CHIEF MUKUNI’S RISE TO PARAMOUNTCY: A BLESSING OR A BURDENING PRECEDENCE FOR OTHER TRIBAL FORMATIONS TO FOLLOW?

CHIEF MUKUNI’S RISE TO PARAMOUNTCY: A BLESSING OR A BURDENING PRECEDENCE FOR OTHER TRIBAL FORMATIONS TO FOLLOW? Addressing the “elephant in the room.” Zambia has always lived with a delicate paradox: we are one nation, but we are also a nation of many histories, kingdoms, clans and traditional authorities. Our Constitution protects chieftaincy precisely because […]

CHIEF MUKUNI’S RISE TO PARAMOUNTCY: A BLESSING OR A BURDENING PRECEDENCE FOR OTHER TRIBAL FORMATIONS TO FOLLOW?

Addressing the “elephant in the room.”

Zambia has always lived with a delicate paradox: we are one nation, but we are also a nation of many histories, kingdoms, clans and traditional authorities. Our Constitution protects chieftaincy precisely because traditional leadership remains an important part of our cultural identity and social order.

It is against this background that the current campaign to have Chief Mukuni of the Toka Leya recognised as a Paramount Chief deserves to be examined with something more than political excitement or tribal emotion.

The issue before Zambia is bigger than Chief Mukuni.

It is about what kind of traditional hierarchy we want to leave for the next generation.

Chief Mukuni is a revered traditional leader among his people, and his supporters argue that his royal establishment possesses a historical and cultural standing that deserves recognition at the highest traditional level. A petition now before the Constitutional Court seeks his reclassification as a Paramount Chief, together with the powers and privileges associated with that status.

That aspiration should not be mocked, dismissed or reduced to tribal politics. Every community has a legitimate interest in seeing its history and traditional institutions respected.

But neither should the question be treated as though it concerns only the Bene Mukuni.

“THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM.”

The elephant in the room is precedent.

Zambia already has four recognised Paramount Chiefs: the Chitimukulu of the Bemba, the Litunga of the Lozi, Kalonga Gawa Undi of the Chewa and Mpezeni of the Ngoni.

A Constitutional Court case seeking the elevation of Chief Mukuni has already attracted the attention of some of these established paramount leaders, who argued that the matter could have consequences for the country’s traditional governance system. Their attempt to join the case was, however, rejected by the Court on procedural grounds.

And therein lies the national question.

“If one senior traditional establishment is elevated to Paramount status today, on what principled basis can another equally historic establishment be told tomorrow that it does not qualify?”

This is not a question of size, royal traditions or influence, what happens when the Lambas make a similar claim? What happens when the Lundas of North-Western Province say their history and argument against Chief Mukuni. It is an argument for consistency.

Consider what could follow.

If the Toka Leya are entitled to a Paramount Chief because of their historical importance, size, royal traditions or influence, what happens when the Lambas make a similar claim? What happens when the Lundas of North-Western Province say their history and traditional institutions deserve the same recognition? What of the Luvales and Kaondes? The Namwangas and Mambwes? The Solis? The Lenjes?

And beyond these, what of the many senior chiefs whose traditional formations are large, historically significant and culturally cohesive?

Soon, the country could find itself asking a rather uncomfortable question:

Does every sufficiently large tribal formation deserve its own Paramount Chief?

And if so, what becomes of the distinction between a Paramount Chief, Senior Chief and Chief?

The danger of making the presidency the ladder to paramountcy

There is an even more troubling possibility.

Suppose Paramount status becomes associated, consciously or unconsciously, with political influence or proximity to State House. Then every time a particular ethnic or regional community produces a President, its senior traditional leader could reasonably expect elevation.

That would be disastrous.

A President is elected to govern Zambia, not to redesign the traditional hierarchy in favour of the community from which he or she comes.

The moment traditional titles begin to look like political rewards, the dignity of chieftaincy itself suffers.

This is particularly important because Chief Mukuni has publicly supported President Hakainde Hichilema’s re-election, while his relationship with the President has long been politically visible. ZNBC

That does not prove that any elevation would be politically motivated. It would be unfair to make such an allegation without evidence.

But politics does not have to be the cause of suspicion for the appearance of political patronage to become damaging.

A wise government must therefore be seen to apply a rule that can survive the departure of the current President.

Yet there is a case for bene Mukuni.

There is also a legitimate argument on the other side.

Traditional institutions did not originate in modern government classifications. Colonial administrations imposed and formalised many of the distinctions by which chiefs are now classified. Indeed, parliamentary records have acknowledged that there were historically no clear qualifications determining who should be a Paramount Chief, Senior Chief or ordinary Chief, and that the existing system was substantially inherited from colonial administration. Parliament Zambia

That matters.

