T hursday, February 16, 20 12

Gaza Tihosi - Gaza Kingdom

A SUBMISSION TO: PREMIER OF LIMPOPO
RE: APPEAL FOR INTERVENTION ON THE CASE OF AN INJUSTICE
PERPETRATED ON A LARGE NUMBER OF TRADITIONAL LEADERS
OPERATING UNDER THE BANNER OF THE GAZA KINGDOM
1. We. the Machangana/Vatsonga traditional leaders, operating under the banner of the
Gaza Kingdom, led by Bayethe Eric Mpisani Nxumalo wa Mafemani, wa Buyisonto,
wa Nghungunyani, wa Mzila wa Soshangani, hereby present to you an appeal for
intervention in our long overdue cry for redress.
2. Long before Apartheid, our ancestors were full recognised leaders of our
communities. Some of our dynasties date as far back as the seventeenth century.
3. Our forbearers served under Gaza Empire with distinction and without any
reservation. It is our ancestors who resisted colonialism under the able leadership of
the Nguni dynasty of Soshangani, Mzila and Nghungunyani
4. It is the sacrifice of our loyal ancestors that won Nghungunyani the world-renown
international status of being one of the gallant heroes who effectively resisted the
colonialism and imperialism of the West.
5. Our forefathers sacrificed their limbs and lives on the alter of the democracy that is
only enjoyed by a few in this country.
6. We, the ancestors of yesterdays heroes, are denied our birthrights by a system that
we have always believed we were part of.
7. We and our King, have suffered all forms of humiliation under apartheid. Our status
was denigrated and our culture dragged in the mud.
8. Puppet leaders were imposed on us .

9. We were robbed of our status and we were forced to implement their programmes.
10. Apartheid grouped and disaggregated us as it pleased.
11. We were forcefully migrated from our original homes and dumped in the middle of
nowhere, quite often in the wild amongst dangerous animals.
12. We paid tax without reaping the benefit thereof
13. We became tenants on our own soil.
14. Schools and other modern facilities were few and far between.
15. This is the state in which we were when democracy was born in this country in 1994.
16. You can imagine the relief that we anticipated.
17. To us, the advent of democracy promised a lot:
17.1. We thought the inequities of the past will disappear
17.2. We thought that there will be redress
17.3. We thought our situation would improve.
17.4. We thought all traditional communities will receive equal treatment.
17.5. We thought that dummy leadership will not be allowed to continue to usurp
authority.
17.6. We thought those who were disadvantaged will come back home from Babylon.
18. Sixteen years later, we are still waiting.
19. Whilst we agree that the Government of the ruling party has taken our communities
to a higher level in certain respects, a lot leaves much to be desired, particularly in
terms of the issues around traditional leadership.
20. Where we come from, the traditional leadership landscape is grossly uneven:
1) The rightful rulers have been reduced to nothing
2) Instead, we have impostors seating on the throne
3) Furthermore, it is friends of Apartheid who were confirmed as traditional leaders
even though their neither had the required credentials or the support of history
4) Those who were traditional leaders at the turn of the twentieth century, have been
replaced and overtaken by Bantu homeland appointees. In fact, the homeland
system has made a mockery of the concept of traditional leadership. During that
time, most collaborators and corrupt characters incredibly, landed stout traditional
leadership positions without a single drop of sweat. There were those who were
voted by homeland parliaments instead of communities (and not born) to be
traditional leaders.
Below follows an illustration of the facts above:
1. The Duiwelskloof Group

1943: Van Warmelo reported that the Duiwelskloof Office had 15 chiefs with equal
status. Amongst them he included Nhlaneki and Ngobe .
1957 : Only Ngobe and Nhlaneki were recognised as such
47 villages were given to Ngobe
18 villages were given to Dzumeri who was given the rare title of a sub-chief
13 other villages were grouped together to constitute a new Community Authority
(Xiviti)
This was done for inexpensive administration
Fact, history and diversity were not considered
1973 : The Xiviti Community Authority became a tribal authority named Twananani
Authority(included amongst others Homu, Nkomo, Hlomela, Ndindani)
1990 : Homu (5 Villages) became a Tribal Authority

 1990: Nkomo (5 villages) became a tribal Authority

2. Nhlaneki Area

By 1957 Hosi Shimange was classified under Mudjadji

The Shimange community never accepted this arrangement.
1968 : Shimange community was forced removed from their ancestral land and
dumped in Nhlanekis territory.
The new arrivals and Nhlaneki never agreed on anything
1996: The Ralushai Commission recommended that Shimange must be separated
from Nhlaneki for historical reasons.
Instead, it was the Ralushais Commission Report was not implemented.
Since the demise of the Homeland system, the relationship between Nhlaneki and
Shimange has moved from bad to worse
This affects development negatively; e.g the Shimange community has won a land
claim compensation. Planned projects cant be implemented because of legal
interdicts from the Nhlaneki Office.
This cant be said to be desirable
Furthermore, Nhlaneki has since appointed his own headmen in Shimanges
community. This has damaged any form of possible co-existence in the area.

