Political Editor, Barotseland Post

Political Editor, Barotseland Post

Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

A secret clandestine operation to arrest or eliminate Senior Chief Inyambo Yeta by the Zambian government and their partners has been unearthed.

Yesterday a distress call was sent out in Barotseland after news emerged that several Zambia security officers were in Sesheke with the express orders to arrest and eliminate Inyambo Yeta from his Mwandi palace.

“We have received reports that there is a scheme hatched to clear Chief Inyambo and agents have already been sent to Sesheke. Can you please help expose this so that this intended evil plan is aborted?” Read the distress call.

“Lusaka is now aware that maLozi are determined to have this Zambian ally Litunga deposed, and that maLozi may now look for Kingship from Inyambo Yeta. So that is why the Zambian government may wish to take Inyambo out of the way.” explained the intelligence report.

Chief Inyambo Yeta is seen by many as a perfect replacement for the now embattled Lubosi Imwiko II.

Meanwhile, the BNFA have written a petition to have Lubosi Imwiko II abdicate the throne immediately so that a Litunga willing to carry out the mandate of head of State for Barotseland could be enthroned as he has allegedly failed to carry that responsibility, but rather prefers to gallivant between Limulunga, Lusaka and Kabwe where he often lives like a nomadic commoner.

The Barotse National Freedom Alliance, BNFA, have written a petition to have Lubosi Imwiko II abdicate the throne as Litunga, King of Barotseland. The petition posted on the BNFA web site is expected to be distributed and signed by the Barotse people across Barotseland.

According to Matakala Muyendekwa, a Lozi loyalist, a Litunga in Barotseland can indeed not only abdicate but also be dethroned depending on the circumstances.

Coincidently, the last Litunga to have been dethroned for working against his people was King Mwanang’ono Imwiko I (1945 - 1948), Lubosi Imwiko II’s own father whose three year reign was so bad that he ill-treated his own people until he was dethroned in 1948. Mwanang’ono Imwiko I’s Ngambela (traditional prime minister) was Namakando Wina, prominent Zambian politicians Arthur and Sikota Wina’s father, who was deposed alongside his Litunga.

It is, therefore, often alleged by some analysts that in 1962-1969 the Wina brothers were driven, in their actions to push for the joining of Barotseland and Zambia, and later cooperating with Kenneth Kaunda in abrogating the Barotseland Agreement of 1964, by their desire to ‘fix’ Litunga Sir Mwanawina III, who took over the Litungaship after the deposed King. Consequently, with the 1965 repudiation and eventual abrogation of the Barotseland Agreement 1964, the Wina brothers would posses more political power in Zambia than the Litunga of Barotseland.

The Barotseland Agreement 1964 was finally unilaterally abrogated by the Zambian government in 1969, through an ACT of Parliament, while Barotseland only accepted its abrogation in 2012, through the March 27th Barotse National Council (BNC), thereby completely invalidating the 1964 agreement. The BNC is the same Barotse institution that sanctioned the signing of the Barotseland Agreement 1964, and by it the agreement’s abrogation could be finalized.

Here below is the BNFA petition in full as obtained from BNFA.INFO website.

By Kenny Sibalwa

The case of Barotseland presents the international community an opportunity to prove their relevance by insuring that they resolve this impasse peacefully before it is too late. The international community has in the past failed to peacefully resolve conflicts in Rwanda thereby resulting in the regrettable 1993 genocide, in Serbia and Kosovo, and currently war is still raging in Libya, Syria, Yemen and Iraq among others. And out of all these conflicts innocent lives are being lost and destroyed every day.

The issue of Barotseland is one of the simplest issues that the international community can resolve but there continued silence over this matter is nurturing a serious future problem which the international community may fail to resolve just like the current conflicts that they are failing to resolve.

In fact the people of Barotseland must be commended by the international community for their patience and their continued desire to resolve this problem through peaceful means. It is, however, not guaranteed that this will continue to be the case as the people of Barotseland are getting tired and fade up with the continued abuse of their rights by the Zambian government.

What the international community needs to understand is that war is very easy to start but very difficult to end. The reason why the Barotse people have not picked arms is not because they are incapable to do so but because they still believe in the international community's ability to help resolve this issue peacefully. The Zambian Government continued pursuit of arrogant and cruel response to the demands of the people of Barotseland, due to its belief that it has a military might over Barotseland, has the potential to plant seeds of extremism in the minds and hearts of the Barotse people. This extremism can easily result in some citizens of Barotseland to resort to terrorist activities against the Zambian government as a way of defending and proving their point.

The danger with terrorism is that not even the most powerful country can adequately prepare or defend itself.

Currently there are so many terrorist organizations in the world posing a serious danger to world peace; therefore, there is no need to allow this situation in Barotseland get to that point.

The international community must come on board quickly and help resolve this issue whilst there is still time to do so. The Zambian government must not be allowed to continue abusing the rights of the people of Barotseland with impunity. I, therefore, call upon the United Nations, SADC, AU and all international governments to take the issue of Barotseland seriously and find a solution now.

