The Sunday News
Jonathan Maphenduka
DURING our last radio interview, Mr Pathisa Nyathi and I agreed on Lobengula’s coronation date. We disagreed, however, on the date of Nyamande’s birth and the date of his coronation as king. He disputes the coronation on the ground of some tenuous argument.
His argument is that the chiefs who met Rhodes in the Matopos would not have crowned Nyamande king because they had already reached a peace agreement with Rhodes. This argument comes totally unexpected from a man of his calibre.
The real fact is that the 28 chiefs who met Rhodes on four occasions, from the end of July to the end of October, had nothing to do with the coronation.
The only member of the royal family present was Nyanda.
The two occasions were therefore worlds apart and those chiefs who crowned Nyamande had nothing to do with the talks in the Matopos. The war theatre covered the whole of the kingdom and its satelites, although its core was fought in the Matopos after first being triggered around IntabazikaMambo.
It was from this starting point of the rising that a man we know as Mukwati went east to launch a rebellion in Mashonaland where white settlers who had entered the territory unchallenged, were caught unaware and suffered heavy casualties. The remnant marched into the cover of the Matopos Hills.
An important historical fact is that Mukwati (many call him Makwati and will quote historians like Willie Musarurwa as their authority) was neither Shona nor Ndebele, having been brought with many others from Monze in Zambia by raiding Matabele impis.
There was no written peace agreement and the outcome of the talks therefore can only be described as a calculated and wilful rape of the kingdom. The cessation of hostilities came as a result of a re-introduction of the Chartered Company’s war of attrition in which food-stores and people’s cattle were systematically destroyed to force the kingdom into unconditional surrender. This had been a major feature of the war since its inception in 1893 during which the British South Africa Company pulled out all the stops “to teach the Matabele a lesson of their life”. The devastating effects of the war of attrition created for Rhodes the conditions that brought the surrender he desired.
Another important historical fact is that the surrender came in the nick of time to save Rhodes an embarrassing defeat on the battlefield at a time when his financial resources had reached their lowest ebb for him to continue with war.
He was saved from that defeat by the timely entry of British troops commanded by Carrington who enforced that war of attrition policy, leading to surrender by the Matabele impis.
All along the British South Africa Company had relied on mercenaries who had signed a secret agreement with Leander Starr Jameson on 5 July 1893 to invade the kingdom of Mthwakazi. This is the notorious Victoria Secret Agreement.
Rhodes, however, was aware all the time of Nyamande’s coronation but decided to proceed without him “to avoid difficult political questions in the future”. An amnesty followed which allowed Nyamande to return to Bulawayo, only for him to be deposed and sent to a jungle where he eventually died.
It must be noted that the Chartered Company had already suffered a major defeat by its failure to capture Lobengula, which failure was followed by the wiping out of Alan Wilson’s Shangani Patrol.
This is the kind of victory that defies all sneers that might be aimed at the Matabele warriors’ fighting prowess on the battlefield. The warriors faced the devastating Maxim machine gun fire-power wherever they faced the mercenaries or Carrington’s troops.
By the way the Maxim gun, invented by a man of the same name in 1885, was used for the first time in Africa during the Anglo-Matabele war of 1893.
The only other African country that faced this devastating machine was in Eastern Nigeria in 1901. While Nyathi and I are in agreement about Lobengula’s inauguration date in 1870, we disagree on the date of Nyamande’s birth in 1873, although he is unable (or unwilling) to offer an alternative date of the prince’s birth. The reader must remember that Nyathi acknowledged Nyamande as Lobengula’s first son at Mhlahlandlela last year in September.
Both of us, however, are ignorant of the answer to the vital question: who were the mothers of Njube’s sons, Rhodes and Albert? Were they Ndebele or Xhosa princesses? The history of Nguni people does not cite a case or cases in which the king married Xhosa or Sotho princesses to bear an heir to the throne.
The answer relating to the question about Bulelani’s pedigree is therefore critical to the settlement of the vital matter of his bloodline. Is he in reality a purebred Matabele prince or a fraudster trying to extend Nqhika’s kingdom to Matabeleland?
The people of Matabeleland want a king without a questionable bloodline. If the reader was asked to pick a face that resembles that of Lobengula, would you pick Bulelani?
There is a disturbing phenomenon in which some chiefs in Matabeleland continue to help cause confusion in this respect. They are working with some members of the AmaKhumalo who have money to burn to use Bulelani to stage a fake royal coup.
As a monarchist myself, I want to appeal to them to stop meddling in a matter in which their role is limited to officiating during the installation ceremony in which the head of state will be invited to lead the chiefs and other dignitaries in the ritual.
If they choose to ignore this appeal, they will be risking embarrassment in an issue in which Bulelani’s status is yet to be decided. The people of Matabeleland are not trying to smuggle a king into their domain behind the Government. The monarchy is not a secret movement and must be accorded the dignity of its position in society.
The controversy on the choice of the king will be resolved once and for all when Rhodes’ and Albert’s maternal lineage have been established and authenticated because the people of Matabeleland will not accept a king with a questionable bloodline.
If they are forced to accept anyone, this will create problems in future. The blood pedigree of the king must not be mixed with foreign bloodlines.
Njube’s mother was Mpoliyana Ndiweni but who were the mothers of Rhodes and Albert? We would have resolved the impasse between Bulelani and Zwide if we can satisfy the people that he is a pure-bred Matabele prince.
It is not enough that Bulelani has a distant relationship with Njube. Moreover there is confusion regarding the isibongo Ndiweni which is foreign to the Amangwe people in Kwazulu-Natal. Its place among the Mbambo and Zwane in Matabeleland is well-known, and how Ndiweni emerged among these clans is also well-known.
I have heard that Nompetu, Mzilikazi’s mother had a relationship with Amangwe people because one of her middle names was Ndiweni. Her full name was Nompetu Ndiweni Ndlovu kaZwide kaLanga Nxumalo. Those quibblers who will not accept this historical fact, I must refer them to consult Dr Callistus Ndlovu who has published a voluminous thesis on this subject.
I must close this debate by highlighting some guiding principles in a debate like the one about the Matabele monarchy. These principles preclude any question of agreeing with the other guy for the sake of it. In other words, the reader or listener has a choice to take my point of view or leave it. I’m not involved in the debate to score points against the other guy.
My involvement is to assert historical facts as I know them. The reader or listener must take or leave them. I’m a professional person and when I present historical facts I’m doing so to enable an observer to make an informed judgment, and not to persuade anyone to join my camp. Those who are riding on Bulelani’s bandwagon are doing so under the influence of mob euphoria. They are followers because Bulelani is being feted by his programmers.
When I write anything on a matter of profound public interest, I’m doing so to inform and not to persuade or influence anyone to agree with my submissions. I’ll not demand that all and sundry must accept my asserted historical facts.
Mob euphoria is a dangerous human condition that often leads to calamity. This is one reason why our chiefs must stay clear of this potentially embarrassing situation.
They will avoid this embarrassment by making a public disclaimer on their perceived support of one party against the other. They must not allow themselves to join the mob.
By the way Njube’s mother, Mpoliyana came from Faku’s house and my grandfather Maphenduka was Faku’s “boy” and together they often met Cecil John Rhodes at his country home at the Matopos Research Station for a chat, over a cup of Indian tea, about pacification of hostilities in what became Matabeleland. Their home was nearby Mgadla and Faku had horses. So Ndiweni and his boy rode up to the station to meet Mr Rhodes. Other colllaborating chiefs also came with their people to be fed, a privilege for their loyalty to tyranny.
My village remains Ndiweni and I consider Mpoliyana a “distant” relative. If some starry-eyed historian were to discover that we came from a family of collaborators, I will not be offended because history cannot be compromised. History is cruel and one must take it in its stride. Accept it as it is. There were several other chiefs who collaborated with the enemy during war and the rising that followed. Their their food-stores and livestock were not destroyed.
One must live a principled life and avoid becoming fickle. I’m not advising rigidity of opinion because reason is paramount. On Bulelani I’m applying the rules of principle. I’ll not be swayed to join the bandwagon of the mob because those who back him have money to burn.
They have their eyes glued on that elusive gold sovereign treasure which is believed to be held in trust by Queen Elizabeth II. Poor Bulelani does not know that they are not after him but are after the treasure. He is South African and the British will not pay it out to a South African, and thereby provoke another war with the people of Matabeleland. So his programmers will, sooner rather than later, dump him.
