The Zulu Rebellion of 1906: The Collusion of Bambatha and Dinuzulu

Author(s): Paul S. Thompson

Source: The International Journal of African Historical Studies , 2003, Vol. 36, No. 3
(2003), pp. 533-557
Published by: Boston University African Studies Center

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3559433

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Boston University African Studies Center is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to The International Journal of African Historical Studies

This content downloaded from

163.200.81.46 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 13:30:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 International Journal of African Historical Studies 36,'3 (2003) 533

THE ZULU REBELLION OF 1906

THE COLLUSION OF BAMBATHA AND DINUZULU

By Paul S. Thompson

In 1906 the British colony of Natal in southern Africa was racked by a ma

rebellion. A portion of the African population took up arms against the co
government and European settlers. For several months the government was
pressed to contain and suppress the rebellion, and finally did so only with su
from the neighboring Cape Colony and the Transvaal, a fact which bore on
Natal settlers' decision three years later to join the new Union of South Af
The rebellion-for such it was legally and politically, although it has be
increasingly fashionable to call it a "disturbance," "protest," or "uprising"-
been variously called the Natal rebellion, the Natal native rebellion, the
rebellion, Bambatha's or the Bambatha rebellion (with Bambatha's name var
ly spelled), the poll-tax rebellion, and the "war of the heads," all of which
claims on appropriateness.

The immediate cause of the rebellion is generally recognized to have b

the imposition of a poll tax of ?1 on adult males (with some categories exem
in order to lift the Colony out of debt in the post-South African War depres
African young men resented having to pay the poll tax, and older men, man
whom were exempted because they paid hut tax, resented the poll tax becau
young men would no longer contribute towards payment of the hut tax an
parental control would be loosened. There were deeper causes as well, refle
the travail of African society in transformation under a remarkably insensitive
inflexible colonial regime. These underlying causes have been extens
analyzed in Shula Marks's Reluctant Rebellion: The 1906-1908 Disturban
Natal (1970).

Bambatha kaMancinza, the eponymous hero of the rebellion, had up un

just before the rebellion been chief of the Zondi people who lived in the Um
Division of the Colony of Natal. They were neither a large nor a small tribe
term is used advisedly in the historic sense). Bambatha had been deposed as c
in March 1906 for misconduct and had fled to Zululand, where he sought
Dinuzulu, the putative king of the Zulu people, and after a sojourn of several
at the king's place, returned to reclaim his authority and to launch a rebe
claiming Dinuzulu's sanction. On the 1st and 2nd of April he raised an arm
several hundred men; on the 2nd seized his uncle Magwababa, whom
government had appointed in his stead; on the 3rd attacked the magistrate o

This content downloaded from

163.200.81.46 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 13:30:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
534 PAUL S. THOMPSON

division who came to investigate; and on the 4th attacked a stro

the Natal police. As the colonial forces gathered round, the re
land, where they were joined by others, and operations contin
forces defeated them and Bambatha was killed in mid-June.

The name "Bambatha rebellion" or "Bambatha's rebellion" is probably the

one by which the event is best known. Yet the term "Zulu rebellion" used by
James Stuart in his A History of the Zulu Rebellion and of Dinuzulu's Arrest, Trial
and Expatriation (1913) indicates that the scope was greater and more varied, so
that the more inclusive term is preferable. Also, there was a matter of bringing in
Dinuzulu, who in 1908-1909 was tried for high treason, and, while found not
guilty on the main charges of instigating the rebellion, was found guilty of lesser
charges that resulted in his being sentenced to four years in exile. Yet during the
rebellion he was ostentatiously loyal to the colonial government. Was he playing
a double game?

The aim of this article is to focus on the relationship between Dinuzulu

and Bambatha during the period immediately prior to and at the outbreak of the
rebellion, and to examine (or to re-examine) evidence with a view to determining
the extent to which each was in collusion with the other. There are political impli-
cations as well, which will be considered in the Conclusion.

Bambatha's Rebellion, Dinuzulu's Treason

When Bambatha returned to Natal from Zululand at the end of March 1906, he
went to the section of the tribe that lived along the Impanza stream, in the lower
part of his "location" in the Umvoti Division. The Impanza people had previously
supported him against the government, and they responded promptly to his call to
arms now. He showed them a rifle that he said had been given to him by Dinuzulu
at his great place, the Usuthu, with which he was to start the fighting against the
white people. He pointed to the two emissaries from Dinuzulu, Ngqengqengqe
and Cakijana, and they confirmed what he said.1 Bambatha determined to enlarge

1 Cakijana stated that Ngqengqengqe addressed the assembled men, but Ngqengqengqe does
not mention it. See the Archives of the Registrar of the Supreme Court [hereafter RSC] II113/1: 97,
101, Ngqengqengqe's evidence [hereafter only the name of the witness will be given], and 316,
381, Cakijana; RSC III/3/3: 1520, 1522, Cakijana; RSC III/3/10: Ngqengqengqe's statement, Mar.
26, 1908. Archives of the Atttorney-General's Office [AGO] 1/7/58: Cakijana; AGO 1/7/66:
Cakijana and Ngqengqengqe; AGO I/7/68: Cakijana, May 20, 1908; AGO I/7/70: Ngqengqengqe,
Apr. 27, 1908. Archives of the Secretary for Native Affairs [SNA], I/4/414: Minute 3263 of 1908,
Prosecutor Martial Law to Administrator Martial Law, Umvoti Division, July 29, 1906; SNA
1/6/27: C163/1906, Magwababa and Umgemuka. Natal Mercury, Apr. 3, 1906: "The Native
Unrest." Greytown Gazette, Feb. 24, 1906: "Scarecrows." All manuscript sources cited in this
article are in the Pietermaritzburg Archives Repository of the KwaZulu-Natal Archives. In this and
succeeding notes trial evidence is indicated by the name of the witness; however, a date following
a name indicates a declaration, deposition, or statement.

This content downloaded from

163.200.81.46 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 13:30:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE ZULU REBELLION OF 1906 535

his force by commandeering men from the section of the tribe in the upp
his location loyal to his uncle Magwababa, whom the government had
chief.2 Bambatha seemed obsessed with revenge and would have killed
whom he regarded as instrumental in his deposal, when he was captured
the commandeering parties, but Cakijana intervened to prevent it
reason was that the murder would divide the tribe just when they ne
united to fight. He got Bambatha's consent to a trial, at which Cakija
eloquently and obtained Magwababa's acquittal. Then he co-opted Magw
the rebel cause. Magwababa acquiesced to save his life, and Bambatha u
accepted the royal emissary's dispensation.3

The commandeering of men perhaps doubled the size of the reb

which still did not represent a majority of the tribe.4 A plan to attack
the seat of the division, also attributed to Dinuzulu, was abandoned.5
Ngqengqengqe had returned to Zululand, accompanying a doctor (of w
presently) for Dinuzulu, and saying he was going back to arrange for th
Zululand to join them.6 Cakijana now assumed the role of co-leader of
ient rebellion. He was indispensable for direction and discipline of the r
such as it was, although Bambatha gave the orders. Cakijana reiterate
was sent from the Usuthu, but when the men called him "chief' he repr
and referred to himself and was then referred to by them as an officer o
sent from Zululand. Both Bambatha and Cakijana told the men that th

2 RSCIII/3/1: 97. SNA 116/26: Magwababa, June 1, 1906; Mercury, Apr. 3,

Native Unrest."

3 RSC III/3/1: 41, Magwababa; 117-18, Ngqengqengqe; 327, Cakijana; RSC III/3/3: 1523,
1904-5, Cakijana; RSC III/3/10: Ngqengqengqe. AGO 1/1/59: Ngqengqengqe, May 8, 1908; AGO
1/7/62: Magwababa, Apr. 21, 1906; AGO 1/1/66: Ngqengqengqe; AGO 1/7/68: Cakijana, May 20,
1908; AGO I/1/75 and 80: Magwababa, Mar.23, 1908. SNA 1/6/26: Magwababa, June 1, 1906;
SNA 116/27: C163; and SNA 194/1906: Magwababa.

4 See and cf. SNA 1/1/414: 3263/1908, Return of Magistrate Umvoti, Apr. 3, 1907; and
Colony of Natal, Census of the Colony of Natal April 1904 (Pietermaritzburg, 1905), Part I, Table
VII: No. 19: Umvoti Division.

5 RSC III/3/1: 24, Magwababa. AGO 1/7/68: Cakijana, May 20, 1908; AGO I/7/75 and /80:
Magwababa, Mar. 23, 1908. SNA 116/26: Magwababa, June 2, 1906.

