It was well known that, according to Zulu law, anyone harbouring a criminal was liable to the severest punishment, especially if the offender were a rebel. The principle of communal responsibility was applied, as a matter of course, by which the arrival of a stranger, reputed to be a criminal, had to be reported to the next senior officer. In this case, Bambata had gone, not to live at any particular kraal, but taken possession of the stronghold universally acknowledged to be that of Sigananda and his ancestors, and which fell well within the district assigned by Government for the occupation of that tribe. It, therefore, devolved on that Chief to inform his Magistrate. How he did this has already been seen. The attitude assumed by the Magistrate, and soon affirmed and adopted by the Commissioner, was that, as Bambata had taken refuge in the forests, Sigananda himself became personally responsible for his apprehension, notwithstanding that the outlaw had arrived with about 150 men, who, on the whole, were probably better armed, and known from the outset to be better armed, than any local levies could have been. The order issued to Ndube, Mpumela and other Chiefs to "assist" in arresting the ringleader would also appear to have been wrong in principle, in the absence of arrangements for a European officer or force to be present to take charge of and support the levies.[158] After all, Bambata had struck his blow, not at the black man, but at the white. It was, therefore, the duty of the white man to at least assist the levies, and especially Sigananda. There was, indeed, no evidence of previous collusion between Bambata and Sigananda. "At that time," wrote the Commissioner, "there was no ground for suspecting that Sigananda and his people would not loyally co-operate in effecting Bambata's capture."[159] Later on, allegations were made of Sigananda being in league with Dinuzulu, and of Bambata having been directed by Dinuzulu to start the Rebellion, but it must be remembered no one believed more implicitly in, and more staunchly and consistently defended, Dinuzulu's loyalty than did Mr. Saunders. When, on the 6th April, at Usutu kraal, he informed Dinuzulu and his indunas of the attack on the Police in Mpanza valley, he says "their frank demeanour left no doubt in my mind that these expressions were perfectly genuine, and that Dinuzulu and his people were not in any way associated with Bambata and his doings."[160] Even under these circumstances, assuming Dinuzulu to have been loyal, it is somewhat surprising to those who know anything of Native character and the facts, to find Sigananda and other Chiefs repeatedly pressed between the 9th and 16th to arrest a man who, from a purely Native point of view, had done no more than offer a vigorous protest to paying a tax which every Native, throughout the length and breadth of the country, also strongly resented.