Uncategorized

Nehoreka misdemeanour, acquittal

11 Jul, 2014 - 00:07 0 Views

The ManicaPost

YOUR paper published two very interesting articles following the case between Noah Shambira a.k.a Tenzi Nehoreka and Chief Tandi (William Chiyangwa Samhungu). The two articles are “Nehoreka acquitted” (The Manica Post 18-24 April 2014) and “Nehoreka speaks out” In Focus (The Manica Post 25 April – 1 May 2014).

As someone belonging to the Tandi chieftainship dynasty and a member of the present Dare raMambo Tandi and besides that, a student of African History and Cultural/Spiritual Heritage, I have been following this case with close and keen interest.

Since the magistrates’ court closed the case, I feel obligated to “speak out” and respond to the two articles cited above and comment on the case in particular. I am not a spokesperson for the incumbent chief but I am analysing this issue from my own individual and personal point of view.

Indeed, Rusape magistrate Ms Madondo’s verdict was received with mixed feelings in the gallery. Her very lengthy judgment stirred within my consciousness several discursive opinions and reinforced the dichotomy between the traditional and modern, the spiritual and secular.

So according to her judgment, “. . . for something to be stolen, it must be movable and with monetary value attached to it”, therefore, our land could not have been stolen by the settlers of the Pioneer Column and BSA Co.

I have deliberately digressed.
Did Chief Tandi state that his chieftainship badge was stolen in the first place?

Surely, Nehoreka did not steal the badge. He took it through coercing! That is the unauthorised borrowing aspect. Then why did the magistrate resort to defining theft? I wonder what would have been the outcome had Chief Tandi also hired a lawyer?

The other question that begs answers is: does the Government of Zimbabwe give the traditional leaders, herein chiefs, their regalia of office merely as symbols of sentimental value according to Ms Madondo’s learned observation? Can we say the same of the royal sceptre and the imperial state crown of Britian? Who then should put value to the chief’s symbols of power and authority? If it is the duty and responsibility of Government to appoint and install (vesting the tsvana with authority) a chief therefore, it is the same Government through its ministry, in this case Local Government, to vest the chief with his symbols of power and authority of which it should give value to even in monetary terms.

In this particular case, was not the State prosecutor supposed to research into the value of the chief’s badge of office? Is it the duty of a soldier to know and give value to his/her gun in monetary terms? Or a policeman and his hat?

The question of interference (as an alternative charge in this case) could not be taken or regarded as a crime committed by the respondent. Although in actual fact Nehoreka’s actions amount to interference (according to the secular meaning of the word), the court sought guidance from the Traditional Leaders Act which in itself (the Act) fails to exhaustively define interference.

Before I leave this part, let me pose another question: “Why was the stripping of Chief Tandi’s aide’s badge not dealt with during this trial and not negated by the court?” The matter was reported to the police at the same time, statements and charges laid yet in court the chief’s badge became the only issue at hand.

Why is it that after the trial and verdict the chief’s badge was not returned to its rightful owner, Chief Tandi? Is this judicial negation of the negation? Or simply unfinished business?

Share This:

Sponsored Links

We value your opinion! Take a moment to complete our survey

This will close in 20 seconds