• 18
  • May

As the ‘wind of change’ was blowing across Africa, frantic efforts were being made to hammer out an agreement that would bring independence to Northern Rhodesia to ensure that Barotseland does not remain dependent on the British Crown in accordance with the treaties between the British Crown on one hand and the Barotse Monarch y on the other . Late on 18th May, 1964, ‘The Barotseland Agreement 1964’ was signed. The opening paragraph of the preamble of The Barotseland Agreement 1964 stated,

“Following talks in London between the British Government, the Government of Northern Rhodesia and the Litunga of Barotseland, an Agreement was concluded at the Commonwealth Relations Office on 18th May, 1964. It is entitled ‘The Barotseland Agreement 1964. It was signed by Dr. K. D. Kaunda, Prime Minister of Northern Rhodesia, by Sir Mwanawina Lewanika III K.B.E., Litunga of Barotseland and by the Right Honourable Duncan Sandys M.P ., Secretary for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies, signifying the approval of her Majesty 's Government.”

The preamble further stated,

“The Prime Minister of Northern Rhodesia undertook on behalf of his Government that the Agreement would be reaffirmed by the Government of Northern Rhodesia at Independence.”

It is an open historic secret and fact that this undertaking was not fulfilled and remains unfulfilled today, fifty plus one years, since it was made. This is the genesis of a legacy of trickery, mockery and treachery that has prevailed since the still birth of the Unitary State called Republic of Zambia.

PRESIDENT KAUNDA

Three months later, in a very flowery speech delivered in the Kashandi at the headquarters of the Barotse Government in Lealui on Thursday 6th August 1964, Mr. Kenneth David Kaunda said among other things,

“ ... I can assure you, Sir Mwanawina, and all members of the Barotse Royal Family and of the Barotse Government, that the Government has no wish to interfere with the day to day running of the internal affairs of Barotseland.”

Again, the truth on the ground supported by documentary evidence and history is that the Kaunda regime made it its prime responsibility to interfere in the day - to - day affairs of Barotseland. This was done by destabilizing the Katengo Legislative Council soon after Zambia’s independence in 1965 when he replaced it by District Councils that were answerable to the Minister of Local Government and not the Litunga anymore. They went as far as looting the Barotse National Treasury in order to cripple the operations of the Barotse Government. On 6th August 1964, Kaunda in a speech to the nation, nicknamed Barotseland Government as Barotse Royal Establishment (BRE) and rob bed it capacity to stand on its feet until it was barely crawling on its belly, such that, the first popularly elected Ngambela, The Right Hon. Hastings Ndangwa Nooyo, had to abdicate for lack of capacity to sustain his day to day needs.

The syndrome of trickery, mockery and treachery continue d as the Kaunda regime enacted legislation after legislation mutilating the Barotseland Agreement 1964, contrary to its own provisions. This started with the enactment of the Local Government Act 69 of 1965. The last nail in the coffin was the enactment of the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment No. 5) Act 33 of 1969 which completely abrogated and literally threw in to the refuse bin The Barotseland Agreement 1964. Noteworthy, is the fact that all this was done without the consent of the people of Barotseland, the other party to the Agreement.

Twenty - one years down the line Mr. Kaunda realized that his castle - empire built over 27 years was crumbling down and tried to use his last trick in the bag to save himself from the eminent collapse by using flowery language to the Barotse people. He promised to re - think The Barotseland Agreement 1964. He went as far as promising the BRE the best legal representation at the expense of GRZ. Of course even that turned out to be too little, too late as the Kaunda days were numbered and his empire was found wanting and lost the 1991 elections.