6 RSC III/3/1: 82, 99-100, 103, Ngqengqengqe; and 318-21, 378, Cakijana; RSC II/3/3:
Cakijana; III/3/6: 4689, Mankulumana; and RSC III/3/10: Ngqengqengqe, Mar. 26, 1908. AGO
1/7/59: Ngqengqengqe, May 8, 1908; AGO 1/7/66: Ngqengqengqe and Cakijana; AGO 1/7/68:
Cakijana, May 20, 1908; and AGO 1/7/70: Ngqengqengqe, Apr. 27, 1908. Archives of the Prime
Minister's Office [PM] 59: 425/1906, Malongweni, Apr. 23, 1906.

This content downloaded from

163.200.81.46 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 13:30:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
536 PAUL S. THOMPSON

war and they were going to fight the white people and Dinuz
support them.7

No sooner had Magwababa been tried than the resident m

division, with a small detachment of police, came down to the
for him. The rebels drove him off.8 Cakijana may have tried to
but he was prevented from doing so by a strong police presen
borhood.9 The rebels attacked the police and were repulsed, but
field and so the rebels claimed victory.10

In July 1907 Bambatha's favorite wife Siyekiwe and

Kolekile and Ndabayake, whom he left at the Usuthu, reported t
Mahlabatini that Dinuzulu had been sheltering them since Mar
else, which made it appear that Dinuzulu had been involved in
perhaps had instigated it. The government proceeded to arrest a
on twenty-three counts for high treason. The most serious of th
or about March 1906 he "did send for, receive, incite, ord
persuade" Bambatha and others "to take up arms and to make an
rection and rebellion" and provide them with firearms and amm

The trial of the king on charges of high treason, arising fro

lasted from November 1908 to March 1909. Dinuzulu stoutly d
city in the rebellion, but had to admit that Bambatha had visit
members at the Usuthu. Bambatha had asked to settle in the
was all. There were no firearms given and there was no incite
like it: the two emissaries who had gone back to Natal with h
doctor whom Bambatha had recommended for the king. Whate
was Bambatha's doing and not his. The Special Court found Di

7 RSC 111/3/1: 29, Magwababa; 122, 128, Bova; 134, Sofuguza; 136, B
356-57, 380-83, Cakijana. AGO 1/7/58: Baletshe, Magwababa, and Mso
Magwababa, Apr. 21, 1906; AGO 1/7/68: Cakijana. May 20, 1908; AGO 1
24, 1908, Magwababa, Mar. 23, 1908, Msolwa, Apr. 8, 1908, and Sofugu
59: 425/1906, Malongweni, Apr. 23, 1906. SNA 1/6/27: C163/1906, Bal
Umgemuka; and SNA 1/6/27: C194/1906, Gwazizulu, Qandela, Sanq
Magistrate and Commissioner, Weenen [1/WEN] 1/4/2/1, No. 20/1906, Nqak

8 SNA 1/1/338: 1021/1906, Mgt. Greytown to SNA.

9 AGO 1/7/66 and RSC II1/3/3: 1525, Cakijana; and AGO 1/7/68, Cak
Cf. SNA 1/6/27: C194/1906, Nomangoza.

10 There are many accounts of the battle, but PM 102: C230/1906, O

Troops to Defence, Apr. 5, 1906; AGO 1/7/68: Cakijana, May 20, 19
Magwababa, June 1, 1906, will suffice in this instance.

11 The Trial of Dinuzulu on Charges of High Treason, at Greyto

(Pietermaritzburg, 1910), Indictment, ii.

This content downloaded from

163.200.81.46 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 13:30:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE ZULU REBELLION OF 1906 537

only three counts, viz. harboring Bambatha's wife and children; subseq
May 1906) concealing and sheltering Bambatha and another rebel
later (between May 1906 and December 1907) concealing and shelterin
hundred rebel rank and file in the wake of defeat.12

The presiding judge stated: "I think that the probabilities of the c
overwhelmingly against the theory that the prisoner incited Bambat
mence the rebellion, that it seems to me to be incredible." Yet he conc
"Bambata had succeeded-and succeeded beyond his expectations,
say-in the supposed common plan formed between him and the p
commence the war against the white people.'13

Historians of the rebellion have not been able to go much furthe

left with a mystery: what exactly was the relationship between Bam
Dinuzulu? Did they collude in launching the rebellion or not? Of the
giving the history of the rebellion, the first, Stuart's History of the Zulu
contains a theory that would resolve the mystery:14

We believe that Bambata went to Dinuzulu with the resolution to rebel

already formed, and that the sole object of the visit was to obtain from
Dinuzulu, at that time believed by ignorant Natives to be all-powerful, an
assurance that if he, Bambata, belled the cat, he would obtain the Zulu
Chief's support. We believe, after a long and careful study of the facts,
that such assurance was unequivocably, but subtly given. The proof of this
is that Bambata fled unhesitatingly to Nkandhla as soon as he rebelled,
where he immediately got the support of an acknowledged Usutu adher-
ent, and such was given because Sigananda was directed by Dinuzulu to
"protect" Bambata. We do not believe Dinuzulu went out of his way to
incite the man to rebel, still less that he sent for him in a cold-blooded way
with the object of inciting him to rebel, nor even that he suggested his so
doing, because, as we have endeavoured to show, the intent was probably
already latent in Bambata's own mind. This "suggestion" theory is plaus-
ible and appears to fit the case exactly, except for the animus injuriandi
that may reasonably be supposed to have been present in Bambata's mind
before he started for Usutu. In other words, we believe he was the author,
but only because Dinuzulu was the accessory.

12 Ibid., xv-xvii.

13 Ibid., xiii.

14 James Stuart, A History of the Zulu Rebellion 1906 and of Dinuzulu's Arrest, Trial and
Expatriation (London, 1913), 498.

This content downloaded from

163.200.81.46 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 13:30:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
538 PAUL S. THOMPSON

Marks's Reluctant Rebellion, the second history, is less sug

because of the trial evidence:'5

For the historian the numerous allegations and counterallegations by

defence and prosecution against one another's methods of procuring
evidence, tend in the end to invalidate all evidence qua evidence....
Despite their impressive written form, the records of the trial are oral
tradition with more than all the usual pitfalls.

None the less Marks delineates the two versions, the prosecution's and defense's,
and finds the defense version the more plausible.'6

Stuart's and Marks's works differ in their approach, understanding, and

conclusions with regard to the rebellion. Both are scholars careful of analysis and
they will not be hurried in their narratives. An official intimately involved with
the events of which he wrote, Stuart's focus is essentially political, although he
touches practically all other aspects of the situation as well and particularly excels
on the cultural one. He may be the apologist of the regime, but the earnest con-
cern with which he writes is often moving, and his outlook on future relations
between the races can hardly be called optimistic. Marks was an academic far
removed in time and place from the events. An outstanding figure of the radical
historiography of the 1960s and 1970s, she attributes the unfolding events to the
dynamics of the capitalist colonial system, and she is much harder on the settlers
than Stuart. But these two magisterial works, a half-century apart, which dominate
all other writing, both see a rebellion going to happen, waiting only for something
to set it off and for someone to lead it. The someone was Bambatha. And maybe
Dinuzulu, too-but no; given the evidence before them he did not, could not fit
that role.

What of the other literature?

Of the two major histories of Natal in the colonial period, Edgar H.

Brookes and Colin deB. Webb's A History of Natal (1965) quotes the court's
judgement on the main count and for the rest is concerned with Dinuzulu's
inactivity after the outbreak of the rebellion;17 and Andrew Duminy and Bill
Guest's Natal and Zululandfrom earliest times to 1910 (1989) simply states with

15 Shula Marks, Reluctant Rebellion: The 1906-1908 Disturbances in Natal (Oxford, 1970),
280.

16 Ibid., 283.

17 Edgar H. Brookes and Colin deB. Webb, A History of Natal (Pietermaritzburg, 1965),
225-27.

This content downloaded from

163.200.81.46 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 13:30:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE ZULU REBELLION OF 1906 539

respect to the meeting of Bambatha and Dinuzulu that Dinuzulu's "

proceedings remains obscure."18

Only the non-academic historian C. T. Binns, in Dinuzulu: Th

the House of Shaka (1968), goes beyond Stuart-with whom he d
stantially. He accepts the defense's version of the meeting between
Dinuzulu, but suggests something going on which Dinuzulu do
about:19

It must be remembered that he stayed four days at Dinuzulu's

which time he moved about quite freely and met many of the
amongst whom were a considerable number of malcontent
whom there also burned a fierce spirit of resentment at the gene
sion of their nation, a resentment which had been greatly infl
recent imposition of the Poll Tax. A man of Bambata's cunni
larly in his present revengeful mood, would naturally turn to
spirits and as he discussed matters with them he laid his plans
action. There were many guns at Usutu at that time and it w
difficult to persuade newly-found friends to procure one or
own use. That he was successful in this quest is proved by later
by the time he left Dinuzulu's kraal he had obtained possessi
magazine rifle, a double-barrelled breech-loader and a carbine.
an easy matter for a man of such character to go back to his peo
up their fighting qualities by telling them that he had receive
from Dinuzulu, when in reality they had come not from Dinuz
the malcontents in his kraal. Further, as if in support of his s
could point to the two King's messengers who accompanied h
convince anyone who had a doubt of the truth of his words.

