Online Reporter
Lovemore Kadzura
Post Reporter
THE appointment of Mr Solomon Mapuranga as substantive Chief Saunyama has sparked a dramatic High Court showdown, after a rival claimant filed an urgent application to block his installation.
The challenge alleges that the selection process bypassed the clan’s ancestral spirit mediums, whose endorsement is traditionally seen as binding.
Mr Simba Saunyama is seeking to halt Mr Mapuranga’s inauguration, insisting that his father, Mr Patrick Remigio Saunyama, was anointed by the family’s spirit medium as the rightful heir to succeed the late Chief Peter Tonderai Dahwa, who passed away in June 2011.
The legal dispute threatens to derail Government plans to formally install Mr Mapuranga, who has been serving in an acting capacity—presiding over the traditional court and performing official duties—while awaiting consecration.
Court papers list Mr Mapuranga, the National Council of Chiefs, the Provincial Council of Chiefs (Manicaland), Local Government and Public Works Minister Daniel Garwe, the Nyanga District Development Coordinator, and the President as respondents.
Mr Saunyama argues that without spiritual validation from ancestral mediums, Mr Mapuranga cannot legitimately continue in the role, nor be appointed by presidential decree.
“The final meeting was convened by the Samukambwa house and a resolution was made that my father is the rightful candidate for the appointment. At the meeting, my father was chosen as the rightful candidate,” said Mr Saunyama, adding that the Dzimbiti house also convened a meeting for the same purpose.
He said the selection was a two-fold process – nomination by the eligible house and ordination by the spirit medium (Chiwandambabvu), who manifests through Ms Teclar Kanyuru.
Mr Saunyama cited historical disqualifications within the clan, alleging that the Masiiwa family was barred from the chieftainship after their forefathers were accused of fatally assaulting one Dzikorehondo with an axe and burying her body in the sand when she rejected their advances.
“The Mungwariri family was accused of killing Chief Dzimbiti through food poisoning. The Taguta family was alleged to have procured a goblin, with a condition to feed it at a given time – however, this was not done and the goblin is said to have caused the untimely deaths of Taguta’s son, (Christopher) and brother Paul Saunyama. The Sanyaboko family was not disqualified for being unclean. Sanyaboko is the intermediary in the rain-making ceremony and as such could not ascend to the Saunyama chieftainship,” he argued.
He further claimed that while his father was chosen as the heir, Mr Mapuranga grabbed the position.
“The appointment of Chief Saunyama was further delayed because the acting chief could not easily give up power until he was challenged, prompting the Provincial Chiefs Council to suspend the nomination and selection process until order was restored in the family. In September 2020, the Samukambwa house had restored order. A meeting to select the substantive chief was called.
“I attended the meeting with other family members and those present unanimously selected my father as the rightful candidate for the substantive position. The Provincial Chiefs Council confirmed the nomination by reference to the family tree book. My father was asked to stand, and the attendees welcomed him with ululation. A chair was provided as a sign that my father had been chosen as the substantive Chief Saunyama. The most senior elder of Samukambwa house, Mr Erias Saunyama, was asked to narrate the family’s history, which he did.
“The first respondent (Mapuranga), forcefully assumed power, claiming he was the rightful candidate. He went on to benefit from the Presidential Scheme designed to assist chiefs in exercising their duties. Later, we also convened a ceremony in line with our tradition and customs as the Saunyama Clan to deliberate on the way forward. The spirit medium was consulted, and its instruction to the whole clan was to confirm my father as the rightful candidate for substantive chief,” he claimed, adding that Mr Mapuranga was refusing to accept this reality.
Mr Mapuranga on Wednesday disputed the allegations, insisting his ascendancy to the throne followed a fair and transparent process overseen by the Provincial Council of Chiefs, represented by Chiefs Mutasa and Makoni, together with the Nyanga DDC and the Ministry of Local Government and Public Works.
He also disputed the alleged role of spirit mediums in appointing the dynasty’s traditional leaders.
“They are free to approach the court to push their agenda. The President has since signed my appointment papers. No one was picked by the spirit medium. No spirit medium manifested in our area. We do not want goblins, but genuine spirit mediums. The selection process involved the District Development Coordinator, the Ministry of Local Government and Public Works, and Provincial Chiefs Council represented by Chiefs Mutasa and Makoni. There were no issues of spirit medium, and I wonder why they are raising it now,” said Mr Mapuranga.
Chief Mutasa, who is also the vice-chairperson of the Provincial Chiefs Council, acknowledged disputes within the family over the process, adding that Mr Mapuranga was officially installed, with only the inauguration ceremony outstanding.
“There is now a substantive Chief Saunyama (Mr Mapuranga). What is left is the inauguration process. However, there are some family members contesting the appointment process, just like what happens in other chieftainships,” said Chief Mutasa. Minister Garwe, represented by Mr Panashe Chibanda from the Attorney General’s Office Civil Division, argued that the application and relief being sought by Mr Saunyama is directed at the wrong forum as the High Court cannot hear issues of appointment of chiefs especially before the President makes an appointment.
“On the merits of the main application, the order being sought is incompetent because of lack of jurisdiction by the court to make substantive decision in cases involving chieftainship issues. Simba and Patrick Saunyama are seeking to have the court make a substantive determination in a chieftainship dispute, which is contrary to Section 283 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe. Related to the point of jurisdiction is the issue that the applicant has also not exhausted the remedies available to them. Chieftainship disputes are handled by the President. Section 283 (c) (11) states that disputes concerning the appointment, suspension and removal of traditional leaders must be resolved by the President on the recommendation of the Provincial Council of Chiefs through the minister responsible for chiefs,” he argued.
Minister Garwe further argued that the issue of appointing a substantive Chief Saunyama had dragged since 2018 with the clan failing to come up with an agreed position concerning spirit mediums and bringing finality as each house has its own spirit medium.
“Therefore, the only person who can resolve disputes about the appointment and removal of chiefs is the President and not the court. Furthermore, Simba and Patrick Saunyama are not being candid with the court because there have been meetings that were conducted since 2018 regarding the appointment of Chief Saunyama. The two have been raising the issues that have been raised, and they have been dismissed by their clan members. The issue of spirit mediums has also been disputed on several occasions. There is no unanimity when it comes to spirit mediums in the Saunyama royal houses, with each having a separate spirit medium. Therefore, this cannot be verified nor within the mandate of all the respondents, (Provincial Council of Chiefs and the President) as it concerns people’s beliefs, and the clan cannot agree among themselves,” he said.
