Borrowed Majesties: Why Paramount Chiefs Are Afraid of Chief Mukuni

By Kapya Kaoma Judge Pixie Yangailo’s refusal to grant Chitimukulu, the Litunga, and Undi joinder in Chief Mukuni’s petition seeking paramount-chief status is a major blow to the “traditional” establishment. The chiefs have reasons to be nervous: this case could be revolutionary.…

By Kapya Kaoma

Judge Pixie Yangailo’s refusal to grant Chitimukulu, the Litunga, and Undi joinder in Chief Mukuni’s petition seeking paramount-chief status is a major blow to the “traditional” establishment. The chiefs have reasons to be nervous: this case could be revolutionary. It has the potential to transform the very definition of paramount chieftainship.

It is telling that the trio’s anxiety hinges upon how “junior chiefs” might interpret Mukuni’s victory—it would “destabilize traditional governance.” What they omit, however, is that the creation of paramount chiefs by colonial rulers was itself an act of social destabilization.

Until the colonial era, the concept of a “junior chief” did not exist among the Tonga. The same is true for the Chishinga and other tribes. Every paramount chief in postcolonial Zambia is a product of colonial policy of divide et impera (divide-and-rule) often associated with Frederick Lugard. The trio is deeply afraid because someone is finally questioning an injustice passed off as ancient tradition. Yet nothing socially constructed remains scrutinized. What was constructed can be deconstructed and reconstructed.

Reading Chief Mukuni’s petition, it seems his claim rests primarily on “tradition” rather than ethno-history. It is unclear whether this legal strategy is deliberate, given that tradition is manufactured over time. Yet the claims of the Litunga, Chitimukulu, and Undi over vast territories similarly lack ethno-historical foundation. Instead, their status rests on an assumed history of conquest and the subjugation of neighboring groups. Paramount chieftainship historically had less to do with organic tribal conquest than with fulfilling the colonial administrative agenda.

As a Tonga, for example, Chief Mukuni cannot claim his ancestors defeated other Tonga groups in battle to establish political hegemony. Traditionally, the Tonga were acephalous societies–they never had kings or chiefs. Instead, authority was decentralized around sikatongos (or bami ba mfula)—“owners of rain”—whose responsibility was rainmaking.

Because Tonga life depended on balanced rainfall for their two season harvest, sikatongos whose lands received better rains attracted larger communities, as was the case with Monze and Mweemba. Yet, because a sikatongo’s authority was derived from local ancestors (basangu), his influence didn’t extend beyond his immediate neighborhood. In Tonga cosmology, ancestral reach is strictly bound to ancestral land—a principle still celebrated during the Lwiindi ceremony. Moreover, historically, the Tonga were known for their resistance to any centralized monarch.

Two historical forces disrupted this sociopolitical organization: slave raiding and colonialism. Because the Tonga lacked centralized military structures, they were vulnerable to slave raiders. In response, charismatic sikatongos began organizing defensive alliances. Then came European colonialism. David Livingstone was among the first to label Mweemba and Monze as Tonga “chiefs,” even though the title and its political implications were alien to Tonga society. The term sikatongo does not translate to “king” or “chief.”

Colonial authorities later codified select sikatongos into official chiefs, granting them arbitrary authority over neighboring communities. Today, that administrative convenience is celebrated as authentic Tonga culture. Mukuni’s claim rests in this frame. Yet, like the office of paramount chief itself, Mukuni’s current area of authority was codified by the state as opposed to unbroken lineage.

No doubt Mukuni is making a clever calculation. With Hakainde Hichilema in power, he sees a window for elevation. This is what Chitimukulu, the Litunga, and Undi fear most–the very state system that elevated their offices could now elevate others or dismantle their exclusive status.

They have enjoyed unchecked top-tier authority for over a century, but Mukuni is stubborn enough to challenge the setup. If he succeeds, other leaders may seek to undo these social imbalances. Hence they are losing sleep–”official” history could be rewritten in a courtroom—ending in the creation of “Paramount Chief Mukuni.”

I believe Chief Mukuni would likely strengthen his claim by grounding his case in the political history of Zambian chieftainship rather than relying solely on “tradition.” As I have noted, cultural experts can easily contest traditional claims due to a lack of ethno-historical evidence. However, the political argument can hardly be refuted: no Zambian paramount chief historically exercised total control over all the territories and sub-chiefs currently assigned to them. Those regional monopolies were constructed by colonial and postcolonial bureaucracies.

So just as provinces, districts, and constituencies are regularly redrawn to reflect modern realities, there is no logical reason to treat colonial-era paramount titles as immutable. There is nothing ancient about the office of paramount chief—a reality symbolized even by the Litunga’s colonial-British-inspired ceremonial uniform.

Because tradition is fluid, paramount chieftaincy was meant to support narratives of domination. Over time, these constructs were ritualized to marginalize and subordinate other traditional leaders.

Who doesn’t know that history is written by the powerful, while truths remain buried with the powerless? If paramount chieftainships were created by colonialists, shouldn’t contemporary realities invite modernized structures? This question extends beyond Chief Mukuni. It is an issue all “junior” traditional leaders could bring before the Constitutional Court.

Even if Chief Mukuni loses, he is forcing us to question whether colonial structures should be treated as sacred texts. Is it time to re-evaluate the institution of paramount chieftainship today?

It takes stubborn people to expose the blind spots of cultural assumptions. This is what Chief Mukuni is doing.