Dinuzulu ignorant of sedition in his own kraal! Nameless underlin

rebellion with a petty chief! But Binns's own notes indicate he did n
record of Dinuzulu's trial at all, and the above account really i
fiction.

Royal and Family Versions

The evidence bearing on the relationship between Bambatha and D

conveniently categorized in "royal" and "family" versions of what

18 John Lambert, "From Independence to Rebellion: African Soci

c.1880-1910," in Andrew Duminy and Bill Guest, eds., Natal and Zululandfrom
1910: A New History (Pietermaritzburg, 1989), 393.

19 C. T. Binns, Dinuzulu: The Death of the House of Shaka (London, 1968), 19

This content downloaded from

163.200.81.46 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 13:30:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
540 PAUL S. THOMPSON

the Usuthu, and these in the main conform with the cases of t
prosecution, respectively, at the trial.

The "royal" version is that expounded by Dinuzulu and his

Mankulumana and elaborated and confirmed in detail by certain
royal kraal. Broadly speaking, this version is that Bambatha arr
at the Usuthu with two retainers, a pregnant wife, and three of hi
His entree was provided by his relationship to Dinuzulu's newest
of Mawele, former chief of the amaBomvu, who lived near the
Natal. According to Dinuzulu Bambatha told him: "She is my si
mother and my mother are daughters of Pakade.'20 (Phakade wa
the amaChunu, another neighboring tribe.)

After a couple of days Bambatha was granted an interview

the Zulu king for a place to live under his rule. He pleaded tha
impoverished by high rents charged by white farmers and
imprisoned for debt. He was told by Dinuzulu and Mankulumana
could not be granted and he must return to Natal to sort out his
government. In any case, he had come without a government p
get one if he came to the Usuthu. Bambatha accepted this, but j
he remarked that the king was suffering from a serious illness a
a well-known doctor of his tribe, Simiti, might cure him. Dinu
him, and two trusted men, the middle-aged Ngqengqengqe
Cakijana, were provided to escort the great doctor from Bamb
the Usuthu. The doctor was found to be away and Bambatha sen
back with Ngqengqengqe, while Cakijana waited to escort the gr
return. Dinuzulu acquiesced in Bambatha's leaving his dependan
where they stayed with Okamawele.21

Counsel for the defense at the trial made Dinuzulu out to b

and even deceitful, but never a rebel or a conspirator.22 Dinuzul
great length and with great care. So did Mankulumana, whom
"a right good man" with "dignity, in truth, honour, and self-
though he did admit to perjury in a treason trial earlier at th
tracy.24 Dinuzulu's other chief headman, Mgwaqo, refuse

20 RSC III/3/5: 4011, Dinuzulu.

21 Ibid., III/3/5: 4008-13, and III/3/6: 4390, 4630-31, Dinuzulu, a

Mankulumana.

22 Trial, 48, 54, 78; cf. the court, xii-xiii.

23 Ibid., 5.

24 RSC III/3/6: 4815.

This content downloaded from

163.200.81.46 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 13:30:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE ZULU REBELLION OF 1906 541

statements at all and was spared being forced to because he and Mank
were also to be tried for high treason later.25

The "family" version is that Bambatha, with two retainers and his
wife and three children (not by her) left Natal because he was deeply i
the police were looking for him; also, he was summoned to the Usuthu
Dinuzulu's messengers, Ngqengqengqe, who travelled part of the way w
The dependents (except for the older boy Ndabayake, who went o
father) were exhausted and had to rest so that they only reached the U
days after Barbatha and the others. Almost immediately after they wer
they attended an evening gathering at Dinuzulu's house, where Bamb
presented with a Mauser rifle and told to go back to Natal to start the fig
the white people and then to go to the Nkandla in Zululand where th
would be joined by royal forces. Next morning Bambatha left to do so.2

The "family" version is put forward in a series of statements over

year by Bambatha's wife Siyekiwe, and two of the children, the girl K
the boy Ndabayake, as well as in evidence at the trial, and there are gr
pancies in details between what the several witnesses have to say,
between the several statements of each child.

The evidence of Dinuzulu and Mankulumana is coherent and very smooth.

We can easily understand why they would lie, and even admire the aplomb with
which they apparently did so. The evidence of Siyekiwe was plausible-the court
considered her a "woman who seemed to give her evidence well."27 Not so Kole-
kile and Ndabayake, who contradicted themselves and undermined Siyekiwe.28
Yet why would they lie? And do it so badly?

We also have a third version, the "emissary" version-almost, but not

quite, for it is practically all based on hearsay. This consists of the evidence and
statements of Ngqengqengqe and Cakijana, who were not present at the crucial
meetings at the Usuthu but had a lot to say about what they were told of them.
According to Nqgqengqengqe, he was instructed by Mankulumana to go with

25 Trial, x. Ngqengqengqe later suggested that Mgwaqo was behind some sort of conspiracy
involving Dinuzulu and Bambatha. See AGO 1/7/66: Ngqengqengqe, referring to Mankulumana,
and 70: Apr. 17, 1908, and RSC 11I/3/10: March 26, 1908.

26 RSC III/3/1: 386, and RSC 1113/2: 243-52, 277, 298-306, 311-12, Siyekiwe; 343-46,
349-53, 357, 386-90, 394-409, Kolekile; and 421-25, 432-44, 599-601, 603-12, 634-35,
680-81, Ndabayake. AGO 1/7/61: Siyekiwe, July 12 and 19, 1907; Kolekile, July 13 and 18, 1907;
AGO 1/7/67: Siyekiwe, Dec. 24, 1907; Ndabayake, July 19 and Dec. 23, 1907; also AGO 1/7/54:
Nsukuzonke, Sept. 18, 1908. SNA 1/4/19: C289/1907, Siyekiwe, Dec. 13, 1907; and SNA 1/6/26
CR69/1907, Siyekiwe, Dec. 5, 1907.

27 Trial, iv; cf. xx.

28 Ibid., iv, xi.

This content downloaded from

163.200.81.46 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 13:30:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
542 PAUL S. THOMPSON

Bambatha to fetch a doctor and en route to collect a second ma

to be Cakijana. Before they reached Cakijana's Bambatha may h
Ngqengqengqe that he had been given guns at the Usuthu and w
fighting in Natal. Cakijana, who was about to return to work in
reluctant to go with them, but his father prevailed on him.

As the party journeyed on, a bundle carried by one of B

was unpacked and repacked into two for easier porterage and
seen. Bambatha and Ngqengqengqe talked openly of the comin
to Cakijana, to the point that Ngqengqengqe urged discretion on
"We are going for a doctor," he reminded him, and called him
brandishing his rifle.29

Ngqengqengqe gave evidence at Cakijana's trial but no

Cakijana was taken into custody only a short time before the
provided a long and vivid account of his career as a rebel and
consolidated into a single statement. He testified for the prosec
trial. The defense accused him of having cut a deal and at
exclaimed that he had been telling "a pack of lies." The cou
recognize that he was a very unreliable witness.30 Yet the tes
Cakijana and Ngqengqengqe, mixed and tainted as it is, bears o
between Bambatha and Dinuzulu in an important way: they sa
launching of the rebellion. Admittedly it treats Dinuzulu indirect
one is very aware that he is their king and they are his loyal su
what they have to say does not constitute a third version but a
royal one.

So we have two versions that do not match. They even conflict. The
witnesses are all suspect. The evidence in the trial of Dinuzulu is never con-
clusive, as Marks has pointed out. And what Stuart pointed out should not be
forgotten: the court did not accept the royal version. For Dinuzulu to escape the
serious charges against him, it was not necessary for the defense to prove his
version of what occurred, only to discredit the prosecution's version.31

It can be argued that Dinuzulu had ensured that, apart from Bambatha's
dependents at the Usuthu, almost everyone who knew of his complicity was

29 Ngqengqengqe mentions no such conversation. RSC II/3/1:74, 78, 88, Ngqengqengqe,

and 306, 310, Cakijana; RSC 111/3/3: 1512-9, Cakijana; RSC 111/3/10, Ngqengqengqe, Mar. 26,
1908. AGO 1/7/58 and AGO 1/7/66, Cakijana and Ngqengqengqe; AGO 1/7/68, Cakijana, May 20,
1980; and AGO 1/7/70, Ngqengqengqe, Dec. 30, 1907 and Apr. 27, 1908.

30 The "Resume of Statement" by Cakijana, dated May 20, 1908, appears in AGO 1/7/68. It
is quite picaresque and merits publication as a story in its own right. Defense counsel's remark is
in RSC III/3/3: 1763, and the court's opinion in Trial, vi, xii.