PRESIDENT CHILUBA

The Movement for Multiparty Democracy whirlwind which led to the tumbling of the Kaunda regime was principally founded and spearheaded by some fine Barotse brains such as Mr. Akashambatwa Mbikusita and it promised to redress all the ills of the Kaunda regime, which was draconian by the time it tumbled from power. Among the serious ills that were to be redressed was the trampling underfoot of The Barotseland Agreement 1964. At the eleventh hour , the MMD ’ s march to take over government was hijacked by a self - confessed political engineer and trickster , Fredrick Jacob Titus Mpundu Chiluba, who dribbled everyone else to position himself for the top job (MHSRIP) . Consequently, much to the frustration and disillusionment of many within the rank and file he abandoned the fine tenets of the founding members’ dream. The Chiluba regime declared The Barotseland Agreement 1964 ‘statutory stale’, the Litunga was threatened w ith arrest and it took the Barotse people to literally protect their King as human shields. Senior Chief Inyambo was thrown behind bars and the ‘ divide and rule ’ tactic was entrenched into the trickery , mockery and treachery legacy by inciting the Nkoya people against their own brothers , gazetting chiefs contrary to Barotse norms and tradition s as well as the Zambian Constitution , and refusing to gazette rightly enthroned Senior Chief Amukena II.

Mr. Kaunda tried to play the BA’ 64 card again in 1996 but was outwitted by the political engineer through a constitutional amendment that appeared to bar him from contesting presidential elections.

PRESIDENT MWANAWASA

This prompted an election boycott by UNIP, which delivered an easy victory to the trickster and master dribbler late Mr. Chiluba. Mr. Chiluba was succeeded by his chosen successor Mr. Levy Mwanawasa SC who tried to appease the Barotse with a balance d development agenda and equitable distribution of the national cake. He referred to the territory by its rightful name of Barotseland, which was treason under both the Kaunda and the Chiluba regimes by the bare mention of the name. This softened stance resulted into the bouncing back o f popularity of the MMD in Barotseland in 2006. Riding on the same wave of popularity Mr. Rupiah Bwezani Banda , won the Barotse vote during the election after Mr. Mwanawasa’s demise in 2008 (MHSRIP)

Mr. Banda quickly took on the garment of his old mentor and brother in - law, Mr. Kaunda embraced the same legacy of trickery, mockery and treachery. First and foremost he insulted the Barotse by saying he never asked for their vote. It was under Mr. Banda that the Barotse anger against this legacy of trickery, mockery and treachery almost reached a crescendo and was met with brutality and iron fists. For this reason we shall not forget the January 14th 2011 massacre of unarmed and peaceful people of Barotse land butchered in cold blood. May their souls rest in peace?

PRESIDENT SATA

Mr. Michael Chilufya Mwango Felix Katongo Sata (MHSRIP), the King Cobra , on the other hand took full advantage of the situation and true to his nature as a snake in the grass played to the gallery and declared himself Linyungandambo member and that the BA ’ 64 was an honourable and sensible Agreement which was still alive . He promised to restore it within 90 days if elected in to power. The sweet tongue of the serpent played the trick and earning himself a reasonable number of votes from Barotseland to him a marginal edge over his principle rival, Mr. Banda, to win him the Zambia presidency and two parliamentary seats in Barotseland. The only reward Barotseland got was the release of Barotse detainees, a window dressing meeting at State House with some Barotse activists and scorning the Litunga as well as establishing a commission of inquiry to investigate the 14th January 2011 massacre of innocent Barotseland nationals, whose report and recommendations have never seen the light of day, and the publication of the BA’ 64 in the three main newspapers. Further, t he King Cobra arrested more Barotse nationals, increased state sponsored brutality, more venomous threats , more divide and rule , more trickery , mockery and treachery as well as declaring war on an unarmed and peaceful people of Barotseland

The 20th January, 2015 presidential elections demonstrated the national significance of the BA’ 64 as presidential aspirants tried to outwit one another by making this or that statement over the Agreement. We ended up having a catalogue of the most balanced and sane positions on the issue as well as the most absurd and irrational ones.

PRESIDENT LUNGU

Perhaps what is not publicly known is the fact that among other things the candidate who emerged victorious , Mr. Edgar Chagwa Lungu, actually made sweeping promises over the issue to a group of Barotse youth activist s . Among the promises he made was that he would allow the people of Barotseland to determine their destiny and would immediately engage all the stakeholders to that effect. Further, he would release the Rodger Chongwe Commission Report and he would immediately change the nickname of Western Province back to Barotseland as well as release all persons incarcerated on Barotseland related allegations.

Information in the public domain is that within 24 hrs of his swearing in as Zambia ’ s 6th Republican president, Mr. Lungu was in receipt of a letter from the BNFA Chairman General Mr. Clement Wainyae Sinyinda challenging him to among other things:

“... immediately engage the people of Barotseland and Barotse civil society organizations for the sole purpose of working out transitional arrangements towards self determination and self rule for Barotseland.”

