A Content Analysis of Gendered Logic in Traditional Courts’ Adjudication in Zimbabwe

• In Event: Nuanced Factors in Courts: Evidence, Communication, and Gendered Logic

Abstract

This study examines gendered logic (i.e., rationalizations and assumptions) in Zimbabwe’s traditional courts, where adjudication relies on traditions, cultural norms, and community-based moral codes rather than formal legal ones. Rooted in a precolonial system of chiefs, headmen, and village heads, these courts serve as alternative judicial spaces governing everyday disputes. Drawing on feminist legal theories and dispute resolution literature, this study explores how parties frame disputes, adjudicators justify rulings, and gendered expectations shape these processes. Using qualitative content analysis and NVivo for data organization and coding, it analyzes 105 cases from 83 recorded court sessions (2022–2024) sourced from YouTube. Preliminary findings suggest that traditional courts function as an expression of masculinity, where symbolic punishments disproportionately target women, while material sanctions often apply to men. Additionally, traditional leaders reinforce judicial legitimacy through multiple identities, such as their priestly role, which layers legal and spiritual authority. This fusion arguably strengthens their rulings and discourages contestation, as questioning decisions becomes not only a legal act but also a challenge to sacred traditions. By examining gendered interactions in informal justice systems, this study contributes to sociolegal scholarship on gender and law, offering insights into how patriarchal authority is maintained in peripheral courtroom spaces.

Author

• Pious Maedzenge, University of Missouri-St. Louis