31 Stuart, Zulu Rebellion, 494.

This content downloaded from

163.200.81.46 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 13:30:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE ZULU REBELLION OF 1906 543

silenced or "turned" by the time of his trial. Mankulumana was his mas
Indeed, when we speak of Dinuzulu we really mean Dinuzulu and Man
for they were as one. Mgwago remained silent. The hangers-on at the U
into line. Okamawele, cousin to Bambatha and sponsor of his depende
Usuthu, loyal to her husband, would have nothing to say. Bambat
retainers were conveniently dead, as was the small doctor. Ngqen
incriminations, if any, were reserved for Cakijana's trial. That left onl
also on trial, perhaps for his life, and probably got at by the state. Yet
erness to perfection. He said what the prosecution wanted, then more,
ultimately to his discredit and to the king's advantage.

New Evidence, Other Evidence, Further Examination

The capacity and integrity of the Special Court have not been question
its verdict, but in arriving at it the court did operate under an important
The presiding judge stated:32

It must be remembered, too, that in a case tried before a Court co

as this is we are largely in the hands of counsel. We have not se
depositions, and therefore are not in a position to say how far a f
appears to us to be immaterial at the time may not really be of im
in its relation to other relevant facts.

The two major histories of the rebellion, those of Stuart and Mar
have a chapter on the trial of Dinuzulu.33 Both are critical of the evi
Marks is critical of Stuart for using depositions in preference to tria
Stuart wrote in the era before the practice of detailed footnoting of sou
did write in the era of detail, and her notes indicate a fairly wide ra
dence. Neither seems to have had access to the martial law case pr
which have become accessible only recently.

The "depositions" referred to above are presumably the various s

and declarations, in addition to depositions as such, all properly attes
were collected between the time of the rebellion and the time of the tr
ous officials. They are not to be confused with reports, which do no
legal attestation. They vary greatly in quality. Some persons were in
several times, such as Ngqengqengqe and Siyekiwe, and others just on

32 Trial, xix. The proceedings of the Special Court in Dinuzulu's case alone r
pages of transcript (see RSC III/3/2-7). Nor is his case the only one-there are f
including Cakijana's. There are related documents in other volumes. Altogether the
volumes in RSC III/3 (Special Court: Zulu Rebellion), and thirty volumes in the AGO
(Zulu Rebellion 1906). Thus an examination of the material in toto would be a mammoth

33 Chapters XXII and 11, respectively.

This content downloaded from

163.200.81.46 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 13:30:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
544 PAUL S. THOMPSON

effect Cakijana. Moreover the several statements of an individ

same, and the differences between them do suggest some pres
deponents. There are contradictions, also instances where words
someone's mouth. As Marks pointed out with regard to the evid
all this throws objective truth pretty much out the window. But n

The defense did a good job picking apart the family versi
the Usuthu, so that the court rejected the evidence of a direct c
Dinuzulu to Bambatha to rebel, and because of this the royal v
stature, even though, as Stuart points out, the court did not necess
is hard not to think that when one side proves the other wrong, it

Yet the royal version has many weak spots, and we are abo
them in the light of the additional evidence, some of which wa
time though not to the court, and some that was not accessible at
after Stuart and Marks had written their accounts of the rebellion. And we shall
have to venture beyond the events at the Usuthu, to events following, up to and
including the launching of the rebellion.

First, we shall look into the matter of the firearms. Bambatha must have
got them somewhere, for he had them when he started the rebellion. Where did
they come from, if not from the Usuthu? Second, we shall look for the doctor
whom Bambatha was to send to Dinuzulu. He is the reason Ngqengqengqe and
Cakijana went with Bambatha. Was he real? Or was the mission a canard? Third,
we shall consider the matter of a wider conspiracy, the secret diplomacy of rebell-
ion. We shall begin with Bambatha's apparent safe conduct to the Usuthu, then
focus on what are no more than hints at wider preparations before his return from
Natal, and finally examine Bambatha's calls on neighbouring chiefs for support,
using Dinuzulu's name.

The Gun

The first matter is the gun or the guns that Bambatha got at the Usuthu for the
purpose of launching the rebellion. Dinuzulu and Mankulumana denied direct
knowledge of any, and when Ngqengqengqe reported back to them that Bambatha
claimed to have got them there, Mankulumana's inquiry-if, indeed, he really
made one-was ineffectual and revealed nothing.34 Dinuzulu conjectured at the
trial that Bambatha might have brought guns from Natal but hid them at a nearby
kraal just before entering the Usuthu.35

34 RSC III/3/6: 4367, Dinuzulu, and 4811: Mankulumana.

35 RSC 11/3/5: 4810, 4827, 4893-94, Dinuzulu; cf. 4689 and 4817, Mankulumana,. AGO
I/7/59, Ngqengqengqe, May 8, 1908.

This content downloaded from

163.200.81.46 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 13:30:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE ZULU REBELLION OF 1906 545

Of course, Siyekiwe, Kolekile, and Ndabayake all insisted that B

had taken no firearms with him and had been given one at the Usuth
rifle, according to Siyekiwe and Ndabayake-and he had left the Usuth
under wraps.36 Ngqengqengqe and Cakijana both stated that en route
Usuthu to the Impanza they saw three guns produced from a bundle or
Mauser rifle, a Mauser carbine, and a double-barrel shotgun. The Mau
was for Bambatha, the Mauser carbine was for the chief Silwana, and t
would appear to have been Bambatha's personal weapon, which he
where on the way to the Usuthu and collected on the way back.37

Back at the Impanza, Bambatha displayed the Mauser rifle to subs

his claim of Dinuzulu's support for rebellion,38 even though he did not
to use it and subsequently put it aside in action for his trusty shotgun.
bine may have been displayed to the crowd, too, in the hands of Cak
then was not seen again, presumably being put away for Silwana late
interesting that apart from Ngqengqengqe and Cakijana, only Magwa
tively identified a Mauser in Bambatha's possession, which he called a
rifle."41

Bambatha looted the house of W. N. Varty, an ostrich farmer at the

Impanza, and got four other guns. A Martini-Henry carbine was given to

36 RSC III/3/1: 386, and RSC III/3/2: 250-52, 306, Siyekiwe; 351, 356-57, 399, 402, 404,
407, 410, 475, Kolekile; and 612-16, 667, Ndabayake. AGO 1/7/58 and 66: Siyekiwe; AGO
1/7/61: Siyekiwe, Jul;y 12 and 19, 1907; Kolekile, July 13 and 18, 1907; Ndabayake, July 19,
1907; AGO I/7/67: Siyekiwe, Dec. 23, 1907; Kolekile, Dec. 24, 1907; Ndabayake, Dec. 23, 1907.
SNA 1/4/19: C289/1907: Kolekile, Dec. 12, 1907; and SNA 1/6/29: CR69/1907, Siyekiwe, July 5,
1907.

37 RSC I/3/1: 78, 97, Ngqengqengqe, and 308, Cakijana; RSC 111/3/2: 307, Siyekiwe, and
594, 596-97, 681, Ndabayake; RSC 111/3/3: 1514, Cakijana; RSC 11I/3/6: 4817: Mankulumana;
RSC II113/7; 6140-41, Ndangana; and 1 RSC 111/3/0, Ngqengqengqe, Mar. 26, 1908. AGO 1/7/58
and AGO 1/7/66, Cakijana; 59: Ngqengqengqe, May 8, 1908; AGO 1/7/61: Ndabayake, July 19,
1907; AGO 1/7/68, Cakijana, May 20, 1908; and AGO 1/7/70: Ngqengqengqe, Dec. 30, 1907 and
Apr. 27, 1908; SNA 1/6/27: C194/1906, Novunywa.

38 RSC 111/3/1: 101, Ngqengqengqe.

39 Ibid., 101, Ngqengqengqe, and 316, 329, Cakijana; and RSC III/3/7: 6135 and 6147,
Ndangana. AGO 1/7/66, Cakijana; AGO 1/7/68: Cakijana, May 20, 1908. SNA 1/6/26: C63/1906,
Magwababa, and his statement, June 1, 1906; and SNA 1/6/27: C194/1906, Novunywa, Sikukula.
When Bambatha was not carrying his shotgun, his retainer Mgoma evidently was.

40 RSC 11/3/1: 149-50, Msolwa. SNA 1/6/27: 107, Mageza. During his own trial Cakijana
once spoke of Bambatha referring before his assembled men to the "assegai" he got at the Usuthu,
and Magwababa places this at the end of his so-called trial and states that he meant, of course, the
gun he held (see RSC III/3/1: 41 and 381).

41 RSC III/3/1: 36, Magwababa. SNA 1/6/26: Magwababa, June 2, 1906.

This content downloaded from

163.200.81.46 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 13:30:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
546 PAUL S. THOMPSON

Cakijana. The other three guns were not for combat: an old sin
loader, which Varty called a curio; a double-barrel shotgun in p
rebels seem not to have put together; and another, older shotgun
with a hole in one barrel, so that it burst and injured the man who
these seven firearms Bambatha proposed to launch his rebellion.
cient stiffening to the spears and shields with which the great m
were armed.

