation.

During the period of the first war of resistance, chiefs Chingaira and Makoni were killed by the Rhodesians as they fought to resist colonial rule.
In Mhondoro, Chief Mashayamombe was brutally killed by the settlers who threw explosives into a cave where he had taken refuge.
In Matabeleland, Chiefs Magwegwe, Gwabalanda, Nkulumani, Mathema and others were the heroes of the first war of resisting colonial rule.
It was against the chiefs’ will that Africa was partitioned for colonisation by Europe through the Berlin Conference of 1884-85.

It is therefore instructive that chiefs are Africa’s political gurus who practised African governance before the start of colonisation.
Chiefs are the natural politicians in Africa. Politics is a birthright for all the chiefs in Africa. Nationalism and Pan-Africanism came into play as a reaction to fight colonisation after chiefs were brutally conquered and Africa colonised.
Thus, there should be no politician or any civic group that must stop chiefs from exercising their natural birth right of practising politics.

It is worth noting that there can be no democracy and observance of human rights if chiefs are excluded from politics.
In fact, all chiefs must fight for their right to reclaim stolen land and seek reparation from Europe for depriving them of freedom to govern their people for over 90 years.
Europe and America currently preaching democracy, rule of law and human rights must carry-out introspection on how they reneged on good tenets of democracy and mutual respect starting from the 9th century. It was Europe and America that practised the savage act of slave trade, and colonisation.

Surfing the internet and goggling “Gong massacre” one will see shocking information on how blacks, enslaved by Americans, were thrown alive into deep shark-infested seas, for the white man to claim compensation from London’s Lloyds Insurance.
Lloyds insured ships against failing dock due to low water levels at harbours which was manipulated in this scenario. This demonic massacre was caused by the cargo (slaves) not fetching good prices in America. The slaves were shipped to America for unpaid employment, which resulted in the imperial giant embarking on its industrial revolution.

When Europe and America came to Africa in search of free labour and resources, they never observed democracy, rule of law or human rights.
It is surprising how the courts in South Africa now see the song “kill the Boer” as hate speech. But when Botha said Africans are monkeys and tools as good as inputs for industrial development, it was never taken as hate speech. Botha said this as late as 1985 whilst addressing parliament.
Chiefs from across Africa, Cape to Cairo, were dethroned resulting in the destruction of Africa’s rich cultures and traditions. The white settlers, usually replaced radical chiefs with pliant chiefs, who then whipped

Africans into worshiping the white man to the extent of forcing them to refer to the white man’s son as “pikinini baas”.
It is thus surprising, if not disheartening, to hear our PM telling chiefs, through the Western sponsored media, that chiefs must not be involved in politics. The questions to ask are: Is it not instructive that chiefs are our natural politicians on the land? How do we separate politics from customs, traditions and cultures which identify us as Africans politically and socially? Is it not the chiefs who were the epicentre of the 2nd

Chimurenga? Were they not the first to be consulted on how the war was to be executed?
In the whole of Africa, the land belonged to the chiefs before foreigners came to enslave and colonise us. Nationalist politics only arose as a reaction to the oppressive rule that colonisation had imposed on our chiefs. Nationalism and Pan-Africanism came as a response to fight the oppression exerted on continental Africa by white imperialists.

Now honourable PM, why do you want our chiefs to practise a dishonourable rule of presiding over our land and their people without getting involved in politics? Is it not the chiefs who own the land and the people? If they do not get seized with the politics of the country how then do they defend their people against the imperial hyenas, vampires and lions?
This writer notes that it is not only the PM who has this idea of removing the chiefs from politics. On the same crusade are neo-liberal academics who always want to appease the white man in order to receive bread-crumbs as a token of appreciation for selling their heritage. One wonders who defines these terms asymmetrically to make our neo-liberal academics palpable in committing treasonous offences against their own people.

The late Vice President Muzenda once said, “What rule of law and whose rule of law is the High Court advancing?” This was in response to the rubbishing and denigration of Chief Svosve and his people who were labelled land-grabbers, sadly by our neo-liberal legal persons namely Tendai Biti, Welshman Ncube, Lawyers for Human Rights, and Lovemore Madhuku.
It is now very rare to find fine legal minds that follow the legal thinking of right mindedness like Edisson Zvobgo and Herbert Chitepo. These fine legal gurus of the Second Chimurenga protected chiefs and advanced the need for our chiefs to get back their heritage. They fought tenaciously to improve the status quo of our chiefs in both society and governance.

Most of the young generation in the legal profession and opposition politics just hook on democracy, rule of law and human rights like a parasite on a tree.
Few of these academics of varying legal experiences give themselves time to interrogate and understand any indigenous law that seeks to empower indigenous people. It is worrying to note that most of the members of Lawyers for Human Rights in Africa protect foreign rights rather than their indigenous rights.

The bedrock of human rights was founded on a principle that respects human rights for all races.
Sadly, Lawyers for Human Rights have continued to look down on fundamental human rights principles by selectively applying human rights laws against those in Third World countries, leaving out those in the First World, manipulating and deliberately violating human rights.

The neo-liberal academics are quick to oppose without due diligence any move that seeks to legally empower Africans. This habit of opposing what is legally good for Africa is a cancerous disease that is threatening mother Africa.

Libya and Ivory Coast, where Sarkozy and Nato blatantly killed innocent civilians, are a case in point.
Civic organisations, NGOs or human rights organisations in Africa are quick to attack any African government in power for allegedly violating human rights, but rarely criticise Western governments because they want to receive subsistence money for their treacherous work.

• Panganai Kahuni is a Social and Political commentator.