Customary Law and Chieftainship in Southern Africa
Authors: Williams J. Michael 
Published: September 2024

The history of the chieftaincy and customary law is one that is complicated and controversial due to the ways in which colonial and postcolonial officials have manipulated, and then utilized, these institutions to facilitate their rule. Yet these institutions continue to play an important role in the lives of those living in southern Africa. Understanding this trajectory, as well as the resiliency and adaptability of the chieftaincy and customary law, from their precolonial origins to the current debates on the relevance and legitimacy of these institutions, is a common theme in much of the early 21st-century scholarship. In the centuries before colonial rule, there were a great array of different types of indigenous political systems—from decentralized stateless societies to kingdoms—that were governed through oral rules and customs that were distinct for each community, and that were constantly in flux as the political, societal, and economic contexts changed. With colonialism, European powers sought to either abolish these pre-existing institutions, or more often, to coopt and manipulate them to facilitate the extractive goals of the colonial project. In both cases, European powers invoked racist tropes that the goals of colonialism were to “civilize” and “modernize” indigenous ways of life—including the chieftaincy and customary law. As in other regions in Africa, the fate of these institutions in southern Africa appeared dubious during the postcolonial period. At both the national and local levels, many argued that the chieftaincy and customary law were either too corrupted to have legitimacy or that such legitimacy—even if it did exist—was based on undemocratic norms and rules, and therefore must be abolished or fundamentally changed. In spite of these calls for the end of the chieftaincy and customary law, current scholarship demonstrates that these institutions continue to exert control and claim legitimacy in many communities. Recognizing this reality, there have been many studies focusing on the dynamics of these processes and the consequences this has for democratization, state building, and economic development. One of the common themes of scholarship on the chieftaincy and customary law has been a recognition that these institutions are in no way the same as those that existed in the precolonial era. With this in mind, there is a great deal of diversity within the southern Africa region itself on how to refer to these institutions, with some preferring to use terms such as “traditional leaders,” “chiefs,” and “customary law” and others simply utilizing the terms from their indigenous languages (i.e., “inkosi” [chief] and “ubukhosi” [the chieftaincy] in the Zulu region of South Africa). Depending on the national and local contexts, any of these terms may be controversial. In this article, the terms “chieftaincy” and “customary law” are used for the sake of fluidity and consistency and with the acknowledgment of the ongoing discussion on which terms are most appropriate and that these institutions have changed over time and continue to do so.