If historical evidence demonstrates that an institution was genuinely paramount in its own customary order but was subsequently classified differently for administrative reasons, correcting that historical anomaly may be entirely defensible.

The question, therefore, should not simply be:

“Why give Mukuni a title that others do not have?”

It should also be:

“Was Mukuni’s present classification historically and customarily correct in the first place?”

If the answer is no, justice may require correction.

But then the same historical test must be available to everybody.

And what about Mwata Kazembe?

The case becomes even more interesting when one considers the traditional standing of the Mwata Kazembe.

The Kazembe institution has historically functioned as a powerful Lunda royal establishment, with a hierarchy of senior chiefs and subordinate traditional authorities beneath the Mwata. The current royal establishment itself describes Mwata Kazembe as the centre of authority for the Lunda-Kazembe people.

So if historical royal authority, territorial influence and cultural significance are sufficient grounds for Paramount status, Zambia must explain why similar institutions have been treated differently.

This is precisely why the Mukuni question cannot safely be resolved as a one-off political accommodation.

THE ADVANTAGE OF SAYING “YES”

There are genuine advantages to recognising Chief Mukuni if a rigorous historical and customary examination establishes that Paramount status is warranted.

It could correct an historical injustice, affirm the dignity of the Bene Mukuni royal institution and strengthen cultural preservation. It could also demonstrate that Zambia is willing to review inherited classifications rather than treating colonial administrative arrangements as permanently sacred.

It could be a powerful statement that tradition is not frozen in the colonial past.

But that benefit will only endure if the process is transparent, evidence-based and applicable to other traditional institutions.

The danger of saying “yes” without a national framework.

The greater danger is not necessarily creating one more Paramount Chief.

It is creating a new race for paramountcy.

Once one chief is elevated without clearly articulated national criteria, every other senior chief has an understandable basis for asking: What about us?

That could produce rivalry among traditional establishments, competing claims over territory and customary authority, and political lobbying for royal recognition.

Zambia could gradually move from a hierarchy of traditional institutions into a marketplace of titles.

And that would be profoundly unhealthy.

The Constitution protects chieftaincy according to the customs and traditions of the people to whom it applies. The State therefore has a duty not merely to honour chiefs, but to ensure that its treatment of them does not become arbitrary.

THE WISER PATH;

The answer, in my view, is neither to dismiss Chief Mukuni’s claim nor to grant it simply because it is politically convenient.

Zambia needs criteria for Paramountcy.

Those criteria should consider customary law, historical evidence, the traditional constitutional structure of the royal establishment, territorial jurisdiction, historical continuity and the relationship between the claimant and other chiefs within the same cultural formation.

Most importantly, the criteria must be tribe-neutral and President-neutra.

If Chief Mukuni qualifies under those criteria, let him be Paramount Chief without apology.

If Mwata Kazembe qualifies, let his case be considered on the same basis.

If a Lunda, Kaonde, Luvale, Lamba, Namwanga, Mambwe, Soli or Lenje traditional establishment subsequently meets the same standard, its claim should likewise be heard.

And if a chief does not meet the criteria, the answer should remain no—regardless of tribe, province or political influence.

That is how a country avoids turning cultural recognition into political patronage.

THE REAL LEGACY;

The greatest danger is not that Zambia will have five Paramount Chiefs instead of four.

The real danger is that Paramountcy could become a reward for political circumstances rather than a recognition of customary legitimacy.

Chief Mukuni’s supporters should therefore want more than a title. They should want a principle strong enough to protect that title after today’s political actors are gone.

Likewise, those who oppose his elevation should be careful not to turn legitimate questions about precedent into an attack on the dignity or history of the Bene Mukuni.

There is room to respect Chief Mukuni and still ask hard questions.

There is room to honour the Toka Leya and still protect national unity.

And there is room to recognise historical wrongs without opening the door to an endless competition among tribes for State-sanctioned superiority.

The test before Zambia is therefore not whether Chief Mukuni deserves respect. He does. The test is whether the rules by which Zambia recognises Paramount Chiefs will be strong enough to treat the next claimant with the same fairness.

If Government gets that principle right, Chief Mukuni’s elevation—should it ultimately be justified—could become a blessing: a correction of history and a strengthening of traditional institutions.

If it gets the principle wrong, it may become a burdening precedent, teaching every future generation that the road to Paramountcy runs not through custom and history, but through political power.

And that is a road a united Zambia should be very careful to travel.

I remain your friend and brother,

Tobias T. Banda
Immediate Past Independent Parliamentary Candidate for Roma Constituency.