The impending dialogue on the Barotseland impasse will not be of any help for as long as the Zambian Government ignores the facts of laws governing treaties. Faced with this, the only option is to agree on the process of peaceful disengagement or having a "referendum". The latter is however not in conformity with the rules governing treaties since the BA64 was never in force.
Hoping to lure Barotse people to undo the 2012 BNC resolutions will be an exercise in futility.
The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, to which Zambia is a signatory, underlines the principle that no treaty is sacrosanct if the other party does not honour it. In a nutshell, it is the unilateral termination of the Barotseland Agreement 1964, by the Zambian Government, which justifies the call for, and gives legal force to, Self-Determination for Barotseland.
Given that the dialogue is an attempt to address the contentious and complex issue of the abrogated BA64 treaty, it must have momentum and direction since the boundary of Barotseland is not in controversy as it is well documented. In fact, the territory referred to as Barotseland is well elaborated in the 1905 Anglo-Portuguese boundary dispute arbitration and Article 125 of the Northern Rhodesia Independence Order 1964. This fact is highlighted in the Order-in-Council of 1924, 1953 and 1963.
No nation can take away the sovereignty of another. Barotseland has never been at war with Zambia or surrendered its sovereignty through BA64.
Therefore, colonialism of the territory by Zambia is illegal and counterproductive. It must be emphasized that Zambian citizenship has never been accepted by people of Barotseland since 1969 when the BA64 was unilaterally terminated by Zambia. This brings us back to the 2012 BNC resolutions which affirmed the reverting of Barotseland to sovereignty.
To the people of Barotseland, the dialogue should not be a stumbling block to our walk to freedom. The dialogue may provide an opportunity for the 2012 BNC resolutions to be tabled to generate a wide consensus on the key conflict and a way forward as stipulated by the resolutions.
At the same time, dialogue may bring Barotseland independence leaders incarcerated in prisons of Northern and Luapula provinces of Zambia out of prison and be part of the participants as leaders of Linyungandambo.
Further, the 2016 ACHPR admissibility report of the Ngambela of Barotseland Vs Zambia, recommended for domestic settlement of the impasse i.e to disengage or restoration.
In conclusion, restoration of the BA64 is unattainable as both nations made their positions; i.e, a letter of 1993 addressed to Ngambela Mr. G. Mukande from the office of minister without portfolio then Brigadier General Godfrey Miyanda stated that BA64 could not be restored because it was stale and has been over taken by events; vis-a-vis the 2012 BNC resolutions, accepted the GRZ’s position and resolved to revert Barotseland to its original status. Alternatively, the dialogue may draw a conclusion between disengagement or referendum to bring the Barotseland impasse to conclusion.
Bulozi fasi la bo ndata luna
By Saleya Kwalombota