BAROTSELAND ISSUE - POINT OF VIEW

Let nobody consider the Barotseland matter a dispute or conflict. That would mean failing to come to terms with the matter. Those who were involved in Zambian politics are the ones trying to misinform and distort information of Barotseland.

Firstly, it is a matter of law, secondly an issue of politics and thirdly an issue of human rights. Thus the first takes preeminence; because the latter have ambiguity and full of contradictions.

The international community may consider or think that Barotseland is part of Zambia, a quite understandable notion; but how do they prove it, is it just a hypothetical opinion, or presumption? On what basis is Barotseland part of Zambia? Is it on the basis of the constitution or penal code or on the basis of the Barotseland Agreement of 1964? The people of Barotseland are looking for the one who is going to provide them with answers to all these questions, but who is he and where does he come from?

Barotseland is not a new country! When was her boundaries created? The interpretation of a protectorate is important in this case. In a protectorate, sovereignty belongs to whom? How do you lose sovereignty? The bone of contention is that Barotseland is not part of Zambia!! If ever there was a relationship with Zambia, it was based on what?

THE PURPOSE OF THE AGREEMENT OF MAY 1964:

In construing the Agreement; it is not the words written that matters but the intention. This applies to the Barotseland Agreement. What then was the intention of it? The intention was to preserve Barotseland’s autonomy and self-determination, because Britain denied her independence before 1960.
Did the people of Barotseland surrender their sovereignty by Agreement? Though the Agreement was a presupposition (revealing intention) it did not enter into force, and later it was terminated or revoked by Zambia, Barotseland just came to accept the repudiation and revocation in March 27, 2012.
Did the Agreement place Barotseland within the boundaries of Zambia? Assuming that the answer is yes, after termination of the Agreement, would it still be within the boundary of Zambia? Is the law that is amended or rescinded by parliament considered to be in force?

Assuming that Barotseland and Zambia made a federal state or union, and then the Union Act is repealed; can somebody argue that repealed constitution has force of law?

The Agreement was terminated by Acts of Parliament; our position is that none of the Barotzis can question the validity of the Acts of Parliament of Zambia. What we would like to find out from whoever is a supporter of Zambia is; if the parliament amends, revokes or terminates provisions of law, who is qualified to question the authority and powers of parliament? In this case, we acknowledge that if the parliament terminates legal documents it is final. In the case of Barotseland Agreement 1964, we have accepted the Acts of the parliament of Zambia that terminated it. However, the question that arises is that, what is the implication and consequences of termination of the treaty?

The issue now is not that the Zambian Government entered the Agreement in bad faith, but they terminated it. If one expresses oneself over the terminated agreement that was crime according to the Zambian laws. What have people to do in that situation? Can they not have the recourse to international law, or human rights conventions?

SECESSION

The Barotzish would love to know the definition and the meaning of “SECESSION” and who is to provide the meaning? Not every movement seeking independence is seceding; each movement has to be examined on its own merits. In fact, no situation is similar to ours.

Assuming that secession means to break away, can somebody prove how we were joined or united? Was there a Union Act? Was there any Federal Constitution? Were we joined by Agreement? Someone must provide answers to all these questions. In the absence of the Union Act or Federal Constitution, who is seceding or breaking away? Is restoration secession?

N.B. The Agreement was not only terminated but before that it did not enter into force. Legal axiom states “the agreement that has not entered into force is not legally binding.” This being true, what legally binds or link Barotseland to Zambia? The answer in nothing; so what kind of occupation of peoples’ territory is this? as the case is, does the international community or world order encourage forced annexation?

POLITICAL ASPECT

The people of Barotseland want to be considered as people with their own sovereignty, and they want to be provided with satisfactory answers as to why Barotseland should not exist as a nation? Maybe the rhetoric question is, are people of Barotseland people, or not? The term “people of Barotseland” appears 5 times in the Barotseland Agreement 1964; therefore, if they are people just like other people elsewhere, then they deserve the rights accorded to other people.

Another disturbing question is who gave Zambia sovereignty over Barotseland? Does international law allow or accept the deprivation of people’s sovereignty? If one has to talk about the territorial integrity of Zambia, the questions is how about the territorial integrity of Barotseland? What solution can be offered where the agreement is terminated?

The intended purpose of the Barotseland Agreement 1964 did not materialize; the intention was to provide self-determination (internal), but the Zambian Government rejected it. When the Agreement is terminated, do people have to go to a referendum? Are we dealing with principle of law or what? Are we guided by hopes and opinions, wishes of the sympathizers of Zambia or we want to deal with law and justice combined with realities? Viz facts and figures!

INTERNATIONAL LAW

Separate existence of Barotseland is not disputed. The order-in-council of 1962 through section 57 and so also recognized and confirmed the separate existence of Barotseland. Scholars of international law recognize the historical sovereign status of Barotseland from Northern Rhodesia/Zambia.

