MBABANE – A dispute has emerged within the Zulu Monarchy over who has authority to oversee royal offices and communicate King Misuzulu kaZwelithini’s decisions.
The Office of the Royal Vice Chancellor has rejected a statement issued by the King’s Private Office, insisting that a royal directive issued on October 21, 2026, remains in force and can only be amended or withdrawn by the King.
In a statement issued yesterday, Royal Vice Chancellor Prince Africa Zulu of Onkweni disputed claims attributed to the Private Office concerning the authority of royal officials and a proposed political engagement.
The disagreement centres on reporting structures within the monarchy and whether the Private Office can operate outside the oversight arrangements established by the King.
According to Prince Africa, the directive requires all offices, committees and entities operating under the King’s authority, or formally connected to the Zulu Monarchy, to report through both the Royal Chancellor and Royal Vice Chancellor.
This includes the Royal Working Committee, also known as the Royal Executive Committee (EXCO).
The Royal Vice Chancellor’s Office maintained that no royal office bearer had been dismissed through the directive.
Instead, it said the directive established a reporting and oversight structure intended to strengthen governance, performance and accountability within the monarchy.
The statement follows a communication issued by the Private Office through Mpikayise Buthelezi on November 1, 2026.
Prince Africa disputed the Private Office’s position, alleging that Arnold Ndamase and the spokesperson issued the statement without the King’s consent.
“Our position is that Arnold Ndamase and the spokesperson issued it without His Majesty’s consent,” the statement reads.
The office maintained that no royal official had the authority to independently amend or withdraw instructions issued by the King.
It further stated that the royal chancellor and royal vice chancellor reported directly to the King and were responsible for assessing governance, examining submissions, coordinating royal correspondence and communicating his decisions.
The directive also requires office bearers falling within its scope to comply with the prescribed reporting arrangements.
However, the statement clarified that existing statutory and independent legal obligations remained unaffected.
The dispute comes less than a month after Prince Africa’s appointment as Royal Vice Chancellor took effect on October 7, 2026.
As previously reported by the Times of Eswatini on October 22, the appointment was confirmed through a letter issued at Emashobeni Royal Palace.
The appointment placed Prince Africa in a position to oversee royal administration and monitor the performance of other offices operating under the monarchy.
According to the appointment letter seen by this publication, the royal chancellor and royal vice chancellor were jointly responsible for administering the Zulu Kingdom and received instructions directly from the King.
The letter stated that the two offices operated independently of the King’s Private Office.
Prince Africa was also tasked with overseeing the performance of the Office of the Traditional Prime Minister and other royal offices, councils and representatives.
His responsibilities include monitoring the implementation of royal instructions and programmes and submitting recommendations to the King.
However, decisions reserved for the monarch remain his responsibility.
The appointment further required Prince Africa to ensure that initiatives involving the Crown, royal assets or royal endorsement received the necessary approvals.
No undertaking could bind the Crown without the required written authority.
The letter also provided that Prince Africa would serve as Acting Royal Chancellor whenever the Royal Chancellor was outside the country, incapacitated or otherwise unavailable.
He was required to report directly to the King and serve at his pleasure, subject to applicable law and the written terms of his appointment.
The latest disagreement also concerns a proposed engagement between King Misuzulu and South African political parties.
The Zulu Monarch, who is the son of a member of the Eswatini’s royal family, Queen Mantfombi Dlamini Zulu, had reportedly invited political party leaders to present their manifestos at Emashobeni Royal Palace on November 2, 2026.
According to an invitation issued by the Royal Vice Chancellor’s Office, the engagement was scheduled to begin at 11am, with each political party allocated a maximum of 10 minutes to present its credentials and manifesto priorities.
The invitation, issued by Prince Africa on what the notice described as the King’s command, was extended to leaders of all political parties in South Africa.
Party leaders were required to submit their manifestos before the engagement and confirm their attendance.
They were also asked to provide details of accompanying delegations for accreditation and arrangements in accordance with royal protocol.
The notice stated that participants were expected to wear formal attire or traditional dress, while seating would be allocated subject to confirmation and compliance with royal protocol.
However, the Royal Vice Chancellor’s Office has now stated that the proposed engagement was cancelled by the King because of practical challenges and limited preparation time.
The office said elections were two days away when the decision was taken.
Prince Africa maintained that the King had commissioned the initiative and instructed his office to coordinate it. He rejected suggestions that the invitation had been issued without royal authority or that the engagement had been initiated independently.
The statement maintained that the proposed engagement had been undertaken on the King’s instructions before its cancellation.
Prince Africa further maintained that the royal directive consolidated all offices of the Zulu Kingdom, including the Private Office, under a single reporting and oversight structure.
He said no office could bypass the prescribed reporting channels without the King’s permission.
The statement also clarified that the continued appointment of royal office bearers did not exempt them from oversight by the Royal Chancellor and Royal Vice Chancellor.
The office expressed concern that conflicting public statements had created the impression that the monarchy was operating under two separate structures.
“It is regrettable that conflicting public statements have created the impression of two parallel structures,” the statement reads.
Prince Africa maintained that the directive established one reporting framework under the King’s authority and that all affected officials were required to comply.
He further emphasised that the authority to change the arrangements rested exclusively with the King.
The statement concluded by reaffirming that all royal office bearers served at the pleasure of the Crown and remained subject to the King’s royal prerogative.
