Online Reporter
Miriam Tose Majome, [email protected]
MANY times, when Zimbabwean men die, secret children emerge at their funerals, sparking bitter battles over estate property.
The law has tried to adapt to protect all children, despite the matrimonial circumstances they are born into.
However, a deeper question remains: Are we forcing ourselves into a matrimonial social order that does not work for us?
The phenomenon of multiple children sired by one dead man from different women almost always throws a complex legal joker into the already intricate machinery of inheritance.
This recurring phenomenon compels the question whether the modern social order, largely shaped by Western ideals of monogamy and Christian tenets, is truly suited to the Zimbabwean reality.
Yes, nuclear families are ideal, but more often than not, they are not the reality of many Zimbabwean families. In attempting to fit ourselves into this seemingly “civilised” straitjacket, we merely hide, but not stop who we really are, and how we truly prefer to structure our families.
For many black Zimbabwean families, monogamous marriages run alongside parallel second official and unofficial marriages. Few families can truly claim to be immune from it.
But wait long enough, or when the patriarch dies, a “wife” or a child will surface from somewhere.
Polygamy, though legally recognised under Zimbabwean customary law, collides violently with modern inheritance systems.
The Administration of Estates Act and the Deceased Estates Succession Act attempt to regulate distribution, but the reality is messier.
When a man with multiple wives or unrecognised partners dies, the fallout is predictable.
Historically, pre-colonial African societies embraced polygamy, not merely as a social construct but as an economic and cultural necessity.
It was a recognised form of family building, with clear customary rules governing lineage, succession and the distribution of assets.
Then came the influence of Christianity and Western civilisation, imposing the concept of monogamy as the ideal marital union. This has proved to be impractical, because polygamy, whether sanctioned or not, is deeply entrenched in Zimbabwean society.
Admit it or not, but the reality on the ground is that the monogamy experiment failed spectacularly in Zimbabwe.
The law has made some concessions to adapt to the cultural sensitivities of polygamy. The pejorative term “illegitimate children” was replaced with the more neutral term “children born out of wedlock”.
Legal reforms and judicial interpretations have also granted these children equal rights to inherit from their deceased fathers regardless of their parents’ marital status.
Customary law is also recognised for the purposes of inheritance, but multiple wives inevitably fight over assets and status. General law has not yet risen to address these practical complex issues.
In polygamous marriages or where multiple children abide, estate administration is slow, costly and emotionally devastating. Families fracture, properties lie dormant and lawyers cash in on the chaos.
But still, is monogamy the ideal solution?
There is no question that Western-style monogamy ideally simplifies the inheritance matrix, but this is not the reality of most black Zimbabweans.
In fact, in practice, monogamy has actually been rejected. Many men maintain parallel households, and leave multiple children and contested legacies behind.
The question is not whether polygamy is backward or monogamy is modern — it is: which system actually works for Zimbabwe.?
Monogamy assumes a nuclear family that rarely exists in reality. The law buries its head in the sand, and pretends men have one wife and one set of children, but Zimbabwean families are far more complex.
In short, monogamous inheritance is a daydream, while polygamous inheritance is a nightmare. Perhaps the answer lies in a hybrid system.
There should be legal clarity to recognise both customary and informal unions without forcing men into monogamous pretence.
Men should normalise honesty and formalise their family structure to avoid post-death chaos. It would also be helpful if the Master’s Office simplified dispute resolution processes to prevent estates from going unresolved for decades.
Zimbabwean inheritance disputes expose many truths about who we are and how we live.
It is clear that we are trying to enforce a monogamous ideal on a society that never fully embraced it. Although the law has adapted, it is not enough.
Until we confront the reality of how we actually live — and die — these battles will continue indefinitely.
The solution is not to reject polygamy or monogamy, but to craft laws that reflect the realities of our lives, not how missionaries and colonisers envisioned it.
The solution lies not in forcing one ideal over another, but in acknowledging the diverse social realities and crafting laws that are more adaptive and less prescriptive.
This would require an honest national dialogue about family structures, the protection of vulnerable parties and the need for simplified, accessible legal mechanisms for estate planning and dispute resolution.
Miriam Tose Majome is a lawyer and a Commissioner with the Zimbabwe Media Commission. She writes in her personal capacity and can be contacted on [email protected]
