Call to empower traditional courts, leaders

BULAWAYO residents have voiced strong support for the empowerment of traditional courts and leaders, particularly in dealing with the rising scourge of drug and substance abuse among the youth.

This emerged during a public hearing held by the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Heritage and Culture in Bulawayo on Wednesday, focusing on the country’s traditional court system.

The highest authority in the traditional court hierarchy is the chief’s court, where disputes are resolved with the assistance of advisors selected for their intelligence, knowledge of customs and eloquence.

However, concerns were raised about the current limitations faced by traditional leaders, particularly in handling modern societal issues such as drug abuse.

Ms Sidumisile Msipha, one of the contributors during the public hearing, said there is a need to equip traditional leaders with the necessary skills and authority to preside over drug-related cases.

“In my line of work, we usually conduct community awareness programmes and traditional leaders, especially village heads, often express that they lack the power to preside over drug and substance abuse cases. There is a need to empower them in this regard,” she said.

Echoing this sentiment, Mr Dumisani Ncube called for the mandatory capacitation of traditional leaders to ensure that their judgments are of high quality, thereby reducing the likelihood of appeals against their determinations.

He also suggested the implementation of a quota system for women assessors in traditional courts to ensure fair handling of Gender-Based Violence (GBV) cases, particularly those involving sexual violence, where female victims might struggle to share their experiences with an all-male panel.

Mr Ncube further argued that traditional leaders should not be required to appear before civil or criminal courts to defend their judgments in the event of an appeal.

“It is demeaning to the person and position of the traditional leader to be summoned to defend their judgment, something that does not happen to magistrates or High Court judges when their decisions are appealed,” he said.

Another resident, Mr Smart Nyamhunga, raised concerns about the inconsistency in sentencing across different traditional courts, advocating for standardised judgments to avoid public confusion.

“It confuses members of the public to have traditional courts passing completely different sentences for similar cases. There should be some form of standardisation of judgments or even the use of legal precedents,” he suggested.

“You get some being fined five beasts for infidelity while a similar case under a different traditional leader may attract just a single beast.”

Traditional courts in Zimbabwe, which operate under the purview of customary law, are distinct from the superior courts such as the High Court, Supreme Court and Constitutional Court, which are presided over by judges and magistrates’ courts, which are presided over by magistrates.

In an interview following the hearing, Senator Chief Langton Nechombo, chairperson of the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Heritage and Culture, said the public’s contributions would be presented to Parliament for debate before the proposed Bill becomes law.

“What is clear from the sessions we have held so far, including this one in Bulawayo, is that people want the traditional courts to be capacitated. The views are being captured and will be presented to Parliament,” he said.