LCP4801 PORTFOLIO IN WORD
DOCUMENT ( EDITABLE TO AVOID
PLAGIARISM)
ALL QUESTIONS ANSWERED, 90
% + QUARANTEED!!!!
YEAR : 2021
DUE DATE: 18 OCTOBER 2021
CONTACT ME AT:
Call: 072 439 6681
Question 4
4.1.
Introduction
This discussion is aimed at examining the procedures followed to appoint a king or a queen in line with
the provisions of the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act 41 of 2003 as amended by
Act 23 of 2009. In that regard, the differing approaches followed by the majority and the Minority
Judgement in the matter of Sigcau v Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs 2018(12)
BCLR 1525(CC) will be critical analysed.
, Critical analysis of the issues in Sigcau v Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional
Affairs:
The case involves a claim laid by Zonazuko Sigcau to the kingship of amaApondo aseQaukeni. When
Zanozuko lodged the claim with the commission his brother, Mpondombini Sigcau, was the incumbent
paramount chief of amaApondo aseQaukeni, having succeeded his father Botha Sigcau who had been
installed as a paramount chief, firstly in terms of the Black Administration Act 28 of 1927 and later under
the Transkei Constitution Act 48 of 1927.
The commission found that the appointment of Botha over his brother Nelson (Zanozuko’s grandfather
had been irregular and not in accordance with the law and custom of amaApondo. Both and Nelson were
the brother's of Kumkani Marhelane of amaApondo aseQaukeni who died in 1937 without a male issue.
Botha was born of ikunene (the right hand wife) whilst Nelson was born of iqadi (consort). The custom
was that only the son of iqadi could succeed ikumkani to the throne and not the son of ikunene, although
the latter could establish a semi- independent community.
The government of the day favoured Botha over Nelson and,Contrary to amaMpondo custom,Botha was
installed as the paramount Chief of amaApondo aseQaukeni. The determination of the commission that
Nelson’s grandson Zanozuko was the right full king of amaApondo aseQaukeni thus reversed this
distortion.
Following the decision of the commission the state President officially recognised Zanozuko as the king of
amaApondo aseQaukeni. By that time the Traditional Leadership Governance Framework Act 41 of 2003,
from which the commission derived it’s Power’s, had been amended extensively.
Mpondombini instituted proceedings in the constitutional court, challenging the decision of the
commission together with the recognition of Zanozuko by the State President. Amongst other things he
contended that the state President should have consulted the royal family of amaApondo aseQaukeni
prior to recognising Zanozuko. Unfortunately Mpondombini died before the constitutional court ruled on
his challenge.
The constitutional court found that, in implementing the decision of the commission, the state President
that incorrectly involved the provisions of the framework Act subsequent to its amendment, instead of
following the prescripts of the Act prior to its amendment. For that reason the recognition of Zanozuko
was set aside by the constitutional court. However, the decision of the commission remained valid.
Mpondombini’s widow,Masobhuza Sigcau, adopted the stance that the constitutional court had indicated
her late husband’s position as ikumnkani yamaMpondo aseQaukeni. She then took up position as the
regent and nominated her daughter, Wesizwe Sigcau, as the queen. Following the endorsement of her
decision by some members of the royal family (the Broadly Extended Royal Family) the state President
was requested to recognise Wesizwe as queen. The president , together with the Minister of Cooperative
DOCUMENT ( EDITABLE TO AVOID
PLAGIARISM)
ALL QUESTIONS ANSWERED, 90
% + QUARANTEED!!!!
YEAR : 2021
DUE DATE: 18 OCTOBER 2021
CONTACT ME AT:
Call: 072 439 6681
Question 4
4.1.
Introduction
This discussion is aimed at examining the procedures followed to appoint a king or a queen in line with
the provisions of the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act 41 of 2003 as amended by
Act 23 of 2009. In that regard, the differing approaches followed by the majority and the Minority
Judgement in the matter of Sigcau v Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs 2018(12)
BCLR 1525(CC) will be critical analysed.
, Critical analysis of the issues in Sigcau v Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional
Affairs:
The case involves a claim laid by Zonazuko Sigcau to the kingship of amaApondo aseQaukeni. When
Zanozuko lodged the claim with the commission his brother, Mpondombini Sigcau, was the incumbent
paramount chief of amaApondo aseQaukeni, having succeeded his father Botha Sigcau who had been
installed as a paramount chief, firstly in terms of the Black Administration Act 28 of 1927 and later under
the Transkei Constitution Act 48 of 1927.
The commission found that the appointment of Botha over his brother Nelson (Zanozuko’s grandfather
had been irregular and not in accordance with the law and custom of amaApondo. Both and Nelson were
the brother's of Kumkani Marhelane of amaApondo aseQaukeni who died in 1937 without a male issue.
Botha was born of ikunene (the right hand wife) whilst Nelson was born of iqadi (consort). The custom
was that only the son of iqadi could succeed ikumkani to the throne and not the son of ikunene, although
the latter could establish a semi- independent community.
The government of the day favoured Botha over Nelson and,Contrary to amaMpondo custom,Botha was
installed as the paramount Chief of amaApondo aseQaukeni. The determination of the commission that
Nelson’s grandson Zanozuko was the right full king of amaApondo aseQaukeni thus reversed this
distortion.
Following the decision of the commission the state President officially recognised Zanozuko as the king of
amaApondo aseQaukeni. By that time the Traditional Leadership Governance Framework Act 41 of 2003,
from which the commission derived it’s Power’s, had been amended extensively.
Mpondombini instituted proceedings in the constitutional court, challenging the decision of the
commission together with the recognition of Zanozuko by the State President. Amongst other things he
contended that the state President should have consulted the royal family of amaApondo aseQaukeni
prior to recognising Zanozuko. Unfortunately Mpondombini died before the constitutional court ruled on
his challenge.
The constitutional court found that, in implementing the decision of the commission, the state President
that incorrectly involved the provisions of the framework Act subsequent to its amendment, instead of
following the prescripts of the Act prior to its amendment. For that reason the recognition of Zanozuko
was set aside by the constitutional court. However, the decision of the commission remained valid.
Mpondombini’s widow,Masobhuza Sigcau, adopted the stance that the constitutional court had indicated
her late husband’s position as ikumnkani yamaMpondo aseQaukeni. She then took up position as the
regent and nominated her daughter, Wesizwe Sigcau, as the queen. Following the endorsement of her
decision by some members of the royal family (the Broadly Extended Royal Family) the state President
was requested to recognise Wesizwe as queen. The president , together with the Minister of Cooperative