What is also common knowledge is that t he President of Zambia communicated his desire to engage the Barotse Authorities and activists through the BNFA Chairperson General. He further announced the same to the international community while in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia at the AU Heads of State summit, to be undertaken upon his return to Zambia.

It has been more than three months since the AU heads of state summit in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia and Mr. Lungu has remained mute on this matter. This has prompted the BNFA Executive Committee to submit to him a ‘ Position Statement ’ on the matter of the Actualization of Barotseland Statehood on Thursday , 23 rd April 2015 , which is indeed the Position Statement of the people of Barotseland as a whole. The president ’ s ‘ very audible ’ silence on this crucial matter especially after the buoyancy with which he approached it at the onset of his presidency reeks of the legacy of trickery , mockery and treachery that have dogged and bedeviled the matter over the past fifty plus one years.

It remains to be seen whether indeed as per suspicion the current president will be just like the rest of his predecessors or he will break and depart from the tradition of his predecessors by demonstrating political will to ensure that the matter of the actualization of Barotseland statehood receives the due attention it deserves from the Zambian government , including subjecting it t o international interventions because the Barotse people believe they are not making any strange or unreasonable demands but only what is rightfully their RIGHT , falling within the perimeters of logic and legality in accordance with universally accepted international norms. It remains to be seen whether Mr. Lungu, who prides himself as being a seasoned lawyer, will make good his earlier commitment in line with his campaign promise that he will be a listening President.

Yet when all is said and done, the responsibility to break this vicious circle of trickery, mockery and treachery by successive Zambian regime s lies squarely in the hands of the Barotse themselves. It is up to all the Barotse to stand up and be counted and say enough is enough; we are fed up of this legacy and put it to an end once and for all. It is called a revolution. A revolution in the past meant ‘blood and iron’ but in this day and age it doesn’t need to be. That is why there is talk of the velvet revolution also referred to as the Arab spring. The Barotse r evolution does not even need to get to that level of hostilities. It is a peaceful r evolution of a people refusing to be trampled upon, tricked, mocked, and treated with disdain and in a treacherous manner. Refusing to remain silent, cognizant of the fact that, in Martin Luther King Jnr’s words,

“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter”

Believing the words of Nelson Mandela,

“No people are perpetually too weak as to fail to stand up for their rights”

Tukuongote shaa! Wa mwana Nongolo kapa wa mwana Muka, if need be, until freedom reigns from the highest mountain top to the lowest valley!

  • 27
  • Apr

From Parentage of the Evangelical Church of Lesotho to the Calvary Treatment by the United Church Of Zambia, and its Broader Political, Economic and Social Context

Although, I should by now be immune from manifestation of self-interestedor otherwise imposed ignorance, I am surprised by the total eclipse of knowledge over the history and even existence of the Church of Barotseland. Rather than roast in this shocking state of affairs, may I still attempt to throw some light on this aspect of European Christian church history in Africa.

In this I shall cover both the positive and commendable pan-African aspects of it, as exemplified by relations between Lesotho and Barotseland, as well as it negative and rather unimpressive aspects, as exemplified by the ill-fated integration of the United Church of Zambia. I approach this dark and controversial topic, merely to lay out history facts to those open-minded enough to face them. I do this as a Pan-Africanist and advocate of the democratic and human rights principles of freedom of conscious, freedom of association and self-determination for every person, community, faith group and nation in the world.

On 19th November 1853, Dr David Livingstone, the Scottish national of the London Missionary Society, conducted the first Christian assembly in Barotseland at Mwandi in Sesheke. Livingstone was named by the Barotse as Munali, after a pink plant - for he was seen as a pink man not as a white man, as Europeans think of themselves. He became the first European Christian missionary in Barotseland and north of the Lyambai (Zambezi) River, south of Lake Tanganyika.

In 1859-60, Roger Price and a Mr. Helmmore, together with their wives and children, from the London Missionary Society took an initiative to set up a mission station in Barotseland, based at Linyati, which was the capital, during the 1838 to 1864 period when much of Barotseland was under Sotho conquest rule. However, this initiative was not sustained due to fatal illness among the group.