The Maswanganye Case

Up to 1957 Maswanganye was recognised as an independent chief

Equal to Nhlaneki.
In 1957 Maswanganye was silently handed over to Nhlaneki as a headman without
any form of consultation
1966 : Hosi Samuel Maswanganye who was regarded as headman by Nhlaneki
died.
His successor to the throne was still a minor
Robinson Maswanganye acted as a regent
1981 : Robinson died
Albert Maswanganye, Robinsons younger brother assumed the acting position.
However, due to the fact that he was working at Phalaborwa, he requested another
brother, Mbhazima to stand in for him.
1984: Nhlaneki, without any negotiation confirmed and installed Mbhazima as his
headman.
Mbhazima is still refusing to vacate the throne.
He refuses to hand over the throne to the rightful heir
This situation is unhealthy. It should not be allowed to continue.
The Makuleke Case

By 1907 Makuleke was recognised as an independent chief

He had ten villages
Their home was at the confluence of the Limpopo and Levubu rivers

1969: They were forced-removed and settled within the Kruger National Park, at
Ntlhaveni after some border adjustments
Makuleke was given Blocks H, I and J. The other Blocks from A to G were given to
other local communities
1981 : According to Govt Notice No 15 of 1981, Makuleke was handed over to
Mhinga as a headman.
Makuleke does not report to Mhinga
He has a functional Tribal Authority Office which was furnished by the Gazankulu
Homeland government
His office was also provided with government employees for staff
After 1994 the staff was inexplicably redeployed to other centres
Makuleke also claimed and won ancestral land
Mhinga has no say upon it.
However, Mhinga still claim to be Makulekes senior.
COMMUNITY AUTHORITIES

1. This is another controversial concept

2. It was introduced in order to save cost for the Apartheid government.
3. A group of independent traditional leaders were put together within a so-called
community authority. The leadership of this group was expected to rotate amongst
the different community leaders.
Nkavele-Makhuvele-Hlungwani-Bevhula Group

1968 : These leaders were removed with their followers from their ancestral land in
Venda by force
They were loaded into trucks and dumped in the wilderness of the Kruger National
Park where there were not even basic facilities such as schools, supply of clean
water
The ancestral homes of Nkavele, Hlungwani and Bevhula were in what is now
Mphampulis area in Venda
Makhuvele came from the Sinthumule area, also in Venda
These communities did not have the slightest of affinity.
While in Venda, they were independent
They are still regarded as independent headmen without a chief.
Culturally, this is wrong.
These leaders are traditional leaders and their people regard them as such.
Their situation does not need a commission of enquiry.
All it needs is recognition.
THE HLANGANANI SET-UP
Gaza Tribal Authority

1957 : Mamaila Group

Khamanyani

Duvula(Makhuvele)
Xigalo Muhunguti

1957: Masakona Group

Mudona
Xihimu
1957 : Nthabalala Group
Ribungwana
Ribungwana
1957: Mulima Group
Nkanyani
Mahuntsi
Mangulwane
Mangove
The above twelve Machangani/Vatsonga leaders refused to remain under Vavhenda
traditional leaders

1966 : They were removed from their ancestral land with force`
They were settled on trust land under the Gaza Community Authority
1970 : Gaza Community Authority split into four community authorities:
Vuyani (Duvula & Mahuntsi)
Rungulani(Khamanyani& Xigalo)
Tiyani (Nkanyani, Mangulwani, Mangove, Xihimu &Mudona(Mashaba)
Yingwani Ribungwani(Later recognised as chief and granted a tribal Office)
The Netshimbupfe Cluster

In 1958 the following were equal in status:

Xigamani
Mphambo
Nkuri
Mtititi
Chapu(Khosa)
1962 : Nkuri was given a Tribal Authority under headman J. Nkuri
(Chapu
was incorporated under Nkuri without any negotiation)
1985 : Nkuri was granted full Tribal Authority status by the Gazankulu Homeland
govern for unknown reasons.
1968 : the others(Mtititi,Mphambo, and Xigamani) were forced removed from their
ancestral land and relocated to new areas with their own Community Authority
1990 : Mtititi was given full status of a tribal authority by the Gazankulu Homeland
government
The (Xigamani and Mphambo) remained independent headmen up to date. If they
are headmen, who is their chief?
Xingwedzi Tribal Authority
1958 : created

