This essay will evaluate the extent to which Zimbabwe’s statutory heritage framework accommodates the role of customary institutions in heritage custodianship. The management of heritage in Zimbabwe is an area where two systems of authority often exist side-by-side: a formal, state-led legal framework and an informal, community-based customary system. The main law governing heritage is the National Museums and Monuments of Zimbabwe Act [Chapter 25:11], which establishes a centralised system of control. This essay will examine this Act, alongside the Constitution of Zimbabwe, 2013, to determine how, if at all, it recognises and incorporates the traditional roles of chiefs, spirit mediums, and other customary custodians who have historically been the guardians of sacred sites and cultural practices. It will be argued that while the Constitution provides a basis for recognition, the primary heritage legislation offers very limited formal accommodation for customary institutions, creating a system where state law often overrides or ignores traditional authority.
The Statutory Framework for Heritage in Zimbabwe
The principal statute that governs the protection and management of heritage in Zimbabwe is the National Museums and Monuments of Zimbabwe Act [Chapter 25:11] (hereafter the NMMZ Act). First enacted before independence and subsequently amended, the Act’s main purpose is to provide for the preservation of monuments and the protection of relics and artefacts. The legislation establishes a single, national body, the National Museums and Monuments of Zimbabwe (NMMZ), and grants it extensive powers. According to Section 3 of the Act, the NMMZ is a corporate body responsible for administering museums and monuments across the country.
The powers of the NMMZ are central to understanding the state’s approach to heritage. Under the NMMZ Act, the President of Zimbabwe, on the recommendation of the NMMZ, can declare any area of land to be a national monument (Part IV). This includes “any building, ruin, statue, grave, cave, rock-shelter, midden, mound, dam, trench or excavation, or any other site or thing of a similar kind” which is of historical, archaeological or scientific interest. Once a site is declared a national monument, its control passes to the state via the NMMZ. The Act criminalises any damage to or excavation of a monument without a permit from the NMMZ (Section 28). This legislative approach is based on a Western, scientific model of conservation that views heritage as a national asset to be managed by experts for the benefit of the nation, often with a focus on research and tourism (Ndoro, 2001). The framework is therefore highly centralised, vesting legal authority and decision-making power in a state-appointed board and its executive director.
Understanding Customary Institutions of Heritage Custodianship
In contrast to the state-led statutory system, many of Zimbabwe’s most significant heritage sites have long been managed under customary law. These sites are often not seen as inanimate objects or scientific specimens, but as living, sacred spaces with immense spiritual importance. Customary custodianship is exercised by traditional leaders such as chiefs (mashefu), headmen (sabhuku), and village heads, as well as by spirit mediums (svikiro) who are believed to communicate with ancestral spirits (Munjeri, 1991). These institutions have their own rules and protocols governing access to and behaviour at sacred sites, such as sacred mountains, pools, forests, and important burial grounds like those in the Matobo Hills.
The authority of these customary custodians is not derived from written law but from lineage, spiritual appointment, and community recognition. They are responsible for performing rituals, appeasing ancestral spirits, and ensuring that the sacredness of a site is respected by the community and visitors. For example, access to a sacred forest might be restricted during certain times of the year, and certain behaviours like cutting down trees or making loud noises might be forbidden. As argued by scholars like Chirikure and Pwiti (2008), this customary system represents an “intangible” form of heritage management, where knowledge and rules are passed down orally and are deeply embedded in the community’s cosmology. The primary goal of customary custodianship is not scientific preservation or tourism, but the maintenance of the spiritual and social well-being of the community by upholding the relationship between the living and the ancestors.
The Lack of Accommodation in the Statutory Framework
When evaluating the NMMZ Act for its accommodation of these customary institutions, it becomes clear that there is a significant disconnect. The Act does not contain any explicit provisions that recognise the legal authority of chiefs, spirit mediums, or other traditional custodians over heritage sites. The power to identify, declare, and manage national monuments is vested exclusively in the state and its designated agency, the NMMZ. There is no statutory requirement for the NMMZ to consult with, seek the consent of, or share authority with customary leaders before declaring a site in their area a national monument. This reflects a top-down approach where state law supersedes local, customary authority.
This has led to situations of conflict and what is often termed legal pluralism, where two legal orders exist in the same social field but one is dominant (Ncube, 2017). Although in practice the NMMZ may informally consult with local leaders out of pragmatism or respect, this is not a legally mandated part of the process. The relationship is often one of convenience rather than a true partnership. The state’s framework prioritises the physical and scientific attributes of heritage, whereas customary systems prioritise the spiritual and intangible aspects. For instance, while an archaeologist from the NMMZ might see an ancient pot shard as a scientific artefact to be excavated and catalogued, a local spirit medium might see it as a sacred object that should not be disturbed (Mahachi, 1991). The NMMZ Act provides legal backing only for the former perspective.
The Constitution of Zimbabwe, adopted in 2013, does offer a potential avenue for greater accommodation. Chapter 15 of the Constitution formally recognises the institution, status, and role of traditional leaders, stating that they have a responsibility for “performing the cultural, customary and traditional functions of a Chief, headman or village head for his or an her area” (Section 282). Furthermore, Section 63 provides for the right of every person to their culture and “to participate in the cultural life of their choice”. It could be argued that these constitutional provisions create an imperative for the state to respect and incorporate customary practices in all areas, including heritage management. However, the NMMZ Act, which is the specific law on heritage, has not been substantially reformed to align with the more pluralistic spirit of the 2013 Constitution. Therefore, the statutory framework for heritage itself remains largely unchanged and continues to marginalise the formal role of customary institutions.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Zimbabwe’s statutory heritage framework accommodates customary institutions of heritage custodianship to a very limited and informal extent. The primary legislation, the National Museums and Monuments of Zimbabwe Act, creates a centralised, state-controlled system that vests all legal authority in the NMMZ. It does not provide for the formal recognition of the authority of chiefs, spirit mediums, or other customary custodians, nor does it mandate their participation in the management of heritage sites. This has resulted in a system where state law often conflicts with and overrides the customary laws and practices that have governed sacred sites for generations. While the 2013 Constitution provides a broader recognition of traditional leaders and cultural rights, this has not yet been translated into a meaningful reform of the country’s heritage-specific legislation. As it stands, the statutory framework continues to favour a Western, scientific model of heritage management, and the role of customary custodians remains largely at the periphery, dependent on informal consultation rather than formal legal empowerment.
References
Chirikure, S. and Pwiti, G. (2008) ‘Community involvement in heritage management: a case study from the Domboshawa National Monument, northern Zimbabwe’, *Journal of Southern African Studies*, 34(2), pp. 437-451.
Constitution of Zimbabwe, 2013.
Mahachi, G. (1991) ‘The role of the past in the future: An examination of the pre-colonial and the post-colonial Zimbabwean state and the role of heritage’, *Unpublished PhD thesis*, University of Cambridge.
Munjeri, D. (1991) ‘The re-making of a new Zimbabwe: The past and its role in a new order’, in *WAC-2 Archaeological Congress*. B-Matola, Cape Town.
National Museums and Monuments of Zimbabwe Act [Chapter 25:11].
Ncube, G. T. (2017) ‘Interfacing State Law and Social Normative Orders in Regulating Access to Land in Zimbabwe’, *South African Journal on Human Rights*, 33(1), pp. 111-132.
Ndoro, W. (2001) *Your Monument Our Shrine: The Preservation of Great Zimbabwe*. Uppsala: Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, Uppsala University.
