The Mthwakazi Republic Party (MRP) has formally requested South Africa’s Parliament to compel its Department of International Relations and Cooperation (Dirco) to explain the legal principles it applies when handling claims of self-determination particularly concerning the Matabele/Mthwakazi question in Zimbabwe.
The MRP, which advocates for cessation along the pre-independence Jameson Line, submitted a consolidated document to the portfolio committee on international relations and cooperation on August 20.
Party president Mqondisi Moyo indicated that the request does not seek South African recognition of an independent Mthwakazi.
Instead, the party wants Dirco to state the legal test it uses to determine whether a community qualifies as a “people” entitled to self-determination under Article 20 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
“This is not a request that Parliament recognise an independent Mthwakazi,” the submission read.
“It is a request that the portfolio committee exercise its oversight function by requiring Dirco to state the legal test South Africa applies to claims of peoples’ self-determination.”
The MRP noted that South Africa has previously described self-determination in broad terms before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), citing Article 20 of the African Charter.
However, it has also relied on the principle of uti possidetis, which preserves inherited colonial borders after decolonisation.
- MRP petitions prison services over jailed members
- Fear grips Mat'land political activists
- Peers fundraise for jailed MRP activists
- MRP official, wife survive mob attack
Keep Reading
The party argues these positions can coexist but demands clarity on when one principle overrides the other.
The submission consolidates earlier correspondence dated August 6, 10, 11, and 12, seeking a single institutional response.
Key questions include how South Africa determines whether a community constitutes a “people,” how those criteria apply to the Matabele/Mthwakazi community, and what forms of self-determination are legally permissible within sovereignty and territorial integrity limits.
The MRP also asked how South Africa reconciles its self-determination positions with the inherited-border principle, citing South Africa’s own submissions in the Chagos and Palestine ICJ advisory proceedings, as well as African Commission decisions concerning the Katangese Peoples’ Congress and Cabinda.
“The MRP accepts that South Africa may reject the political conclusion it seeks. What this submission requests is not agreement but a legal account,” the document read.
The party also questioned whether peaceful advocacy for political status change should be considered legitimate democratic expression, and whether Sadc has mechanisms for considering peaceful political claims not yet threatening regional peace.
The MRP has indicated willingness to make an oral presentation to the portfolio committee if invited.
South Africa’s Parliament has yet to respond.
