The Chieftainship wrangle involving Chief Chikwanda and Chief Musara has moved a notch higher after Chief Chikwanda dragged the Minister of Local Government and Public Works, July Moyo, Masvingo Provincial Chiefs Assembly, Chief Musara, and the Attorney General to court.
They are arguing that the minister who is the first respondent dubiously installed Chief Musara, born Boniface Musara using a non-existent Statutory Instrument. The chief is arguing that the minister on September 5, 2006 unlawfully and unconstitutionally imposed Musara as Headman and later as a chief although he is not of their linage.
Through his lawyers, Thompson Stevenson and Associates he also argued that Chief Musara was appointed as chief in terms of Statutory instrument (SI)62 of 2013, Proclamation 1 of 2014 and his area of jurisdiction extended to Chikwanda’s area. He further argued that the SI used to appoint Musara was not about chieftaincy but about the lump sum amount paid when a worker dies from an accident instead of pension or children allowances.
According to Chikwanda’s argument the official letter dated July 14, 2014 in his possession shows that the Office of the President and Cabinet later objected to the upgrading of Musara and requested the minister to give sufficient details to enable the Chief Secretary to brief the President.
He also said on February 28, 2022 the Provincial Chief’s Assembly which is cited as the second respondent convened a meeting to discuss among other issues the dispute between Chief Chikwanda and Chief Musara, but the meeting ended abruptly after Musara refused to cooperate.
“I am advised that the 1st and the 2nd respondent are required to act lawfully, reasonably and in a fair manner within a reasonable time. However, it is now almost six years since the dispute was referred to the 2nd respondent for deliberations none has taken place.
“We have been engaging the 1st respondent to have the matter resolved speedily but we have not found joy at all. Almost eight years have passed without any indication as to whether this matter would be resolved.
“It seems that the 1st and the 2nd respondents and the public servants under their control have failed to perform their administrative duties properly and timeously. We have found it necessary to turn to this honourable Court for assistance.
“In the premises I believe that I managed to satisfy the requirement for the order that I am seeking herein and pray for an order in terms of the draft order annexed hereto,” read part of the application.