On 6th September 1881, a Catholic Jesuits mission arrived at Lealui, which had been reinstated as the capital after the liberation and restoration of Barotseland under Barotse self-governance. However, even though they had been shown a site at Katongo for possible location of a mission station, they were not permitted to settle and establish themselves, as was later to be the case to the Mission that was to establish the Church of Barotseland.

The Church of Barotseland was a product of the Evangelical Church of Lesotho. In 1863, while, itself, only 30 years old, the Evangelical Church of Lesotho, under Adolphe Mabille, proposed to "one day" bring the gospel to the people of the Zambezi (Barotse people).

In 1878, with the facilitation of King Khama of the Mangwato (Botswana), and sanction from Lesotho and Paris, a message was sent for introducing Francois Coillard to King Lewanika of Barotseland. This message sought permission to enter Barotseland, which was put off for the time being, on account of Lewanika having then only been made King.

On 12 December 1882, the Missionary Frederick Stanley Arnot of the Plymouth Bretheren arrived at Lealui. He unsuccessfully seeking permission to establish a Christian mission amon the Tonga people, in what is now Zambia’s Southern Province, but was allowed to start a school and have a go at evangelizing the Barotse leadership. He left in May 1884 because he was not very successful and illness took its toll. But, he left with a confirmation of King Lewanika’s invitation to Francois Coillard’s mission.

Thus, in 1884, a Paris Missionary/Evangelical Church of Lesotho left Leribe for Barotseland. This team included 12 Sotho, including 3 evangelists as well as two Barotse (Sachika and Kalumba), who had undergone schooling at Morija and a Pedi. They brought with them seven horses that were gifts to King Khama and Lewanika from Sotho Chied Jonathan (son of Moshoeshoe) of Leribe. This first Coillard mission, although given person to enter Barotseland and come to the Barotseland capital of Lealui, was much compromised and delayed because its timing coincided with the political upheaval leading to the temporal overthrow of King Lewanika, for seven months, from September 184 to April 1885.

However, after King Lewanika had regained his throne, there was uninterrupted progress towards the Evangelical Church of Lesotho and the Paris Missionary Society establishing the Church of Barotseland, which was administered through the Paris Missionary Society.

On 4th November 1885, the first mission station was opened by the Evangelical Church of Lesotho and Paris Missionary Society at Mwandi in Sesheke. In this regard, in the Book The Spread of the Gospel in Barotseland, it is recorded that:

“Although the Lesotho Church had not been able financially to support the mission to Barotseland, and although this mission is a new field of activity of the Paris Mission, it does not lessen the fact that – without the support of many Sotho (evangelists and their families and men to work for the transport) – the expeditions of François Coillard and the first missionaries would have been difficult, if not impossible. The Lesotho Church continued to to send evangelists until 1913.”

On 11th October 1886, with the permission of the King in Council, François Coillard and his team took the first step to establish Sefula Mission. For this purpose he had Europeans for construction works, by the Sotho evangelist Aaron Mayoro and his wife Ruth for teaching and evangelism. On 4th March 1887 a school was started at Sefula, with 20 pupils, including Litia Lewanika (future Litunga Yeta III) and Mukamba (a future Ngambela.) As per insistence of the Barotseland Royal Government, each mission station was required to establish not only a church, but also a skills training centre and medical centre.

On 26th September 1964 attained self governance and autonomous existence, separate from the Paris Missionary Society, after two years of transition under Rev. E. M. Ngula as Chairman/Moderator. On 17th January 1965, the Church of Barotseland, the Methodist Church and the United Church of Central Africa (UCCAR), with the later including what was termed as the Free Church on the Copperbelt of Zambia.

Moderator Rev. Ngula retired in December 1965. He was replaced as Moderator of what had been reduced to Barotse Presbyter, on 1st January 1966, by Gilbert Musialela.