By the time of Dinuzulu's trial it was no longer possible to produce physi-

cally and to identify the particular guns that Bambatha allegedly brought from the
Usuthu to the Impanza, and proof of his having brought them depended on what
witnesses said about having seen and known about them. The prosecution left this
to the family members. Denying the family version, the defense perforce skirted
the matter, except to produce a witness (a convicted rebel) who claimed
Bambatha never had a Mauser rifle at the Impanza, although Cakijana did!43 The
defense would have it that Bambatha received no guns at all at the Usuthu, and
the Court did not disagree.44

There is the problem that witnesses in the courts martial and martial law
trials at Greytown did not know the makes of guns they saw-single- or double-
barrel, breech- or muzzle-loader, rifle or shotgun, was the maximum refinement
of description-or did not bother to say, if they did know, and this makes it diffi-
cult to assign particular firearms to particular persons. Yet a tally is not impossi-
ble. By the time Bambatha was ready to take the offensive on the evening of
Tuesday, April 2nd, he had at hand the three guns brought back from the Usuthu
and the four looted at Varty's, and the seven guns can be accounted for that
evening.45

The Doctor

Dinuzulu was a sick man and he seems to have collected doctors.46 The doctor
Bambatha was to send to the Usuthu to heal Dinuzulu is of central importance in

42 RSC 11/3/1: 319, and AGO 1/7/66, Cakijana; AGO 1/7/68, Cakijana, May 20, 1908. SNA
1/6/27: C194/1906, Novunywa, Nyamana, W. N. Varty.

43 Trial, 38 and 97.

44 Ibid., xi.

45 See AGO 1/7/58: Magwababa and AGO 1/7/68, Cakijana, May 20, 1908. SNA 1/6/26:
Magwababa, June 1-2, 1906; and SNA 1/6/27: C194/1906, Baletje, Juwili, Magwababa,
Novunywa, and Nyamana. 1/WEN 1/4/2/1: 20/1906, Nqakamatshe.

46 RSC 111/3/1: 118-19, Ngqengqengqe; RSC IIV3/2: 429, Ndabayake, and 877-78, Jwebu;
RSC 111/3/6: 4004, 4008-09, 4012, 4629, Dinuzulu, and 4678, 4682, Mankulumana; and RSC
111/3/7: 5539-40, Sisini. AGO 1/7/61: Ndabayake, July 19, 1907; 74, Jwebu, Mar. 7, 1908; and 76:

This content downloaded from

163.200.81.46 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 13:30:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE ZULU REBELLION OF 1906 547

the royal version of events. Why else did Ngqengqengqe and Cakija
emissaries, accompany Bambatha, if not to escort the great docto
Usuthu? If there was no doctor to get, then there was no reason f
and they went for another reason, which, the prosecution averred,
rebellion, though the court did not agree.47

The royal version of what happened is that Bambatha, havin

during his interview the sickness and pain of the king, afterwar
lumana that his people had a doctor named Simiti who might be
king, and he offered the great doctor's services. Mankulumana a
then treating the king as well as a visitor who was attending Okam
knowledgeable about the amaZondi if they knew of Simiti, and the
for him by reputation. Mankulumana then took this information t
agreed to try the doctor. It was all quickly done and decided.48 A
ger who happened to be at the Usuthu, Ngqengqengqe, was t
Bambatha to fetch this doctor. He was not told the doctor's name.
would collect a boy at Gezindaka's kraal for a second escort. This
It was the practice to send a pair of messengers, in case somethi
(such as a snakebite) to one, the other would carry on. Presu
would carry the doctor's medicines.49

Dinuzulu and Mankulumana, having just reproved Bambatha

to Zululand without a government pass, did not think it was
Ngqengqengqe and Cakijana to have passes to go to Natal, reasonin
Bambatha wished to settle at the Usuthu, Ngqengqengqe and Cak
at the Impanza no longer than was necessary to collect the doctor.5

Siyekiwe and Kolekile never heard of the mission for a

Ndabayake first remembered having heard it mentioned only whe
Dinuzulu's trial.51

Sicoto, May 26, 1908. Sisini's and Jwebu's comments were hardly resoundin
Simiti's skill.

47 Trial, xiii, 22 and 69.

48 RSC 1/3/1: 72, Ngqengqengqe; RSC 111/3/2: 884-85, Jwebu; RSC 111/3/5: 4012-13,
4016, and RSC III/3/6: 4311, 4384-86, 4390-91, Dinuzulu; 4682-83, Mankulumana; RSC
III/3/7:5947-47a, Sisini; AGO 1/7/54: Mangati, Nov. 8, 1908; 58: Cakijana; and 74: Jwebu, Mar.
7, 1908.

49 RSC 11I/3/1: 88, 119-20, Ngqengqengqe, and 285, Meleli; RSC 111/3/6: 4013, 4654-55,
Dinuzulu, and 4683, Mankulumana; and 10: Ngqengqengqe, Mar. 26, 1908. AGO 1/7/58 and AGO
1/7/66: Ngqengqengqe; and AGO 1/7/70: Ngqengqengqe, Dec. 30, 1907 and Apr. 27, 1908.

50 RSC III/3/6: 4011, 4656-57, Dinuzulu, and 4681, Mankulumana.

51 RSC 111/3/2:311, Siyekiwe, and 617, Ndabayake.

This content downloaded from

163.200.81.46 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 13:30:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
548 PAUL S. THOMPSON

According to the statements and evidence of Ngqengqengqe

their mission to fetch the doctor was never lost sight of, even tho
be progressively overshadowed by Bambatha's lust for war
announced to the rebels assembled at the Impanza, and Bambatha
but the great doctor was reported to be away at some sort of ma
outside the district. He was sent for there, but obviously it wo
before he returned.52

The only Simiti mentioned in other documents is a rebel rin

fied by Magwababa. He was later removed from the division fo
behavior. There is nothing mentioned about his being a doctor, al
not necessarily mean he was not one. Magwababa's evidence also
absent from the Impanza at this time, for he is not named as b
commandeering parties or, indeed, with the rebel force subsequen
What to do? Bambatha sent for another doctor in the interim. The "small

doctor," named Mfihlo or Msilawesilo, arrived soon but seemed particularly

unhappy with the honor of doctoring the Zulu king. He protested against leaving
his children when the country was in such an unsettled state, but Bambatha told
him he would take care of them and ordered him off with Ngqengqengqe.
Bambatha and Ngqengqengqe told Cakijana to stay and wait for Simiti.54

The only Mfihlo of the other documents is another rebel activist. Funizwe,
Bambatha's brother and heir apparent to the chieftaincy, and another man present
recalled that at a meeting of tribal notables on or about March 1st this Mfihlo had
been outspoken in urging Bambatha not to obey a government summons to the
capital. The police raided Msilawesilo's kraal on March 9th when they were
searching for Bambatha. No mention is made of Mfihlo or Msilawesilo as a
doctor, but, again, this does not necessarily mean he was not one. And again,

52 RSC 111/3/1:80, 82, 94, 101, 118, Ngqengqengqe, and 308, 316, Cakijana; RSC III/3/3:
1515, 1521, 1904, Cakijana; RSC III/3/6: Mankulumana; and RSC III/3/10: Ngqengqengqe, Mar.
26, 1908. AGO I/7/66: Cakijana and Ngqengqengqe; AGO 1/7/68: Cakijana, May 20, 1908; AGO
1/7/70: Ngqengqengqe, Dec. 30, 1907 and Apr. 27, 1908; and AGO 1/7/75: Palana, Jan. 4, 1908.

53 RSC 11/3/2: 911, Jwebu. SNA 1/1/347: 2536/1906, Mgt. Umvoti to USNA, Aug. 24,
1906. SNA 1/1/348: 2581/1906, Notes on interview, SNA, and Magwababa, Oct. 11, 1906; and
SNA 1/6/26: Magwababa, June 1-2, 1906.

54 RSC III/3/1: 82, 100-103, Ngqengqengqe, and 317-21378, Cakijana; RSC III/3/2: 617,
Ndabayake; RSC III/3/3: 1521-2,143, Cakijana; RSC 113/5: 4023, and RSC III/3/6: 4360,
Dinuzulu; RSC IIV3/10: Ngqengqengqe, Mar. 26, 1908. AGO 1/7/59: Ngqengqengqe, May 8,
1908; AGO 1/7/66: Cakijana and Ngqengqengqe; AGO I/7/68: Cakijana, May 20, 1908; and AGO
1/7/70: Ngqengqengqe, Apr. 27, 1908.

