As the dust settles from the broad-based protest held on March 30 over the alleged installation of a Nigerian king in KuGompo City, one question continues to dominate public discourse — where was the leadership?
In a democracy as vibrant and hard-earned as SA’s, moments of mass mobilisation are never ordinary. They are powerful signals and expressions of public concern that demand attention, reflection and response.
When communities gather in large numbers, they do so not merely to be seen, but to be heard.
It is in such moments that leadership is tested, not only through policy, but through presence.
What makes this moment particularly striking is that the national government did, in fact, show up.
The national deputy minister of cooperative governance and traditional affairs (Cogta) was present and took the step of addressing the marchers directly, alongside the KwaZulu-Natal delegation led by Ngizwe Mchunu, Phakelumthakathi kaNdaba-ndaba, Jacinta Ngobese-Zuma and many others.
This gesture, whether symbolic or substantive, reflected an acknowledgment of the public’s concerns.
Government leaders expect large crowds during public holiday celebrations, yet when a serious provocation like the alleged coronation of the Igbo King occurs in KuGompo City, they failed to lead.
Even the deputy minister of Cogta attended alone, without support from the provincial ministers or the city’s mayor. Of course the mayor appeared later on receiving a petition inside her offices.
Of major concern was lack of visible representation from the provincial leadership, especially that from the ruling party.
Equally troubling for many is the fact that no official representative appeared to have been delegated to stand in their place. In moments where leadership presence matters most, that absence becomes difficult to ignore.
I believe if they had been visible either physically or strongly made their voices heard in the build up to the march, things could have turned out differently.
However, it would be premature and unfair to conclude that absence alone equates to opposition or indifference. Governance is complex and public officials often operate under constraints not immediately visible to the public.
But leadership is as much about perception as it is about action. In times of heightened public concern, silence and absence can easily be interpreted as disregard.
Compounding this situation are the issues raised during the march itself, including concerns circulating within the community about the reported “coronation of an Igbo King”.
These claims, whether verified or not, have heightened tensions and placed an even greater responsibility on leadership to respond with clarity and transparency.
When such matters are left unaddressed, speculation fills the gap, often deepening divisions within already strained communities.
The real concern, therefore, is not simply about physical absence on a particular day, but about the broader question of engagement.
Where do our leaders stand on the issues raised? Are they listening to the voices from the ground? And most importantly, are they willing to engage openly and decisively in the interest of unity, legality and social cohesion?
Equally pressing are the unresolved questions surrounding the reported ceremony and how such an event was organised without clear public communication or consensus within the affected communities.
In a region deeply rooted in its own traditional leadership and heritage, such developments require careful handling, transparency and respect for established systems.
In the absence of clear statements when the matter of the coronation became public, uncertainty gave rise to speculation.
What can be said with certainty is that the lack of visible engagement created a vacuum, one that now demands to be filled with clarity, accountability and leadership
Questions were asked: if the silence (in the initial phases when the matter became public) from the premier and the mayor suggested that they saw no issue with the developments in question? What were the positions of these provincial senior leaders of the ruling party?
At the time, the public remained largely in the dark.
However, it would be neither fair nor responsible to draw definitive conclusions about their intentions based solely on their absence from the march.
What can be said with certainty is that the lack of visible engagement created a vacuum, one that now demands to be filled with clarity, accountability and leadership.
The public is not only asking where their leaders were, but more importantly, where they stand.
Premier Oscar Mabuyane’s response, as reported by SABC News following the protest, is clear in its condemnation of violence, looting and lawlessness, an aspect that few would dispute.
The protection of life and property, and the upholding of the rule of law, are fundamental responsibilities of any government.
However, where disagreement begins to emerge is in how the broader context of the march itself is interpreted and addressed.
By focusing primarily on the violence that punctuated the protest, the premier’s response risked overshadowing the underlying grievances that led thousands of people to take to the streets in the first place.
For many participants, the march was not defined by lawlessness, but by a desire to raise concerns they believe have not been adequately heard or addressed.
Reducing the event to its most volatile elements may be seen by some as dismissive of the legitimate frustrations expressed by law-abiding citizens.
Furthermore, while the clarification from the Nigerian diplomatic mission, that the event was cultural and not an assertion of territorial sovereignty, is an important intervention, it does not necessarily resolve the deeper concerns within affected communities.
For some, the issue is not only about sovereignty, but about process, consultation and respect for existing cultural and traditional frameworks.
On this point, the premier’s response appears to offer limited engagement.
There is also unease around the sequencing of the response itself.
The strong and immediate condemnation of violence stands in contrast to what some perceive as a delayed or less visible engagement with the peaceful majority who marched.
This imbalance can create the impression that government is more reactive to disorder than it is responsive to civic expression.
The call for lawful and sustainable approaches to issues such as undocumented immigration is noted, but it introduces another layer of complexity.
Some may argue that linking this concern to the march risks conflating distinct issues, potentially diverting attention from the specific grievances that motivated the protest.
In essence, the disagreement does not lie in rejecting the need for law and order, but in questioning whether the response fully captures the spirit and substance of the march.
A more balanced approach, one that condemns wrongdoing while equally acknowledging and engaging with legitimate public concerns, may be necessary to bridge the growing gap between leadership and the communities they serve.
SA’s democratic strength lies in its ability to foster dialogue, even in moments of disagreement.
But dialogue requires participation. It requires leaders who are visible, accessible and responsive, especially when the public demands it most.
If there are valid reasons for the absence of more visible provincial and local leadership on that day, the public deserves to hear them.
If there are positions held on the issues raised, they must be communicated clearly.
In the absence of such engagement, uncertainty will continue to grow and, with it, a gradual erosion of public trust.
Ultimately leadership is not defined only by authority, but by accountability. And in moments like these, accountability begins with a simple act — showing up, if not in person, then in voice, in clarity and in commitment to the people.
Until then, the question will remain — where was the leadership when the people marched?
The March 30 2026 march delivers an urgent lesson to the ruling party — leadership is defined by action, presence and responsiveness, not mere office.
When leaders fail to engage directly with the concerns of their people, they create a vacuum that breeds doubt, suspicion and disconnection.
True governance requires listening to legitimate grievances, addressing them transparently, and balancing the enforcement of law with respect for civic expression.
Ignoring these responsibilities risks alienating communities and undermining the very trust and legitimacy that leadership depends upon.
Siphiwo Fumbeza, author of the book 'Beyond Grandmother’s Mandate: The Fathers Who Forged My Path’, is writing this article in his personal capacity
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.