A number of other changes took place. What had formerly been the Church of Barotseland youth training centre at Sefula, under Barotse traditional land tenure system, was transferred to a Mongu Township location, on lease under Zambian Law, in January 1966. What had been a Church of Barotseland medical dispensary at Lukona was taken over by the Zambian Government, during the same year. In January, 1967, for the first, since the Church of Lesotho ended its technical assistance of sending Sotho evangelists in 1913, in July 1967, the United Church of Zambia sent two non-Barotse ministers to take charge of the former Church of Barotseland churches in Mongu and Sesheke. On 30th October 1971, the Paris Missionary Society, itself, was dissolved, and replaced by a new Community of Churches in Mission, which now stopped direct relations with what had been the Church of Barotseland. In the end, what had been the Church of Barotseland was renamed as the Western Presbytery – in line with the Zambian Government unilaterally decreed attempt to rename Barotseland as Western Province. In 1972, former medical officer provided for the Church of Barotseland were taken to become tutors at the Zambian Government Nursing School at Mongu.

The 1964 Barotseland Agreement that had established Barotseland as an integral part of an independent Zambia had been unilaterally abrogated by the Zambian Government, in 1969, with the passionate urging of some Barotse people. The multiparty system enshrined in the independence constitution had been cast away and replaced by a dictatorship of the One Party state, from the end of 1972, again with some Barotse people in the cheering circles. The point of note is that it is would be an unnecessarily dangerous mistake to fail to appreciate that these development that depict failures to establish mutually acceptable and fair integration in freedom and justice are not a matter of Barotse people verses non-Barotse people. This about honesty and integrity in leadership, political freedom and economic justice across national and religious groupings, and what has been called for is a universal struggle for universal democratic and human rights principles, which cannot allow unity through lies and terror.

The struggle is not over, but a few and small steps in the corrective direction have been witnessed. In November 1991, after over seventeen years of an imposed One Party system, a sharp and focused democratic campaign succeeded in re-introducing the freedom of plural competitive politics under a multi-party constitution. In 1992, after many years of disharmony in the integration, two of the founding churches, the Church of Barotseland and the Methodist Church reverted to their original autonomous status. However, despite even in this process of reverting back to the original status, the Church of Barotseland got a raw deal, including loss of original church buildings, school and skill training centre infrastructuresas well as income generating projects, such as wood working operations, and, in addition, the Church of Barotseland also lost whatever funds were contributed to or from the Church of Barotseland. As elsewhere in post colonial Africa, it is “a luta continua” in for the struggle for genuine democracy and respect for the civil and human rights of everybody. This shall continue until free and equitable social, economic and political integration become the rule rather than the exception.

This situation shall remain so, until the reigning political culture truly upholds and respects the democratic principles of freedom of conscious, freedom of association and self-determination. It shall not come to an end, until the prevailing economic dispensation brings an end to the economic disarticulation, external dependency and social underdevelopment that have outlived “Independence.”Above all, this struggle shall continue as long as we continue with the predominance of ignorance of historical facts and current concrete realities among a critical mass of Africans, and as long as we continue to failure to identify, choose and follow teams of servant leaders rather than populist demagogues in state, faith based institutions as well as structure of societies and economies in general.

  • 20
  • Apr

A cohabitation Agreement detailing the relationship rules, which included that the lady was not to take diet pills and body enhancing pills was made, between a man and woman in South Africa. Any contraventions would render the Agreement null and void.

The Durban High Court Judge (name withheld) adjudicated over the Cohabitation Agreement in South Africa, March 2015. The case read: Relationship was over after breach of Agreement; but the other partner did not want or refused to leave the house. Finally the verdict was that she should leave the house after breach of Agreement.

LESSON FROM THE AGREEMENT

In the foregoing case, when the Agreement was breached and became null and void, the relationship came to an end too.

Surprisingly such knowledge can hardly be found in Zambia either in their police or government because they may be demon possessed with insatiable power gripping over the organic nation of Barotseland. The Problem that Barotseland faces today is because it has been dealing with people intoxicated with hashish of insincerity.

Whereas the High Court in Durban was competent to handle such a case, we doubt if the High Court in Zambia can handle the similar case of cohabitation of Zambia with Barotseland that is null and void after termination; seeing that Zambia still has the audacity to cling to Barotseland like a tick on a dead animal’s skin; despite Zambia’s president Edgar Lungu having acknowledged the issue in Ethiopia and Mrs. Inonge Wina his vice president having acknowledged the same in Zambian parliament last session.

Therefore, I wish to state that no Zambian Judge, except an independent Judge, could be favorable to adjudicate in Barotseland case, the people of Barotseland should never, never be fooled!

