By Advent Shoko
Harare, Zimbabwe — Chimurenga music legend Thomas “Mukanya” Mapfumo has appeared to back a new explanation for his decision to stop his nephew, Kurai Makore, from performing his songs.
Mapfumo shared a post by UK-based theatre practitioner and founder of the Mambokadzi Dance Group, Enisia Mashusha who argued that the dispute raises a much bigger question about inheritance, intellectual property and who should benefit from a musician’s life work after they are gone.
The development comes after Mapfumo recently announced that Makore was not his heir and had no right to perform songs from his catalogue.
The announcement triggered criticism from some social media users, particularly because Makore had been performing Mapfumo’s songs at recent shows, leading some fans to believe he was being groomed to carry the veteran musician’s legacy.
Mapfumo has since said that was not the case.
Mapfumo Bars Makore From His Songs
In a statement issued through Chimurenga Music Company, Mapfumo said Makore was not authorised to perform, record, stream or commercially exploit songs from his catalogue.
The company also rejected claims that Makore had been appointed Mapfumo’s successor.
“Thomas Mapfumo has never designated any heir or successor to his musical legacy – by blood, by decree, or by any other means,” the statement said.
Mapfumo said Makore’s previous appearances alongside him had also been misunderstood.
“What was an invitation to open for Thomas Mapfumo in a couple of shows was spun into a ‘handing down of a torch’ to Kurai by some sections of the media,” the statement said.
He added that it was ultimately the public and history that would determine who carries the Chimurenga mantle.
“It is THE PEOPLE – the fans, the nation, and history itself – who ultimately decide who carries the mantle of a legend,” Mapfumo said.
Why Fans Thought Makore Was Being Groomed To Rake Over
The controversy did not emerge in a vacuum.
In recent performances, Makore had been allowed to perform Mapfumo’s songs, putting the younger musician in front of audiences with one of Zimbabwe’s biggest musical names.
With Mapfumo also preparing for what he has described as his final Zimbabwe performances, the arrangement naturally created speculation that Makore was being prepared to carry the catalogue into the future.
Mapfumo’s latest position has challenged that assumption.
He has maintained that allowing Makore to appear at some shows did not amount to handing him ownership of the music or making him an heir.
Mapfumo Says He Wanted To ‘Wean’ Him Off
After the announcement, Mapfumo sought to explain his decision, saying he wanted to wean Makore off his music.
That explanation suggested that the veteran musician wanted his nephew to establish his own identity and career rather than continue relying on Mapfumo’s songs.
But Mashusha has now offered another way of looking at the dispute.
And Mapfumo’s decision to share her post appears to signal that he is receptive to the argument.
Mashusha: ‘What Happens When They Are Gone?’
Mashusha said the Mapfumo-Makore dispute was forcing African families to confront a difficult conversation that is often postponed until it is too late.
“My take on this matter is whether you agree with Dr Thomas Mapfumo or not, there is one thing that cannot be ignored,” she wrote.
“He is forcing us to confront a conversation that many African families avoid until it is too late.”
Her focus was on what happens to a musician’s work after death.
“When a music legend spends decades building a catalogue of songs, recordings, royalties, publishing rights, and cultural influence, what happens when they are gone?” she asked.
Mashusha said poorly planned estates can leave children, relatives, managers and business partners fighting over valuable assets.
“We have watched families, children, relatives, managers, and business partners become locked in painful disputes over estates that were never properly structured,” she said.
“Friendships end, siblings stop speaking, court battles drag on for years, the artist’s legacy becomes a battlefield.”
Could It Be About Mapfumo’s Children?
Mashusha then introduced the angle that has added a new layer to the controversy.
“If Mukanya is trying to ensure that his biological children benefit from the work he created, that is not necessarily a controversial idea,” she wrote.
“It is a practical one.”
She argued that a parent has the right to decide how their life’s work should be managed and who should inherit it.
But she also made an important distinction: what an artist says publicly is not enough to settle ownership and inheritance questions.
“The real issue is not what he says publicly, the real issue is what is put in place legally,” Mashusha said.
She suggested that a trust, a properly drafted will and clear arrangements for intellectual-property rights could help protect a musician’s catalogue for generations.
Mapfumo has not, in the material available, explicitly confirmed that protecting his biological children’s inheritance is the reason he barred Makore.
His decision to share Mashusha’s argument, however, has brought that possibility into the public debate.
The Music Is An Asset
Mashusha’s argument goes beyond family relationships.
She pointed out that a successful music catalogue can continue making money long after an artist stops performing.
“Songs are not just memories, they are assets,” she wrote.
“Every stream, every radio play, every film licence, and every commercial use can generate income long after the artist has passed away.”
For an artist of Mapfumo’s stature, that distinction matters.
His catalogue is not only part of Zimbabwe’s cultural history. It can also carry commercial value through recordings, performances, broadcasts, streaming and licensing.
That raises difficult questions over who can perform the songs, who can license them and who ultimately benefits from the income.
More Than A Family Dispute
Mapfumo is one of the most influential figures in Zimbabwean music, having helped shape and popularise Chimurenga music over several decades.
His songs have become part of the country’s cultural memory, making the dispute with Makore bigger than an ordinary family disagreement.
It also highlights a problem faced by many artists: who controls the work after the creator steps away?
For Makore, performing Mapfumo’s songs may have been seen by fans as part of continuing the family’s musical tradition.
For Mapfumo, however, the issue is about control of his catalogue and the rights attached to it.
Those two positions can exist side by side, a person can be a musical successor in the eyes of fans without legally inheriting the creator’s intellectual property.
A Lesson For Other African Artists
Mashusha said the controversy should not be limited to Mapfumo.
“Honestly speaking this conversation is bigger than Thomas Mapfumo,” she wrote.
“It is about every African artist, entrepreneur, farmer, property owner, and parent who has spent a lifetime building something valuable.”
Her warning is that failing to plan can leave families with confusion instead of an inheritance.
“If we do not organise our affairs while we are alive, we leave our loved ones with confusion instead of inheritance,” she said.
“Protecting your legacy is not greed. It is responsibility.”
She added that perhaps the greatest gift parents can leave their children is not simply wealth, but a clear plan that prevents disputes after their death.
Leave a Reply