A history of the Zulu Rebellion, 1906, and of Dinuzulu's arrest, trial, and expatriation

by James Stuart

One often hears it said that, with the country in so disturbed a state, a magnificent opportunity for plotting and fomenting rebellion was afforded the Chief during the latter end of 1905 and beginning of 1906 had he been so inclined. That is true. But the outlook from Dinuzulu's own point of view should not be lost sight of. Here was a man, by far the most important in Natal and Zululand, in so far as social rank was concerned, who, but a few years before, had returned from a long exile. He was in a better position than was any Native in Natal to know what it meant to take up arms against Europeans. This had been tried in 1879 as well as in 1887, but had failed. It was not likely that, with his men in a disorganized condition and the nation split up into hundreds of separate tribes, the prospects of success would be any greater in 1906. Had he shown resistance, it was inevitable that the Government would have attacked him forthwith, before a strong impi could have been assembled and supplies collected, quite apart from his being physically unfit to take the field. In other words, the widespread feelings of loyalty towards him by hordes of undisciplined barbarians meant little or nothing against organized troops, armed with modern weapons, until an opportunity had been afforded for openly mobilizing them and evolving order out of chaos. Dinuzulu had taken part in military operations, and was sufficiently a soldier to know that.

A further reason for disinclination was because, living but a few miles from him in different directions, were three Chiefs, Tshanibezwe, Mciteki and Kambi. These were all important men: the first was the son of Cetshwayo's prime minister; the second a son and temporary successor of Zibebu; and the third a son of Hamu (one of Dinuzulu's uncles). That is, sons of three of the thirteen 'kinglets' appointed by Sir Garnet (later Viscount) Wolseley. But the opportunity at hand, such as it was, was too good to lose. It might not occur again. He knew that the great mass of the people, already incensed against the Government, were looking to him. He knew that the large number of Chiefs in Natal and Zululand, and even beyond, expected him to take the lead. He knew they were ready to follow if he did. But the risks of failure were too imminent. Like Hamlet, he began to soliloquize. What, in this predicament, he actually did will perhaps be never fully known. Whether he specially sent for Bambata, on hearing this petty Chief was being harassed at Mpanza, or that Bambata came of his own accord with one of his wives (and children) to seek a place on which to live; whether Mankulumana, in Dinuzulu's presence, actually incited him to start a rebellion and flee across to Nkandhla, where Dinuzulu would meet him, or that Dinuzulu simply confined himself to saying he was unable to give a site; whether Mankulumana handed Bambata a rifle with which to begin the fighting, and provided him with emissaries to assist in inciting Natives, or that Dinuzulu, on hearing from Bambata of a certain doctor who could cure the ailment from which Dinuzulu was suffering, sent two messengers merely to summon the doctor: all this is to a large extent obscure. Witnesses have testified on oath to each of the alternatives. The Special Court found Dinuzulu not guilty of inciting Bambata to rebel, owing mainly to the evidence of the wife and children appearing to be an improbable version of what actually happened; but, whilst discrediting this evidence, the Court did not say it accepted Dinuzulu's own plausible story.

It is unnecessary to deal with other counts than the one referred to. The prosecution and defence were at one in concluding that: (a) Bambata fled to Dinuzulu, with his wife and children, after wilfully disobeying an order of the Government; (b) he had two or more interviews with Dinuzulu and his indunas towards the end of March; (c) he received exceptionally favourable treatment during the three or four days he was at Usutu; (d) he was accompanied to Mpanza, Natal, by two 'messengers' from Dinuzulu; (e) on reaching Mpanza, he made preparations to rebel, being actively assisted therein by one of the 'messengers' referred to, who, in Dinuzulu's name, openly incited members of his tribe to rebel; (f) with the assistance of Dinuzulu's messenger, three distinct acts of rebellion were committed on the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th April; (g) Bambata, along with the same messenger and about 130 men then fled to Nkandhla; (h) at Nkandhla, it was represented by the said messenger that Bambata had the authority of Dinuzulu to rebel and take refuge there; and (i) Dinuzulu's messenger thereupon usurped control of Sigananda's tribe in order to assist Bambata. As there is unanimity in these and other particulars, and as the Court found Dinuzulu not guilty, the question arises: Who, then, was the cause of the Rebellion? The question is a fair one and obviously demands an answer, if one can be given.