By Hon. Likando Pelekelo
Victim of injustice

  • 08
  • Apr

Thrilled by the inspirational report from Mwembeshi as reported by Bo Saleya Kwalombota I could not hold myself but felt the need to share this screed with our Ngulutayutoya readers. Great is the work you our teachers are doing! Probably this Japanese proverb will put it better: that “Better than a thousand days of diligent study is one day with a great teacher.” I have no doubt this was the Mwembeshi visiting team’s experience. Those men are teaching us great lessons of self-sacrificing and self-denial! Right away I was reminded the words of Kuan Chung who once said, “If you plan for a year, plant a seed. If for ten years, plant a tree. If for a hundred years, teach people. When you saw a seed once, you will reap a single harvest. When you teach people, you will reap a hundred harvests.” Planting and teaching have much in common. That is how great a teacher is in life though often underappreciated.

First and foremost I wish to personally extend my heartfelt gratitude to all those gallant Lozi men and women who took time off to visit our incarcerated leaders and teachers. That is the spirit bahesu! Ni kamuso hape!! Whatever you did it was in our behalf as a nation of Barotseland. May the Good Lord, who knows best how to bless mankind bless you accordingly, even as you fulfill the words found in the Holy Writ “Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I WAS IN PRISON, AND YE CAME UNTO ME. “Matthew 25: 34-36, NKJV. This is something that we need to do to each other regardless of our barriers: whether we are biologically related or not, whether politically /ideologically related or not. As long as we have the Barotzish blood flowing in us we are members of one web of Barotse Nation. As such, it does not help me to stand aloof because like rings in a chain the misfortune of one ring renders the whole chain useless until replaced or mended. Similarly, what befalls one of us indirectly or directly affects the entire web of Barotse, whether we want it or not, whether we like it or not, whether we know it or not.

Of particular interest is the following quotation which I want to follow up further, in my screed; Bo Mutompehi Mombotwa “further, emphasized the need to remain focused, resolute, resolved and never to lose sight of our vision." He mentioned that where there was no vision people perished. (Proverbs 29:18, verse supplied) “The underlying factor,” he said was to “extend and strengthen the ties among the provisional leadership, the Monarch and all the people of Barotseland in order TO CULTIVATE AND CONSOLIDATE THE MUCH NEEDED MINDSET CHANGE.”

Allow me right from here dear compatriots to categorically discuss the story of Barotseland freedom into three parts. This time around I strongly believe that Barotse teachers need to come on board seriously and help entrench this much needed mindset among our people, in the quest for total liberation of Barotseland from Zambian servitude. Surely to undo the nearly 50 years of Zambianized mindset in our people requires the services of our teachers too, to acculturate us into our true identity; for Education is light and lack of it is darkness. One of the purposes of a good teacher is to develop learners who can create or find their own identity and not to be mere reflectors of the teacher’s image. As a peace loving people this will prove to be one of the most effective instruments we can use to drive home our agenda. By teachers here I mean the tri-une of the TEACHING AGENT; at home, church and formal school.

Dan Rather once said “The dream begins most of the time, with a teacher who believes in you, who tugs and pushes and leads you on to the next plateau, sometimes poking you with a sharp stick called truth.” One such truth is the fact that there is no life without death, looking at great agricultural lessons of seeding and germination. You will notice here that the process is irreversible once it has started. What am I trying to say? The deaths of our fallen heroes and heroines since 1969 have given life and impetus to our struggle and in as much as their deaths are not reversible so is our freedom struggle. Isn’t this the reason why Christians cerebrate Easters? The death of Jesus Christ brought victory as well make it certain. Or using Bo Mungandi’s train experience and analogy, once the train has started off it is either one gets on board, alights, or gives way. Paraphrasing Mr. Mukunyandela’s words – our total independence can only be delayed but will surely come to pass at the fullness of time. That is the certainty of our present truth
and national destiny.

The second truth to learn from our liberation struggle is that the BNC 2012 was the climax and official time for germination or birthday of Barotse nation from Zambian yoke and as such, now is time to rejoice and not to cast down our faces in despair. We see here once again that birth is irreversible. Even when the vestiges of gestation still linger on (e.g. placenta usually follows birth of baby) there is usually jubilation; a family exude joy that a baby is born and will not go back into the womb.

