INLSA
Zulu King Goodwill Zwelithini, left, and KZN Premier Zweli Mkhize seen at the ukweshwama (first fruits) festival in Nongoma.
King Goodwill Zwelithini has been accused of receiving preferential treatment from the government compared with other traditional leaders.
Contralesa (Congress of Traditional Leaders of SA) head, Phathekile Holomisa, was quoted by the Citizen nespaper yesterday as saying King Zwelithini was being favoured.
“The Zulu king is treated differently from the Pondo king, the Pedi king, the Ndebele king and the Venda king,” it stated.
King Zwelithini and his entourage recently stayed at an exclusive Durban hotel, at a reported cost of R150 000 to the taxpayer.
But Albert Mncwango, an IFP MP, said Holomisa should “stay out of our business” and said the implications of his complaint “smacks of racism”.
“Zulus have a distinct history and pure bloodline and cannot be compared to other kings,” he said.
Meanwhile, buoyed by this month’s Pretoria High Court ruling that upheld him as the king of the Venda people, Khosikhulu Toni Mphephu-Ramabulana entered his royal palace at Dzanani village in the Nzhelele area of Limpopo.
Celebrating the end of a protracted court battle, Mphephu-Ramabulana travelled in a Rolls-Royce Phantom.
A fleet of expensive ve-hicles – including a Porsche Cayenne and a Panamera, a convertible Ferrari California and Range Rovers – formed part of his long convoy.
Three local chiefs – Kennedy Tshivhase, Musiiwa Gole Mphaphuli and Tshi-|dziwelele Nephawe – had gone to the high court to challenge his kingship.
They disputed certain of the findings of the Nhlapo Commission on Traditional Leadership Disputes and Claims, established by former president Thabo Mbeki in 2004.
President Jacob Zuma an-nounced the findings in July 2010, confirming that the 40-year-old Mphe-phu-Rama-bulana, the son of Chief Patrick Mphephu, the late president of the former Venda Bantustan, was the rightful heir to the throne.
But the three chiefs disputed his kingship.
Judge Francis Legodi upheld the commission’s findings and dismissed their review application with costs.