Let us attempt an analysis. The names of the ringleaders were Bambata, Cakijana (Dinuzulu's messenger), Mangati, Sigananda and Mehlokazulu, whilst those who are declared to have instigated it are Dinuzulu, Mgwaqo and Mankulumana. If the author of the Insurrection is not among these, then he is nowhere.

Mgwaqo and Mankulumana may be eliminated because, being indunas of Dinuzulu, the latter must be held to have been privy to, and responsible for, everything they did. Bambata would never have been incited, nor would he have agreed to rebel, except on receiving an assurance from Dinuzulu himself that they were voicing his wishes.

Mangati and Mehlokazulu, again, only appeared on the scene after the Rebellion had started, and Bambata was at Nkandhla. No one who knows the facts would regard either of them as the cause. They were accessory, but ex post facto.

Now, as regards Bambata, Cakijana, Sigananda and Dinuzulu. We have seen that Cakijana was a 'messenger.' The prosecution declared he was an emissary, but, assuming him to have been merely a messenger on his way to fetch a doctor, it is agreed that, when he accompanied Bambata to Natal, he did not receive his instructions from Dinuzulu or at Usutu, but at his own kraal many miles away.[342] But for having been ordered to accompany Bambata, he would probably not have gone at all. Cakijana declares Bambata had already arrived at the decision to rebel when he joined him; consequently, if this be true, the instigator could not have been Cakijana—for instance, when he represented to Bambata's and Sigananda's tribes that it was Dinuzulu's order that they should rebel.

There is not a shred of evidence that any communication passed between Sigananda and Bambata until after the Rebellion had started, and this notwithstanding the blood relation between the tribes. Sigananda, at his trial at Nkandhla, in June, 1906, a couple of weeks after Mome, stated that, in the absence of Dinuzulu and Mankulumana, he would say nothing, they being the people "who drew this man (i.e. Bambata) along here...." President of Court-Martial—"I want the names of the people who brought you into trouble." Answer—"I say their names are Dinuzulu and Mankulumana.... This man Bambata came from their country." Another of Sigananda's reasons for not giving his evidence was because he had just heard the messenger he sent to Dinuzulu to report Bambata's arrival at Nkandhla give evidence. With such evidence he fully concurred. What was it? Briefly that Dinuzulu had sent the following reply: "Tell my grandfather, Sigananda, that he is to receive my man Bambata into his bosom and take care of him." The witness added that Dinuzulu was at the bottom of the Rebellion, and had said he would assist by ordering various tribes to support Sigananda. And the tribes referred to did actively support. Other evidence was given showing conclusively that Sigananda rebelled solely because of the instructions he had received from Dinuzulu. Now, this is independent and remarkable testimony by one of the oldest and staunchest supporters of the Usutu cause in Zululand.

There remain the names of Bambata and Dinuzulu. We know Bambata rebelled. But was he the principal, or merely an agent or instrument? He has been called a 'madman.' The word 'hlanya,' however, that was commonly applied to him, also means 'firebrand,' 'desperado,' or 'anarchist'; it was in the latter senses that it was used. Cakijana was the same type of man, though, in addition, with considerable experience of European warfare, arms, ammunition, etc. This Dinuzulu knew when he directed him to accompany Bambata. Indeed, had the mission been merely the absurdly trivial one of fetching a doctor from a low-caste tribe, a hundred other equally suitable and less martially-inclined messengers could have been got within ten miles of Dinuzulu's kraal and within his own ward. And then not two but one would have been necessary and usual for such a purpose, especially as the man who had recommended the doctor was himself accompanying the messenger. Cakijana lived in another ward, and was not a member of Dinuzulu's tribe.

Bambata was killed during the Rebellion, hence his evidence is not available. His wife and children (the latter aged about 17 and 14 in 1907), declare that he was presented with a rifle and ammunition at Usutu with Dinuzulu's knowledge, whilst the first-mentioned adds that she heard Mankulumana, in Dinuzulu's presence and hearing, incite Bambata to rebel and to use the rifle and ammunition referred to for the purpose. Bambata, too, is known to have informed other people that Dinuzulu had given him the rifle.