Had 41 farms
All fell under Venda-Shangaan Tribal Authority under Stefaan Tshikonelo
Affected Shangaan leaders were Madonsi, Mahonisi, Penny Nghotsa
The Shangaan leaders were unhappy in this union
1962: Madonsi Community Authority came into being
Had 15 farms under Headman Madonsi
1962 : Mahonisi and his farms(Jimmy Jones & Seeli) were incorporated
Into Mavambes territory without mutual agreement
1974 : Madonsi was given full Tribal Authority status
(Penny Nghotsa was subjected to Madonsi)

The Ribolla and Rosebank Cluster around Elim

1956; A meeting of Machangana and Venda chief took place in the presence of
Commissioners
Number of tihosi present : 17
The tihosi were instructed to come up with three tihosi
The total population of the affected area was 1907
Of these 1370 were Machangani
537 Vavhenda
Vavhenda were given 2 chiefs(Mashamba & Nesengani)
Machangani got one chief(Bungeni)
The remaining Machangani tihosi were reduced to independent headmen: Bokisi,
Ntshuxi, Mahatlani, Mbhokota,Xihambanyisi,Makhuvele,Mtsetweni,Wayeni Malele
and Chavani. This is how Machangani ended up with forty-seven independent
headmen

1966: Khensani Community Authority under Headmen Chavani

Bokisi
Mbokota
Nwa-Xinyamani
Chavani

1973: Khensani Community Authority became a full-fledged Tribal Authority

under Hosi Chavani
Bokisi, Mbhokota and Nwa-Xinyamani became Chavanis headmen
Masiya Cluster
1957: The following tihosi were declared to fall under Hosi Masiya
Majozi
Nkuzana
Madobi
Makhasa
Nwamatatana
Hlomela

They all fell under Masiya Tribal Authority

1966: Khomanani Community Authority Ws formed (but without Hlomela)
1985: Majozi community Authority was formed
1996: This Tribal Authority became dysfunctional
The former members became independent
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Since all the above mentioned challenges emanated from political platforms of one
kind or another, we strongly recommend that they be solved through a determined
political intervention. They are not the kind that can be solved through commissions
of enquiry and negotiations. In fact we regard commissions of enquiry as delaying
tactics. You are reminded of the Ralushai and the Nhlapho Commissions
2. The only solution to this problem is simply to recognise the de facto reality on the
ground, namely that they are practising as senior traditional leaders in their own
rights. Traditionally, they only pay allegiance to the Nghungunyani dynasty and the
Constitution of this country through the President of the Republic of South Africa.
This fact is completely irreversible. No commission can impose any other finding
beyond this fact.
3. As a ruling party and government, we know you have the capacity to realise that fact
and also to make it happen. This belief is the one that has made us vote for the year
in and year out.
4. There are also precedents that attest to our belief that you can do it. It has been
done in Limpopo and other provinces in our life time:
4.1.
4.2.
4.3.
4.4.
4.5.

5.
5.1.

5.2.

5.3.

It is common knowledge that in the year 2000 the former Premier of Limpopo,
Ngwako Ramatlhodi recognised Kgoshi Sekhukhune as King;
In 2005, the Kwazulu-Natal government passed the Ingwenyama Trust Act which
declared Zwelithini to be the king of Kwazulu-Natal;
The Kwazulu-Natal Provincial Government under former Premier Sbu Ndebele
restored iNkosi Zondi a descendant of the mighty rebellion leader Bambata.
In the Eastern Cape former Premier Balindlela also picked up her courage and
restored the Mandela dynasty whose leader was alleged to have been demoted..
This year, 2011, it is in the air that President Jacob Zuma is in the process of putting
up a traditional leadership structure of the Khoisan people. We are not asking for the
creation of brand new traditional leadership structures, but we are only asking for
their recognition.
Other benchmarking trends taken from modern history are as follows:
In the former Gazankulu area,
Between 1957 - 1968: 15 tihosi were recognised
Between 1967 1995: 18 new tihosi were recognised
In Venda
All independent headmen have been elevated to senior traditional leaders
In the heartland of Sekhukhune area
By 1960, the central Sekhukhune area had 4 Makgoshi only
By 1968 the heartland of Sekhukhune had 25 new traditional leaders had been
recognised

The Ramodike regime also created many, many more senior traditional leaders all
across former Lebowa
In all these cases, we see no evidence of commission of investigation.
We appeal for consistency
We appeal for equity
We appeal for redress
We appeal for urgency
Thanks you for listening to our clarion call