This content downloaded from

163.200.81.46 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 13:30:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE ZULU REBELLION OF 1906 549

Magwababa, at pains to name the men he saw in the rebel muster, d

tion Mfihlo,55 implying his absence-perhaps en route to the Usuthu

As Bambatha and Cakijana sallied forth with the commandeer

on the evening of Tuesday, April 2nd, Ngqengqengqe and Mfihlo set
land. The royal version has them arrive in due course, Dinuzulu ref
tions of the lesser doctor, and after a while, perhaps a week, Mfihlo
By the time of Dinuzulu's trial, he was reported to be dead.56

That Mfihlo did go to Zululand is attested independent of th

sion. A captured rebel, Malongweni, stated to the magistrate at Wee
23rd that one of the two men who came with Bambatha from Zulula
know his name, but he did know that he was not Cakijana-had lef
saying he was going to arrange for the impi in Zululand to join him
of the tribe named Mfihlo Mzila had gone with him, taking a
Bambatha to Sigananda [the chief of the amaChube in the Nkandla
June the same magistrate learned from Mfihlo's ostensive father-
Mfihlo, one of Bambatha's men, had died at or near kwaPakwe (a h
Bambatha's location from other in the Krantzkop Division) as a re
wound received in the attack on the police at the Impanza on Apr
body lay unburied near the road leading to Keate's Drift.58 This is
because the sources all state that no one on the rebel side was killed or
slightly wounded in that action. Nor does anyone mention Mfihlo be
it.

There is no corroboration of the royal version outside the circle of its

exponents, except for Malongweni's statement, which alone is hardly sufficient.
None of the trialists at Greytown said anything about a doctor. Perhaps Bambatha
did not publicize his doctoral commission, which paled beside the preparations
then at full throttle for rebellion. And even if they did know about it, it was not
significant to their own cases. To argue for the doctor based on their silence is so
hypothetical that it is hardly worth pursuing.

55 RSC III/3/7: 6142, Ndangana. SNA 1/6/26: Magwababa, June 1-2, 1906; and SNA I/6/28:
C164/1906: Bugufa and Funizwe. There are seven different spellings of Msilawesilo and three of
Mfihlo in the documents.

56 RSC III/3/1: 82, Ngqengqengqe, and 317, 321, Cakijana; RSC III/3/5: 4023, and RSC
III/3/6: 4360-61, 4372, 4604, 4688, Dinuzulu; and :5948, Sisini; and RSC III/3/10:
Ngqengqengqe, Mar. 26, 1908. AGO 1/7/68: Cakijana, May 20, 1908; and AGO 1/770:
Ngqengqengqe,, Apr. 27, 1908.

57 PM 59: 425/1906, Malongweni, Apr. 23, 1906.

58 SNA I/1/343: 1875/1906, Mgt. Weenen to USNA, June 16, 1906.

This content downloaded from

163.200.81.46 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 13:30:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
550 PAUL S. THOMPSON

Probably both Dinuzulu and Bambatha were both party

the prosecution suggested-in this matter of a doctor. It wa
Bambatha's real mission.

Covert Diplomacy

In addition to the guns and doctor(s) there are certain activities that rende
stronger the probability of collusion between Bambatha and Dinuzulu. These ar
Bambatha's apparent safe conduct from Natal to the Usuthu in mid-March 190
his being lost to sight yet not, presumably, to action for several days on his return
journey; and his communications with fellow chiefs urging them to join in th
rebellion. These matters were dealt with in passing-in the case of the second, no
at all-in the trials. We enter a grey area, where much would have been con
cealed, and later denied in any case. The most the surviving bits and pieces of
information afford us is a strong suggestion that Dinuzulu was indeed
encouraging and supporting Bambatha's seditious activities prior to the rebellion

First, there is the matter of Bambatha's safe conduct from the Impanza to
the Usuthu. The royal version is that he pitched up at the Usuthu suddenly an
unexpectedly. If so, then he crossed a large part of Zululand, travelling perhaps
hundred miles in seven days, with his two men, his pregnant wife, and three
children, an entourage slow moving and noticeable in any event, at a time wh
he was an outlaw and the government had warned chiefs in the area to be on th
look-out for him.59 Indeed, he seems to have just missed some sort of encounte
with the agents of authority at the kraal of his uncle Nongamulana on the third
fourth day of his trip.60

The family version of what happened is that, just after the police came t
the Impanza in search of him, so did Ngqengqengqe, the messenger of Dinuzul
come to fetch him to the Usuthu. Ngqengqengqe talked with Bambatha and th

59 SNA 1/1/336: 574/1906, USNA to Secretary, Law Dept., Mar. 1, 1906; Minister of Nativ
Affairs to Mgt. Greytown, Mar. 3, 1906; Mgt. Umvoti to MNA, Mar. 5, 1906; Commissioner f
Native Affairs, Zululand, to MNA, Mar. 16, 1906. SNA 1/1/338: 841/1906, Memorandum of
interview, MNA and USNA with Magwababa, Funizwe, and 19 others, Mar. 16, 1906. SNA
1//339: 1071/1906, MNA to magistrates in northern Natal and the Northern District, Apr. 3, 1906.
AGO 1/7/74: Jwebu, Mar. 7, 1908. Mercury, Mar. 9, 1906: "Trouble at Greytown"; Mar. 12, 1906:
"Bambata Just Missed"; and Mar. 27, 1906: "Native Unrest."

60 AGO 1/7/61: Kolekile, July 18, 1907; AGO 1/7/62 and AGO 1/7/70, Ngqengqengqe, Dec.
30, 1907; AGO 1/7/67: Ndabayake, Dec. 23, 1907. SNA 1/4/19: C289/1906, Kolekile, Dec. 13,
1907. RSC III/3/2: 343, Kolekile. PM 58: 365a/1906, Siokebhe, Apr. 10, 1906. Archives of the
Magistrate and Commissioner, Nkandla Division (1/NKA) 3/2/1/2, Mgt. Nkandhla to SNA, July
23, 1906.

This content downloaded from

163.200.81.46 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 13:30:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE ZULU REBELLION OF 1906 551

other rebel leaders and then accompanied Bambatha and his party61-accord
Kolekile as far as Palana's kraal, on the fourth or fifth day, then left and r
them at Gezindaka's on the sixth day, and left again at Nsukuzonke's,
Siyekiwe and two of the children rested for two days.62 Or, according to N
yake, he remained with them until they reached a district not specified, excep
it was one where he would be recognized.63 According to Kolekile at the tr
was armed with a rifle.64

The royal version flatly denies that Ngqengqengqe went to Natal in this
period. Dinuzulu and Mankulumana; Ndabankulu, a senior man of the kraal; and
Ngqengqengqe himself, all insisted that Ngqengqengqe had been at the Usuthu for
some time before Bambatha arrived, although they did not agree on how long that
was.65 They are supported by the evidence of Ndangana, one of Bambatha's loyal
supporters in Natal who claims to have been with him at the time he crossed into
Zululand; Palana and his son Jolwana; Gezindaka and his son Cakijana; and
Nsukuzonke.66 The family slept at the kraals of all save Ndangana as they made
their way through Zululand. Jolwana and Cakijana acted as guides. None of the
men named said that they saw Ngqengqengqe with Bambatha's party. Cakijana,
almost as an aside, remarked that when he and Ngqengqengqe entered

61 AGO 1/7/52: Siyekiwe, Dec. 17, 1907; AGO 1/7/61: Kolekile, July 18, 1907; AGO 1/7/67:
Kolekile, Dec. 24, 1907, and Ndabayake, Dec. 23, 1907. SNA 1/4/19: C289/1906, Kolekile, Dec.
13, 1907; and SNA 1/6/29: CR69/1907, Siyekiwe, July 5, 1907. RSC 111/3/2: 243, Siyekiwe; 386,
388, Kolekile; and 591-93, Ndabayake.

62 AGO 1/7/61: Kolekile, July 18, 1907. RSC 111/3/2: 34445, 386-87, Kolekile. Also see
AGO 1/7/54: Nsukuzonke, Sept. 18, 1908.

63 AGO 1/7/67: Ndabayake, Dec. 23, 1907.

64 RSC III/3/2: 343-44, 357, 390.

65 Ibid., 1:73, Ngqengqengqe; RSC 1/3/6: 4368, 4398, Dinuzulu; 4683-84, Mankulumana;
5493, Ndabankulu; and RSC 111/3/10: Ngqengqengqe, Mar. 26, 1908. AGO 1/7/58 and 1/7/66:
Ngqengqengqe; and 1/7/70; Ngqengqengqe, Apr. 27, 1908.

66 RSC 1/3/1: 284, Meleli, and 305-06, Cakijana; RSC III/3/3: 1509-11, 1918, Cakijana;
RSC III/3/7: 6136-39, Ndangana; RSC III/3/10: Ngqengqengqe, Mar. 26, 1908. AGO 1/7/54:
Nsukuzonke, Sept. 18, 1908; AGO 1/7/59: Gezindaka, May 18, 1908; AGO 1/7/66:
Ngqengqengqe; AGO 1/7/68: Ckijana, May 20, 1908; AGO 1/7/70: Ngqengqengqe, Dec. 30, 1907
and Apr. 27, 1908; and AGO 1/7/76: Jolwana, June 23, 1908. SNA 1/6/29: Palana, Jan. 4, 1908. It
is remarkable that Gezindaka said that Jolwana, who had guided the party from Palana's, told him
they were a bridal party; and that Cakijana, in his own trial, stated that Bambatha and his men said
by the way they were looking for a doctor. Also Cakijana must have made a great impression on
Bambatha when he guided him a little way from Gezindaka's in the direction of Nsukuzonke's, for
Bambatha was insistent on his return that Cakijana be the other emissary to accompany him to
Natal.

