Abstract
The Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act 41 of 2003 provides, amongst others matters, for the recognition of kings and queens and the establishment of a Commission on Traditional Leadership Disputes and Claims to decide on disputes and claims relating to traditional leadership, including kings and queens. The author examines the criteria and procedure for the creation of kingdoms and for identifying the rightful incumbents. During the apartheid years the traditional leadership was manipulated for political purposes. The Act goes a long way towards restoring it to conform to precepts of customary law and custom. The author argues, in essence, that this is easier said than done. It would, he submits, be difficult to dismantle the apartheid structures. It would likewise be difficult to identify the rightful incumbents and to resolve new claims. He suggests that the relevant provisions of the Act be revised to provide more clarity on fundamental principles.PER/PELJ Vol. 3 2008: pp. 1-13
Highlights
The object of this article is to evaluate the mechanisms created by the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act 41 of 20031 to decide on traditional leadership disputes and claims
The process of identifying these kings and queens is on closer examination beset with uncertainties that go deeper than merely resolving claims and disputes
Given the colonial and apartheid past, it was inevitable that something be done about traditional leaders
Summary
The object of this article is to evaluate the mechanisms created by the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act 41 of 20031 to decide on traditional leadership disputes and claims. In this regard the limitation imposed by section 25(4) of the Act is not clear It provides that – The Commission has authority to investigate all traditional leadership claims and disputes dating from 1 September 1927 [the date of coming into operation of the Black Administration Act]. It is admittedly qualified by section 25(2)(a)(vi) in terms of which relevant events that may have arisen before the said date may be considered where good grounds exist. The defence would be that it was not wrongful at the time of appointment or recognition
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal/Potchefstroomse Elektroniese Regsblad
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
