By Shelton Mahlangu Muchena| When the House of Mabhikwa was plunged into mourning after the tragic loss of their chief in 2022, those who loved him hoped for stability, a guiding hand until his son came of age.
The clan entrusted leadership to Ms Zanele Khumalo born within the lineage, recognised by her family, and deemed worthy to serve as regent during this interim.
Her appointment was not a radical departure from tradition, but a decision grounded in continuity, respect and shared grief.

Yet the arrival of the court’s verdict dealt a harsh blow. The Bulawayo High Court annulled her appointment. The reasons cited culture, tradition, and procedural irregularities sound hollow when viewed against a broader Zimbabwean backdrop.
Across the country, women have already stepped into the role of chief with dignity and success. Their very existence proves that tradition can evolve without disintegration.

Consider the trailblazing female chiefs elsewhere: women who inherited chieftainship, were accepted by their communities, and fulfilled their duties with competence.
These are not outliers but part of a growing trend proof that leadership in Zimbabwe need not be dictated solely by gender.
If other clans have allowed women to lead with honour, why should the Mabhikwa family be denied that right? Why should the clan’s own decision made by those who know the history, the bloodlines and the community’s needs be overridden under the guise of rigid cultural norms?

By overturning Ms Khumalo’s appointment, the court abandoned the clan’s autonomy and replaced it with a narrow, patriarchal interpretation of tradition. It has sent a signal that even when circumstances change when women are capable, accepted and supported old biases will remain entrenched. The judgment wasn’t merely a legal ruling; it was an act of suppression disguised as justice.

If, instead, the elders had honoured their own choice and recognised Ms Khumalo this would not have destroyed tradition. On the contrary, it would have affirmed that Zimbabwean customs are living, adapting and capable of upholding fairness. It would have recognised leadership as a matter of character, wisdom and service not anatomy.

Denying her the chieftainship does not protect heritage; it erodes it. It proclaims that no matter how many times they change, some doors will remain shut to women. That is not tradition. That is prejudice.

The dispute over the Mabhikwa chieftainship is more than a family conflict it is a reflection of Zimbabwe’s broader struggle between rigid patriarchy and evolving equality; between outdated custom and human dignity. By rejecting Ms Khumalo, the court did not preserve heritage. It dishonoured it.