This content downloaded from

163.200.81.46 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 13:30:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
552 PAUL S. THOMPSON

Bambatha's location, Ngqengqengqe seemed to be a stranger, un

surroundings.67

Could Bambatha have found his own way without the

security afforded by Dinuzulu's man? Siyekiwe did say that Ba
her he had been in Zululand several years before they were marr
errant sister, and had met Dinuzulu at the Nobamba.68 Also, B
relations in Zululand-his paternal uncle Nongamulana Zond
Nkandhla and Nqutu Divisions; and his brother-in-law Mat
Sithole, a chief in the Nkandhla Division69-whom we may
visited on occasions. Thus he should have known at least the fir
to the Usuthu, and as we have seen, he got guides from Palana's

On the matter of his safe conduct the royal and family v

absolutely, and who is to say which is closer the truth?

The second matter concerns the period of time, between t

week, when he was in Zululand, during which Bambatha's activ
guessed at. He left the Impanza on Sunday, March 1 lth, and cro
the following day. According to Siyekiwe, Kolekile, and Ndaba
seven days travelling to Nsukuzonke's kraal, where Bambatha
and Ndabayake left Siyekiwe and Kolekile and little Nonkobotsh
the Usuthu. Two days later they joined him there. Either the n
after he left with his retainers and Ngqengqengqe for Natal. Th
20th or 21st. According to Ngqengqengqe and Cakijana they w
days in transit,70 which would put them back in Natal on the 24th

67 RSC III/3/1: 368, Cakijana.

68 AGO I/7/61: Siyikiwe, July 17, 1907.

69 PM 58: 365a.1906, Hlangabeza, Apr. 14, 1906. 1/NKA 3/2/1/2: Mgt

July 23, 1906. SNA I/i/338: 841/1906, interview, Mar. 16, 1906.

70 RSC III/3/1: 76-78, 93-96, Nqgengqengqe, and 306-15, 364-65, Ca

243-44, 251,277, 311-12, Siyekiwe; 343-46, 357, 386-90, Kolekile; an
Ndabayake; RSC III/3/5: 4013, Dinuzulu; RSC III/3/6: 4643, Mankuluman
Ndabankulu; 5564, Gaqaqikili; 6138-39, Ndangana; and RSC III/3/10: Ng
1908. AGO 1/7/54: Nsukuzonke, Sept. 18, 1908; AGO V7/58, Cakijana and
I/7/61: Kolekile, July 18, 1907, and Ndabayake, July 19, 1907; AGO
Ngqengqengqe; AGO 1/7/67: Kolekile, Dec. 24, 1907, and Ndabayake,
1/7/68, Cakijana, May 20, 1908; and AGO 1/7/70: Ngqengqengqe, Dec. 3
1908. SNA /1/338: 841/1906, interview, Mar. 16, 1906; SNA 1/4/16: C117/
to SNA, Mar. 15, 1906; SNA 1/4/19: C289/1907, Kolekile, Dec. 13, 19
CR69/1907, Siyekiwe, July 5, 1907. Archives of the Colonial Secretary
Mgt. Greytown to MNA, Mar. 13, 1906.

This content downloaded from

163.200.81.46 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 13:30:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE ZULU REBELLION OF 1906 553

on the 25th at the latest. Yet the police reported Bambatha returned
on Saturday, March 31st.71

It is assumed here that the hiatus is at the end of Bambatha'

Zululand. This is because the various statements and evidence to hand account
pretty well for his days in transit to the Usuthu. Also, while Ngqengqengqe and
Cakijana do not actually conflict on the time taken returning, they are vague and
differ in details sufficiently to make one wonder if there are not gaps in their
accounts toward the Natal end. Quite possibly they were lying about what hap-
pened there. There are bits of information independent of their evidence that do
suggest that Bambatha may have tarried in the Nkandhla Division, making
arrangements for his return to Natal.

The commandant of the local Active Militia force in the Umvoti Division
reported on March 26th that Bambatha's men who had left their kraals during the
disturbances earlier in the month were now returning and should be dealt with.72
Farmer Varty went into Greytown on the 29th and, though some of his white
neighbors remained at the Impanza, the old timer prudently stayed in town.73 The
police evidently learned that Bambatha was back in his location some time after
the 31st, for they appear to have warned Funizwe and Magwababa only on April
2nd. Magwababa seemed sceptical, but he may have known more than the police
and earlier on, for he seems to have put his people on some sort of alert.74

Bambatha was reported to have arrived on the 29th at the Mfongosi gold
fields, in the Nkandhla Division and very near the Thukela. The European in
charge of the camp mistook him for a work seeker and was told later by his work-
ers that the man was Bambatha. The man took residence near by at the kraal of a
chief "Untuli." (There was no chief in the Nkandhla Division by that name, and
probably the European meant a chief or headman of the amaNtuli, either under the
chief Mpumela or the chief Mbuzo, the gold fields straddling the boundary
between their wards.) There was a large white flag flying there and much coming
and going of people, goats killed and eaten, and beer drunk, and then on the 1st it
all ended, as Bambatha apparently had gone.75

One might assume that Bambatha was making useful contacts, and
Dinuzulu's messengers, the pair Maliba and Ngqobane (of whom more presently)
were assisting in some way. Familiarity with the district is also suggested by

71 SNA 1/6/27: C194/1906, Sgt. R. S. George.

72 CSO 3040: G. Leuchars to Min. of Defence, Mar. 26, 1906.

73 SNA 1/6/27: C194/1906, W. N. Varty. Times of Natal, Apr. 4, 1906: "House-Wrecking."

74 Cf. SNA 1/6/27: C194/1906, Sgt. R. S. George and Tpr. W. D. McGill; and AGO 1/7/68:
Cakijana, May 20, 1908.

75 SNA 1/1/339: 1066/1906, James Mulligan, Apr. 6, 1906.

This content downloaded from

163.200.81.46 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 13:30:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
554 PAUL S. THOMPSON

Cakijana's telling Ngqengqengqe several times that he would be v

Febana Sithole, in Mpumela's ward, on the way back to Zul
Febana was removed from the division after the rebellion for
Cakijana also observed that a warm reception was given to the r
of Ntshelele, also in Mpumela's ward, when they crossed into Z
7th 76

Third, and finally, there is the matter of Bambatha's communications with

other chiefs in the region, encouraging them to join in the rebellion. Perhaps
Bambatha used some of the time when he was out of sight for diplomacy of the
sort. Dinuzulu admitted that special messengers, Maliba and Ngqobane, were sent
to Sigananda, chief of the amaChunu, to say that Bambatha would be coming his
way, ostensibly on a mission to get a pass and he should take care of him. Maliba
was apparently taken aback by Sigananda's angry reply about the poll tax, and it
is not clear whether or not he continued on to deliver Dinuzulu's messages to
Mbuzo and Matshana ka Mondisa.77 Maliba's evidence is very suspect in its
details, but it is interesting that Dinuzulu would have brought Bambatha to the
attention of Sigananda and possibly others at all. Most probably Bambatha face to
face would have much more to say to them than Dinuzulu's messengers did.

Both Ngqengqengqe and Cakijana said that they-and Dinuzulu-were

misled by Bambatha about a mighty groundswell of resentment against the poll
tax and other abuses in Natal.78 Just after he returned to the Impanza, according to
Cakijana, Bambatha sent messengers to two Natal chiefs close by, Gayede and
Nyonizwe, and to the chief Godide in Zululand.79 (Since Godide was dead and his
successor was the old and feeble Mpumela, Cakijana may have meant the rebel
agent, whoever he was, among the amaNtuli.) Gayede was the decrepit chief of
the amaKhabela, occupying the right bank of the Thukela, opposite the amaNtuli.
Nyonizwe was heir to the chieftaincy of the amaBomvu, neighbors of Bambatha's
tribe and the people of Okamawele. Young Nyonizwe had been on bad terms with
the regent of the tribe and Bambatha was trying to play on the antipathy; however,
Nyonizwe promptly arrested Bambatha's messenger.80 The police arrested

76 RSC III/3/1: 99, Ngqengqengqe, 151, Msolwa, and 334, Cakijana, but cf. RSC II/3/7:
6137-39: Ndangana; RSC III/3/10: Ngqengqengqe, Mar. 26, 1908. AGO I/7/59: Ngqengqengqe,
May 8, 1908; AGO 1/7/66: Cakijana; AGO 1/7/70: Ngqengqengqe, Dec. 30, 1907; and AGO
1/7/75: Gezindaka, May 18, 1908. 1/NKA 3/2/1/2: Mgt. Nkandhla to SNA, July 23, 1906.

