Kings, constitutions and foreign gold: The AbaThembu-Israel dilemma

When donor goodwill collides with constitutional order, South Africa (SA) is forced to confront an uncomfortable question: does tradition enrich democracy, or does it risk undermining it when boundaries are blurred?

South Africa’s constitutional democracy was deliberately designed to resolve, not avoid, hard questions of power, legitimacy and authority. Few questions are as persistently unresolved as the coexistence of traditional leadership and constitutional supremacy.

The recent controversy surrounding the AbaThembu monarchy’s reported acceptance of donations linked to Israel – outside formal state and fiscal protocols – has brought this tension into sharp and unavoidable focus. What may appear, on the surface, as benign philanthropic support for a desperately poor province is in fact a stress test of SA’s governance architecture, foreign policy coherence and constitutional discipline.

This is not a parochial Eastern Cape issue, nor is it a personality-driven scandal. It is a structural dilemma. When institutions grounded in custom and heritage intersect with global capital and geopolitics, the risks extend far beyond reputational discomfort. They cut to the heart of accountability, sovereignty and the rule of law.

At its core, the matter raises a simple but profound principle: in a constitutional state, no authority – traditional, political or moral – operates outside the Constitution. Section 195 of the Constitution establishes transparency, accountability and ethical conduct as non-negotiable principles of public administration. The Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) gives these principles operational force by regulating how funds that affect public outcomes are received, managed and accounted for.

‘Constitutional erosion’

When donations intended for public benefit bypass these frameworks, the issue is not merely technical non-compliance; it is constitutional erosion.

Traditional leadership occupies a carefully circumscribed space in SA’s constitutional order. Section 211 recognises traditional institutions, acknowledging their cultural authority and historical legitimacy, but it does so explicitly subject to the Constitution. The Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act (TLGFA) reinforces this distinction: monarchs and traditional leaders are custodians of culture and community cohesion, not autonomous political or diplomatic actors. When they enter financial arrangements – especially those with foreign linkages – they step into a domain governed by public law, foreign policy and fiscal oversight.

The moral paradox is difficult to ignore. The Eastern Cape is one of SA’s poorest provinces. Infrastructure backlogs are severe, unemployment is endemic, and communities are desperate for development. To many citizens, rejecting or questioning donations appears irrational, even cruel. What possible harm, they ask, can come from resources that promise schools, clinics or livelihoods?

Yet history teaches that good intentions are not a governance system. Donations that are unregulated, opaque or politically loaded can become instruments of influence. They blur the line between service and patronage, between cultural leadership and political leverage. Oliver Tambo warned that “the struggle for freedom was not only against overt oppression, but against the corrosion of values that hollow out liberation from within”. Accepting funds without clear accountability mechanisms corrodes precisely those values.

The issue becomes even more acute when the donor linkages intersect with SA’s declared foreign policy positions. The South African government has taken a firm and highly visible stance against Israel’s actions in Gaza, grounding its position in international law, human rights norms and historical solidarity with oppressed peoples. The recall of the South African ambassador and the case before the International Court of Justice were not symbolic gestures; they were assertions of moral and legal principle.

Diplomatic ‘incoherence’

Against this backdrop, donations linked – directly or indirectly – to Israel acquire political meaning, regardless of their stated developmental intent. When such funds are accepted by a constitutionally recognised monarchy without state coordination or oversight, the result is diplomatic incoherence. Foreign policy, by its nature, must speak with one voice. Parallel channels of engagement, however informal or well-meaning, weaken that voice and invite accusations of hypocrisy.

Nelson Mandela’s assertion that “South Africa’s freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians was not rhetorical flourish”. It was a statement about moral consistency in international relations. Allowing foreign-linked funding streams to operate outside government frameworks undermines that consistency and weakens SA’s standing as a principled actor on the global stage.

This is where Steve Biko’s insight becomes particularly instructive. He cautioned that “the most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed”. In a contemporary context, unchecked philanthropy can function as such a weapon – not through coercion, but through dependency and subtle influence. When communities or traditional institutions become reliant on external benefactors, their autonomy is compromised, even as their material conditions may temporarily improve.

The AbaThembu matter therefore forces the state, and society, to confront uncomfortable trade-offs. Development is urgently needed, but not at the cost of constitutional clarity. Cultural institutions must be respected, but not insulated from accountability. Sovereignty must be defended, not diluted through informal arrangements that bypass democratic control.

The responsibility to navigate this terrain rests heavily with the Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (COGTA). Its mandate is not merely administrative; it is constitutional. COGTA must ensure that traditional leadership is supported, capacitated and protected from political misuse – by others and by itself. This requires more than ad hoc interventions or reactive statements. It demands systemic reform.

Necessary, overdue measures

Several measures are both necessary and overdue. First, donation and funding protocols involving traditional institutions must be explicitly codified. Any resources intended for public or community benefit should flow through transparent Treasury-aligned mechanisms, with clear reporting and auditing requirements. Second, intergovernmental relations frameworks must be strengthened to provide structured avenues for monarchs to participate in development initiatives without drifting into political or diplomatic roles. Third, sustained capacity-building programmes are needed to equip traditional leaders with governance literacy, particularly in financial management and constitutional boundaries.

Crucially, this is not about diminishing the stature of monarchs or erasing tradition. On the contrary, it is about protecting traditional institutions from being instrumentalised in geopolitical contests they were never designed to navigate. As Chief Albert Luthuli reminded South Africans, the road to freedom is paved with sacrifice. For traditional leaders, that sacrifice may entail resisting the allure of direct financial power in order to preserve long-term legitimacy and dignity.

If these boundaries are not enforced deliberately, they will be breached by default – and the consequences will be far-reaching. Monarchs may come to be perceived as parallel centres of political authority. Elected institutions may appear hollowed out. Foreign actors may exploit ambiguity to advance interests misaligned with SA’s constitutional values. Trust, once lost, will be difficult to restore.

Warning light

The AbaThembu controversy is therefore not an isolated incident; it is a national warning light. It asks whether SA still possesses the institutional discipline to manage complexity without sacrificing principle. It challenges Parliament to tighten oversight, civil society to demand transparency, and the executive to act with coherence and courage.

Mandela’s reminder that “freedom is indivisible remains instructive”. When constitutional norms are weakened in one corner of the state, the entire democratic project is diminished. The coexistence of kings and the Constitution is not a contradiction – but it is a delicate balance that requires constant care. If that balance is left to chance, it will inevitably be settled by crisis. SA can, and must, do better. DM

Tumelo Nkohla is a public sector governance specialist and Chief Risk Officer who writes on ethics, systems failure, geopolitics and South Africa’s future strategic trajectory.