Amongst all the entities involved in community justice, the traditional authorities and their law have, for a long time, been the most significant. A particular trait of this form of customary law and justice is the presence of a plurality of cultural and symbolic universes – given that what counts as traditional varies from community to community, from ethnic group to ethnic group and also from one historical period to another – but all of these are distinct from the Western symbolic and cultural universe which dominates in official law and justice. 


Traditional law and justice therefore raise two very complex questions, the question of what is traditional and the question of what counts as multicultural. The legal abolition of traditional authorities, early in the process of construction of a postcolonial state, proved to be a complex political and social problem for the Frelimo government.




 To begin with, there were no resources to deploy the new political-administrative structures throughout the whole country, and where they were deployed they were not automatically accepted by the populations. As a result, the traditional authorities continued to rule under different forms and conditions. Both the popular courts and the GDs resorted to them in search of guidance and legitimacy. In the process, some régulos became judges of the popular courts, deciding the cases on the basis of traditional law and justifying their decisions in terms of revolutionary legality (Santos, 2003; Meneses et al., 2003). The non-acceptance, from below, of a state structure mirroring the colonial one, led to an increased resistance and opposition – from community members – towards the excesses of power demonstrated by the new leaders (Geffray, 1990; Dinnerman, 1999).


 This fact, combined with the state’s docile compliance with neoliberal impositions from the mid-1980s onwards, fuelled the process by which the traditional became a way of claiming an alternative modernity. The current government has been trying to neutralise the hostility of traditional authorities, coopting them by granting them some kind of subordinate recognition and participation in local administration both in rural and peri-urban areas. This process has found its strongest imprint in the already mentioned Decree 15/2000. Prompted by the Mozambican Ministry of State Administration, the two-step process of recognition of local leaderships (initial identification and recognition of the local leader by the community, followed by the formal, official legitimization by the State) had resulted, by mid-2003, in more than 13,500 legitimately indicated leaders from rural and urban communities.


 Of these, about a thousand and an half (about 10.7%) had been, by then, begotten by the state as the official leaders. A significant part of the recognised chiefs up to now are members of the customary leadership. A word of caution is necessary here, since, following the colonial standards, most of the studies conducted on the subject tend to insist on the role of the régulos, forgetting the enormous array of entities present, who are considered legitimate and are legitimised from below by the communities that recognise their authority. 


Local notables, such as traditional healers, local religious authorities, heads of lineages, and heads of production, are also part of the concept of local authorities, despite the fact that their political importance seems to be less visible. Another aspect to bear in mind is the fact that the traditional authorities and their means of dealing with social problems are not confined to the strict ambit of law; rather, they embrace several other sectors of social life. Finally, it should be acknowledged that these authorities, although mentioned as pivotal to the regular administration of their communities, are not recognised by the government as part of the state, which raises some questions regarding appeal from decisions, democratisation of power, etc.


 However, since this is a new process, few data are available regarding potential areas of conflict and means of solving problems of increasing autocracy. This process of official recognition of traditional authorities, and the claim of a return to the traditional roots, says little about the traditional rule in action. It varies according to the region, to the prestige of the leader, to the relative penetration of the state institutions, to the kinship relationships among traditional authorities, state administrators and grassroots party organisations, and finally to the relative strength and implantation of alternative community structures of conflict resolution such as community courts, religious structures, NGOs, etc.


 The ongoing research aims at defining the specifics of traditional power in a postcolonial context. As Santos points out (2003), the main difference, in relation to the colonial period, lies in the fact that the state seeks to neutralise the traditional authorities, not only through strict separation between political and administrative functions, but also through the integration of traditional authorities in a broader set of local government, involving base-level administrative structures and even the political-administrative hybrids. The colonial state, on the contrary, emphasised the specificity of traditional authorities in order to justify the racialisation of state and society. 


Specificity meant natural inferiority of traditional authorities in relation to modern colonial rule, of African culture in relation to Western culture, of indigenous peoples in relation to colonial citizens. If, in the 1990s, the most visible sphere of activity of traditional leaders were religious or spiritual ceremonies to promote peace, the situation today points to a broader intervention, which is particularly sought for whenever the other local authorities are unable to resolve problems and conflicts. In instances of conflict resolution, traditional authorities intervene in a wide range of issues. They are particularly important in evaluating problems of access to land, family matters, debt, bodily harm, damage to property, health/sickness, witchcraft and petty theft. In all these matters, the traditional authorities are a key node in a network of institutions that may include the district or even the provincial courts, the police, and local, political and administrative agencies. 


Sometimes they are the first venue sought for by the parties, in other times they function as appeal institutions, and in yet other cases they provide advice, or evidence in cases being dealt with by other institutions. In disputes before the traditional authorities, the régulo is normally not the first to hear the case (Meneses et al., 2003). In most cases analysed, he was presented as the highest instance of appeal in the customary. The observation of the hearings, as well as the study of several cases solved by traditional authorities, has attested to the fact that one of the great strengths of this form of justice is its immediate, public, collective, face-to-face, and relatively transparent character (Meneses et al., 2003). The hearings normally take place in the régulo’s house, in the large terrace in the front area. 


The frequency of these hearings varies. There might be certain days selected for the hearing, or they might occur when people solicit the help of the régulo. The dispute resolution is dominated by rhetoric and orality. The language used is normally the local language of the parties – predominantly the national languages – with no need for translation. Portuguese seems to be used only rarely. The participation of the régulo and of his associates is central. The régulo (and occasionally his council of wise people – madoda) sits at a table, on a more elevated plane. The parties are seated on a lower level, either in the front or on the sides. The audience sits on benches or mats, while the régulo leads the hearing. 


After the session is opened, the person levelling the complaint and the accused normally make their case. Because the sessions are open to the public, the members of the audience are normally invited to participate by presenting their explanations of the problem. The madoda also offer their appraisal of the conflict. Once the matter has been presented and the problem evaluated by the parties, the régulo and the madoda deliberate. In most cases, the régulo tries to obtain a consensus from both parties in order to maintain social equilibrium. Whenever an offence has been committed and must be punished, the forms of sentencing applied by the régulo vary, ranging from admonitions to the parties, to physical punishment (chambocadas, etc.) and fines.


 One of the great strengths of these institutions of community justice is that justice is immediate, public, collective, face-to-face, and relatively transparent, and is based on local knowledge, which is flexible and always re-worked in the context of a debated and contested reality. That is why traditional notions of justice should be viewed as one way of evaluating a person through their own eyes, where the power to discredit and defame function within traditional codes of honour and dignity. 


The analyses of several cases presented to traditional authorities lead one to understand that the absence of formality in these forms of community justice have the advantage of fomenting community participation; once both parties to the dispute are heard, the issue is discussed in an open debate, thereby permitting various views to be aired and allowing the community members to question the parties on any aspect that may be considered relevant to the dispute. However, any final solution depends ultimately on a consensus between the conflicting parties, 


As the ultimate objective is to restore harmony within the community by reaching a compromise. In general, the appropriate sentence is determined in accordance to a majority vote of the court and sentences are applied in the spirit of reconciliation and re-education. The relationships between the traditional authorities and other local authorities are intense and complex, not always free from conflicts or tensions. Many of the régulos send matters of divorce to the community courts, and serious crimes – such as homicide – to the police