By Thulane Madalane
Tshehlwaneng: On Monday, the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa delivered a significant judgment concerning the lines of succession and leadership identification within the Bapedi Nation. The case (Thulare v Thulare & Others, Case No: 470/2023) revolved around determining who constitutes the royal family eligible to name an acting king or queen in the absence of a legitimate heir following the death of a reigning monarch.
The appeal arose from conflicting claims over leadership following the death of Victor Thulare III, who was recognized as king of the Bapedi by the President of South Africa on April 3, 2020. Victor Thulare III passed away on January 6, 2021, without marrying a “candle wife,” a traditional term that refers to a culturally recognized wife, and as a result, he left no direct heir. In the wake of his death, the need to appoint an acting monarch to preserve the traditional leadership structure became paramount.
Two factions emerged within the royal family: the appellant, Manyaku Maria Thulare (the queen mother), and the first respondent, Morwamuhube Ernest Thulare (ME Thulare), a half-brother of the deceased king. Each camp claimed legitimacy over the decision-making process for electing the acting monarch. The queen mother contended that she was recognized as the acting queen by a smaller group of the royal family, while the other faction claimed ME Thulare was duly appointed during a larger gathering of family members.
The Limpopo Division of the High Court initially favored ME Thulare’s claim, affirming the legitimacy of his appointment as acting king. This decision ignited further legal scrutiny, primarily over who is eligible to constitute the royal family under Bapedi customs and the applicable statutory frameworks, namely the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act and the Traditional and Khoi-San Leadership Act.
Both parties struggled to substantiate their claims with appropriate evidence, particularly expert testimony on Bapedi custom and the concept of the royal family. The high court’s lack of consideration for expert evidence became a point of contention, leading the appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court of Appeal, led by Judge R.M. Keightley, emphasized the need for concrete evidence in such traditional disputes. He stated, “Disputes of this kind require evidence-based resolution. In the absence of the requisite evidence, the high court was not properly equipped to make any determination as to who constitutes the royal family.”
The court remitted the matter back to the Limpopo High Court for the introduction of oral and expert evidence to clarify the complex issues surrounding the Bapedi royal family. The order instructs the high court to address the identification of who constitutes the royal family under Bapedi customs, the processes for appointing an acting king or queen when the previous monarch dies without a recognized heir, and the significance of seniority, legitimacy, and familial lineage in the decision-making process.
The court mandated that new oral evidence should be heard before a different judge, excluding any judges who had previously ruled on related matters, to ensure impartiality. The decision aimed to unpack the intricate customary laws that dictate royal lineage and leadership transitions within the Bapedi community.
This ruling not only emphasizes the complexities inherent in traditional leadership disputes but also underscores the necessity of adhering to customary law when adjudicating matters linked to traditional governance. By remitting the case for further hearings, the court ensures that a thorough understanding of Bapedi customs will inform the resolution of succession issues and foster stability within the traditional leadership framework. Moreover, the judgment reignites discussions about the intersecting domains of customary law and statutory regulations in South Africa, demonstrating the challenges faced by courts in respecting and interpreting rich cultural traditions while upholding the rule of law.
As Bapedi communities awaited the outcome of the forthcoming hearings, the Supreme Court re-established the foundation of evidence-based decision-making crucial for fostering confidence in traditional leadership mechanisms. The court’s order, made with mutual consent regarding costs, is intended to expedite the resolution process to bring clarity and stability to Bapedi leadership in these uncertain times.
Compounding these tensions, Mokoko Sekhukhune, the spokesperson for ME Thulare, held a press conference on Wednesday to update Sekhukhune residents about the Supreme Court ruling. Media outlets such as Timeless News and Limpopo TV were present, but the proceedings were abruptly interrupted by a faction led by Kgoshi Mafefe Thobejane, representing Manyaku Maria Thulare.
Before the press conference could begin, Kgoshi Thobejane insisted on exercising a “right to reply,” asserting, “From where I am sitting, I believe that we must be given a right to reply.” He produced a letter from a rival television station, alleging that Limpopo TV was operating illegally due to intellectual property infringement. “I believe that Limpopo TV is operating illegally; here is the letter from the rightful owners,” Thobejane declared.
In response, Thapelo Kobo, the owner of Limpopo TV, acknowledged knowledge of the letter but dismissed its claims. “It’s pointless for me to read that letter because I know the content. I am the rightful owner of Limpopo TV; I have registered with the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC) and trademarked the name. I told the so-called rightful owners of Limpopo TV to summon me to court so that we can settle this matter legally, but they haven’t done that,” Kobo stated.
The situation quickly escalated into violence when members of Manyaku Maria Thulare’s faction reportedly confiscated the cameras and cellphones belonging to Limpopo TV. During the ensuing scuffle, Mr. Kobo was assaulted. Following the incident, he reported the assault and theft at the Sekhukhune Police Station.
Later that day, accompanied by police, Kobo attempted to retrieve his equipment at the Bapedi Royal House but was denied access and told he would need to pay a fine for allegedly disrespecting the royal house. “I went to the Bapedi Royal House to get my equipment and cellphones, but I was told that I must pay a fine for disrespecting the royal house. Now, I am going to open another case of extortion. We will meet in court,” Kobo concluded, indicating his intention to pursue legal action regarding the incident.
This turmoil not only highlights the ongoing tensions between the factions of the Bapedi royal family but also raises serious questions about media freedoms and the conflicts inherent within traditional leadership structures.
