1. Immediately after signing the Unitary Treaty BA’64 it was Zambia that repudiated and abrogated it indicating she was repentant of her former act and thus craved for separation and divorce.
2. Zambia never included the Unitary Treaty BA’64 and its principles in her subsequent constitution meaning that she was not interested in it altogether in consequence to reason no. 1 above.
3. Zambia was there comfortably and officially represented and never objected as if in relief from the importunate acts by Barotseland for nearly 50 years golden period of futile efforts to reason with Zambian regimes for restoration of the defunct BA’64, during the historic day when Barotseland proclaimed the 2012 BNC Resolutions and ratified the UDI Mandate for total free Barotseland.
4. Zambia received communiques regarding Barotseland’s new status quo and was given chance according to international law principles to challenge Barotseland’s declared independence but Zambia remained mute and has never challenged it up to now. Silence means consent.
5. Zambia knows that Barotseland boundaries are equally documented at the world centre in Washington even long before there was a country called Zambia. This is a clear testimony that Barotseland and Zambia are two separate geographic territories, a fact that she cannot refute.
6. Zambia’s continued mal-interaction with Barotseland monarchy structure (BRE); the persistent preying of Zambia on Barotseland only validates the incompatibility of the once companions of the monarchy and republic government system in the abortive unitary state form.
7. The continued abuse of BRE by ‘Zambian’ government is a clear testimony that the Royal constitutional monarchy system of government of Barotseland is the best option of administration of Barotseland as RBG. I presume the British opted to give newcomer North Eastern Rhodesian governance political power over Barotseland monarchy in the unitary statehood of Zambia because we lacked a 100% political structure then in Barotseland to also continue enjoying our surrogate protectorate status under Zambia. Zambia should now be ready to face the political counterpart governance function of RBG for amicable disengagement talks, instead of fretting the weaker function of BRE.
8. Zambia’s 2016 abrogation and repudiation of her constitution is a clear ratification of the abrogation and repudiation of the BA’64 that Barotseland has no trace chance to get back into the rogue union treaty and would be a complete misfit in such a bogus unitary statehood with a partner highly contemptuous of her national and international legal framework.
9. The voting pattern (5 years after the last 2011 tripartite elections) in the just ended controversial quadripartite election pronounced a blessing in honour of the 2012 Barexit from the failed union of states of former Zambia, in addition to declaring the national and state boundaries.
10. Against all these reasons ‘Zambia’ has totally failed to demonstrate any valid reason and legal documentation why Barotseland should continue cohabiting with her illegally, given the fact that there is NO GHOST OR MONO UNITARY PARTNERSHIP IN INTERNATIONAL LAWS!
Barotseland could only do so at the very cost of sacrificing her nationality and culture whilst being objects of derision, human, economic and political abuses. Thank God for visionary elders of motherland who rose up to the challenge of the occasion which culminated in the 2012 BAROTSE NATIONAL COUNCIL (BNC) RESOLUTIONS AND UDI MANDATE we wholeheartedly uphold at all cost!
Tukongote wa mwanaa nongolo.