HUMAN RIGHTS ASPECT

Internal self-determination as a compromise was a preference of Barotse in 1964, and this is what was rejected and deleted by Zambia; this has cost people their lives and misery to many. If we advocate for it would mean we are moving in circles and this will imply having no regard for those who were slain, and those whose limbs were amputated and those incarcerated, because of this issue without compensation from Zambia and it would mean more people will be missing.

Moving from independence to a colony of Zambia was painful; in that no single person was killed by Whites in Barotseland, the way Zambia has done. From sovereignty to internal self-determination under the belly of Zambia is retrogressive.

Zambia’s nature being what it is would continue killing people; Richard Ngenda, Kangombe and others were killed.

Does the international community consider self-determination and independence as crime? If what is considered a human right by international law is deemed as crime by domestic law of other countries like Zambia, what should people do? Is it prudent to cooperate with the one who enslaves or dominates and colonize you?

CONCLUSION

Declaration of independence does not violate international law. Nothing special has been written on the existence of the state; while formation of state is a matter of fact and not law, we however, feel legal opinion is important.

N.B. Where we say politics, we do not refer to the politics of Zambia, but issues of politics in general.

Written by:

Rt. Hon. Afumba Mombotwa
Administrator General
Royal Barotseland Government

The Barotse Imilema’s trial case which was scheduled for today, 6th October 2015, has failed to take off. The case has since been adjourned to Friday, 9th of October, 2015 as the prosecution still awaits further instructions from Lusaka (DPP). Their bail request was not even entertained.

This has become Zambia’s familiar way of dealing with Barotse people as they continue to violate their basic human rights by arbitrary arresting them on any flimsy non criminal issues and then keep them in lengthy detentions without trial.

Six Barotse Imilema youths were last Thursday arrested for helping to publicize a BNFA planned peaceful public gathering that the local Zambia police, for no stated reason, ordered should not take place.

Meanwhile the six remain incarcerated at Mongu’s Kambule remand prison.

This latest number of incarcerated Barotse nationals adds to that of four key Barotseland independence leaders, Afumba Mombotwa, Sylvester Kalima Inambao, Likando Pelekelo and Paul Masiye Masiyaleti who are currently facing trial, although now adjourned indefinitely, on the charge of treason whose conviction under Zambian laws attracts a maximum sentence of death.

Others serving three year jail sentences each on Barotseland related matters are Boris Muziba Muziba, Nayoto Mwenda and Sikwibele Wasilota who were questionably convicted for a crime of publishing false news with intent to alarm the public, while another Livingstone residence, Kaingu, is undergoing trial for possession of Barotseland literature considered seditious at the Livingstone high court.

By Saleya Kwalombota

"Better to die fighting for freedom than be a prisoner all the days of your life." Bob Marley.

So here is the puzzle: actualization of Barotseland Transitional Government (BTG) is now a must following the uncertainty of Lubosi Imwiko II in regard to Barotseland independence drive. The way forward is to adopt the present Transitional Government headed by His Excellence Hon. Afumba Mombotwa with a consensus of nominating people from other liberation groups for wider decision making as people's mandated transitional government and to avoid monopoly decision. It is time to stand to this challenge; Barotseland is in urgency of civil government that should be under the custodian of Administrator General before democratic system of ballot is used to select the government of people's choice.

Economic, demographic, military, and idealized change has to be exceptionally dynamic over this transitional period, hence, the need for effective people's government than letting the autocratic leadership of BRE that has no alternative set of institutional arrangements with rules associated with sovereign statehood. Let us shame our adversary who believes in the divide and rule of Barotseland people.

It is not difficult to identify people to take up certain positions in the current Transitional Government arrangement that should spearhead the people's aspirations of 2012 BNC which should not be obviated in the face of Zambia's brutality. We have genuine call for this transitional government since is in line with rules of statehood.

One theoretical approach that provides some guidance for thinking about this issue is evolutionary game theory. Evolutionary game theory assumes that actors are rational but myopic. They do not have common knowledge about the game they are playing. They proceed through as a team, where there is a lapse; the other idea is floated from within the team and cover it up. The end result is a well designed strategy that gives them better results.

From an evolutionary game theoretic perspective the basic question is: Are there players (people) from other groups that have incentives and capabilities to develop new rules and institutions that could supersede sovereign statehood hiccup of Barotseland?

However, the existing BRE institutional arrangements of KUTAS will not collapse but modernized to fit in the system of constitutional monarch. That is the reason people are calling for the reinstatement of Hon. Sinyinda as Ngambela or Sope, who is rightfully positioned to carry out his mandate under the modernized system.

Let me end up by the following signing of signature of Hon Mungandi, “just thinking aloud!"

Bulozi fasi la bondata Luna

Page 9 of 16
The Barotseland Post, also known as The Barotsepost, is an online media platform, for now, that is dedicated to reporting stories and news around Barotseland and beyond, giving exclusive coverage and access to the people and the nation of Barotseland to fully express themselves in their aspirations for self- determination.