77 RSC III/3/4: 3033-64, Maliba,, and RSC III/3/6: 4472, Dinuzulu.

78 RSC III/3/1: 109, Ngqengqengqe, and 339, Cakijana; RSC III/3/3: 1517-18, Cakijana; and
RSC 111/3/6: 4697, Mankulumana. AGO 1/7/68: Cakijana, May 20, 1908.

79 AGO I/7/68: Cakijana, May 20, 1908.

801/GTN 1/3/2/1, No. 42: Nyonizwe. AGO 1/7/68: Cakijana, May 20, 1908. RSC III/3/1:
331-32, Cakijana.

This content downloaded from

163.200.81.46 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 13:30:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE ZULU REBELLION OF 1906 555

another messenger, but to whom he was sent is not clear.81 If Cak

believed, Bambatha received no replies from the three chiefs.82 A f
he apparently sent more messages83 and there must have been som
has been mentioned, the "small doctor" Mfihlo carried a message f
and the rebels were confident that they were about to join or be jo
nanda's men.84 Their passage in flight through Gayede's location,
supported, was remarkably quick and easy.85

The essential chief was Silwana of the large Chunu tribe, wh

parts of the Umsinga, Umvoti, and Weenen divisions. He also w
Bambatha.86 If Ngqengqengqe and Cakijana are to be believed, B
confident of Silwana's support, and there was a carbine from the
him.87 After Bambatha's attack on his party at the Impanza on the 3rd
magistrate fled to Keate's Drift and set up a defense with a small f
Silwana was there with his people paying hut tax. The magistrate ca
provide men for the defense, but he demurred. Neither did he he
Keate's Drift is only three miles from the Impanza. Yet Bambatha d
Next day Silwana came out for the government.88 After the attack on
the 4th, as government forces moved to surround his stronghold, B
message to Silwana for help on the 6th. Silwana promptly arreste
gers.89 Thus none of the Natal chiefs came out in rebellion after all
took the rebellion to Zululand.

81 SNA 1/6/27: C194/1906, Tpr. W. D. McGill.

82 AGO 1/7/68: Cakijana, May 20, 1908.

83 Ibid. PM 58: 365a/1906, Sikebhe, Apr. 10, 1906. SNA 1/6/17: C163/19
Sikepe. RSC 111/3/1: 180-81, Langalibalele, and 331, Cakijana, and cf. RS
Ndangana, and SNA 1/6/27: C163/1906, Megeza.

84SNA 116/26: Magwababa, June 1, 1906; and SNA 1/6/27: C163/1904, M

C194/1906: Qandela. AGO 1/7/58: Mangati. PM 59: 425/1906, Malongwen
1/NKA 1/5/1/2, No. 46/1906, Maqoqwane and Nomdawana.

85 RSC 111/3/1: 53, Magwababa. SNA 1/6/27: C194/1906, Sikukula.

KK577A/1906, Mbhizo [n.d.].

86 SNA 1/1/367: 1116/1907, Annual Report, Weenen Division.

87 RSC III/3/1: 331, and RSC I/3/3: 1902, Cakijana. AGO 1/7/68: Cakijan
SNA 1/4/16: C146/1906, Mgt. Weenen to Defence, Apr. 7, 1906.

88 SNA 1/4/16: C146/1906, Mgt. Greytown to MNA, Apr. 5, 1906. AGO

Umsinga to SNA, Apr. 4, 1906.

89 SNA 1/1/339: 1107/1906, Hlangabeza and Vava, Apr. 7, 1906; SNA 1/1/3
Annual Report, Weenen Division; SNA 1/4/16: C146/1906, Mgt. Weenen to
1906; SNA 1/6/27: C163/1906, Bongolo and Sikepe. PM 58: 365a/1906, Sikebhe,

This content downloaded from

163.200.81.46 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 13:30:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
556 PAUL S. THOMPSON

We have the messages that were sent to Nyonizwe o

Silwana on the 6th. The messenger sent to Nyonizwe first s
meet a doctor, then admitted that was a deception, and stat
wanted Nyonizwe to assist him with an armed force to figh
people. He added that he had just returned from Dinuzu
Nyonizwe's problem.90 The message to Silwana also called fo
to fight the whites, and added that Dinuzulu had promised a
was on his way and would send orders directly to the ot
Silwana refused to help, then he had better flee, for Dinuzulu
him. Similar messages were reported to have been s
Nyonizwe.91

If Dinuzulu was not yet in the rebellion, Bambatha was determined he

should be. Of course there was no Zulu army on the move and the other chiefs
knew it. Was Bambatha delusional? Most of what was happening remains
unknown: the facts were concealed then and have been lost since. Yet evidence,
circumstantial and fragmentary, bearing on Bambatha's travel to Zululand, his
activities on his return, and his communications with neighboring chiefs all point
to Dinuzulu as a knowing accomplice in his sedition.

Conclusion

This article has had as its object to illuminate the relationship between the Zul
king Dinuzulu and the Natal chief Bambatha just prior to and at the outset of
Bambatha's rebellion against the colonial regime, and to re-examine the eviden
in order to redistribute the burden of responsibility for the rebellion. In conclusion
it finds that Dinuzulu must have known much more about Bambatha's intentions
and activities than historians hitherto supposed.

Perhaps Stuart's "suggestion" theory has come closest to describing how

the two men worked, except that Dinuzulu appears too passive. Bambatha was not
in a position to rebel with any prospect of success without some powerful support,
such as only Dinuzulu could give. There would have been no Zulu rebellion in
1906 without Bambatha, and Bambatha would not have rebelled without
Dinuzulu. But their judgement was bad and their planning too subtle. Dinuzulu

90 1/GTN 1/3/2/1, No. 42: Unyonizwe.

91 SNA I/1/339: 1107/1906, Hlangabeza and Vava, Apr. 7, 1906. PM 58: 365a/1906,
Sikebhe, Apr. 10, 1906. Cf. SNA 1/6/27: C163/1906, Bongolo and Sikepe. In the last case Sikepe
added that Dinuzulu said that now he had the excuse he had been wanting to fight the whites, he
gave Bambatha two doctors who were to cut a white man's body for medicine to frighten away the
rest of the whites, after which Bambatha was to send to Gayede, Nyonizwe, and Silwana to arm
themselves and partake of the medicine; if they would not, then they should fly away in order to
escape Dinuzulu's vengeance.

This content downloaded from

163.200.81.46 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 13:30:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE ZULU REBELLION OF 1906 557

gave support, but very guardedly and very sparingly - a gun or two, and t
trusted emissaries (and an alibi) for guidance, and some discreet notices to n
chiefs - but rebellion on the spot was Bambatha's affair, yet once launched
took an unexpected and embarrassing turn for both chief and king.

It is hoped that this article will have the effect of moving the "acce
history" of the rebellion in due course towards cognizance of Dinuzulu's inte
part in its inception and the incorporation of that part in future secon
accounts.

Of interest, too, is the importance that the question of Dinuzulu's

Bambatha's relationship in the launching of a famous rebellion poses as th
nary of the rebellion approaches. While there is no doubt about Bambatha
credentials, there is much doubt about Dinuzulu's. It is a matter of some i
to the Zulu royal family and the Inkatha Freedom Party, which rules the p
of KwaZulu-Natal. Two committees-one official, based in Ulundi, and the
academic, based in Durban-are already at work preparing to commemora
celebrate the rebellion, as the unfolding circumstances require, in 2006.

Bambatha is now an icon of the struggle for liberation from colonia

imperialism. A grandchild of Nelson Mandela is named after him. A monum
him was unveiled by Prince Mangosuthu Buthelezi at Impanza on the
Reconciliation in 2000. In the 1990s there was a play (Bambatha's Childre
now there is an opera (Princess Magogo) in which his persona has a teno
The Msunduzi Municipal Council (which now governs the old capital Piet
itzburg) has proposed to name the road leading to Greytown after
Bambatha's place in history and therefore the centenary is assured, even
image has not been precisely defined.

What of Dinuzulu? His defense against the treason charges at this tr

so successful that we are left without much to work with, a dupe and a ma
was weak and was deceived, and being weak, then tried and failed to
others to cover himself, and his martyrdom is perceived to exist more
ordeal of a trial than the punishment of exile. Certainly not the same s
Bambatha.

Whether or not what is suggested here-that Dinuzulu was in fact much

more active in promoting the rebellion-will have any effect remains to be seen.
The royal family may have more to say, but they have yet to say it. Perhaps some
new evidence from oral history will turn up in his favor. Perhaps the local move-
ment to nationalize and rewrite history will simply overturn trial evidence and
verdict and find that he is hero as well. The political imperatives in this case and
the direction historiography will take from them have yet to be revealed.

This content downloaded from

163.200.81.46 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 13:30:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms