- Supreme Court of Appeal limits Premier’s powers in chieftainship disputes.
- Royal family’s authority in customary law affirmed.
- Communities gain protection from political interference.
For years, the Bakgatla ba Kgafela community in Moruleng, North West, has faced ongoing conflict. When Kgosi Nyalala Pilane died, a dispute began over who should lead next. The Royal Family followed tradition and named a successor, but the provincial Premier did not accept their choice and put forward someone else.
What followed was more than a technical dispute. Families were torn apart. Ceremonies were cancelled or contested. For ordinary people, the uncertainty seeped into daily life. “We just wanted peace and direction, but all we got was fighting,” said one community member outside court.
The court’s message to politicians
The Supreme Court of Appeal has now ended the standoff. In its judgment, the court said the law is clear, and the royal family has the exclusive right to nominate a successor. The premier’s duty is limited to recognition, not selection, not interference, not substitution.
The judgment is firm on this point that political leaders cannot use their office to rewrite custom. By stepping into a role reserved for the royal family, the premier violated both the Constitution and the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act.
The SCA emphasised that this protection is in place to safeguard communities from instability. Without it, traditional leadership would become another arena for political battles. The ruling therefore, reaffirms the independence of custom and shields it from state overreach.
The legal foundation
The court drew heavily on the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act. The Act states that when a position of traditional leadership becomes vacant, it is the royal family that must identify a successor in line with customary law. The premier’s role is administrative, to recognise the decision and issue a certificate of recognition.
The law does not give the premier discretion to make a different choice. Any such attempt amounts to unlawful interference. This framework reflects South Africa’s constitutional design, where customary law is protected but must remain consistent with the Constitution.
The SCA’s ruling, therefore, not only resolved the Bakgatla dispute but also clarified the boundaries of law and custom for the entire country.
Conviction.co.za
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