BA'64 restoration is impossible! Consequently, we should not be dismayed by the remnants of Zambianship in us for old habits die hard. It is the work of the teacher to help us grow up through the process of unlearning the past in order to learn our new way of life; character building or reformatory is not an overnight job. If only our people could understand that this is time to "exude the change; to eat change, act change, behave change, smell change, wear change, sing the change, dance the change, communicate change, walk and travel the change, think change, speak change and last but not the least, it is time to plan the change, organize the change, coordinate change and lead the change.” In other words, it is time to fully embrace the change in every way of our being malozi without fear, remorse or any upbraiding. In our desire to realize this mindset in the nation we need to challenge ourselves as individuals to change our mindset foremost. Charity begins at home; Namuso, Provisional Leadership and Commoners at large.

The third truth to learn from our freedom struggle is that ‘we have to cry out’ like a newly born baby to sustain our new way of life. From the baby’s viewpoint it is very cruel of a nurse to ‘slap’ the baby to cry. Ironically, it is a necessary activity if the baby is to start breathing and survive. Mwana ya salili ushwela mwa tali! What relevance has this analogy to our freedom struggle? In as much as the activities of Zambia toward us are painful or fatal we must see them in the sanity of the path to freedom; it is not flowery and will never be. The more these acts are committed against us the more we should cry out in the innocence of our peaceful protests and other similar activities, against the insidious acts by the occupying forces and the government thereof. Surely our leaders have been in illegal detentions for too long at the expense of justice! Our crying out means carrying out meaningful, effective and efficient activities on our part the newly born Barotse citizens. Some of these include growing up and developing, being on the move on Barotse errands, filtering out any dangers to our newly found nationhood, showing and radiating energy for the movement, being sensitive to change around and within us, reproducing fellow compatriots in deed and spirit as well as feeding ourselves with information and news about our story all "to cultivate and consolidate the much needed mindset change.”

Apart from holding peaceful protests, teaching our neighbours or employing the teaching social network (TSN) can also be very effective; the Jesus model, after His resurrection en route to Emmaus. Teaching is effective because it is an activity that involves learning, where learning is permanent change in behaviour (thoughts, action and/or words), the mindset we crave in our people. This means that learning is something that learners do (both the reflective and un-reflective response to teaching) and not something done to them (teaching); learning is not teaching and teaching is not learning, as different sides of the same coin called education! Therefore, let learners do their work as teachers do theirs in our struggle for total independence. Wherever change has taken place mostly it has not been without the process of learning and teaching. Bulelela ndambo wa hao kwa hae, keleke, musebezi kapa banana kwa sikolo niti ya Bulozi. This is self-assertion written about in this forum before by our able scholars.

Teacher! You have a great responsibility because, among other reasons the future of Barotseland is in your ‘classroom’ today, a future with the potential for good or bad depending on how you play out your commitment. I need not remind you that several future leaders, teachers and doctors are learning from you today, so are the great writers of the next decades, and so are all the so called ordinary people who often times will make the decisions in our democratic monarchy by voting or other means. You must never forget that these same people could be the thieves, betrayers and murderers of tomorrow, just because of you the teacher! Say thank you to God for giving you a call to the greatest profession of all! Therefore, you must be vigilant every day, lest you lose one fragile opportunity to improve future Barotseland.

Remember also that God gives opportunities but success depends on the use made of them. If you want to be a mediocre teacher you will only tell about our freedom struggle. If you want to be a good teacher you will explain it, and if a superior teacher you will demonstrate what it means to be Barotzish, but a great teacher you are if you can inspire your learners to be free Malozi! In other words tell it, explain it, demonstrate it and inspire it in us, all because you are the Teacher!

If you want to reach a child’s mind as a teacher you must capture his heart. This is because only if a child feels right can he think right! The formula works better that way. When our prodigal, dissident, diffident and doubtful people begin to feel the darkness of being second class citizen in your own land then will they begin to think aright homeward bound! It is not easy for anyone who is still in the denial stage of our change agenda to just accept it. Teachers exist to make the desired learning outcomes to occur in every Lozi learner. SO YOURS IS CHARACTER BASED (CB) FIRST AND THEN OUTCOME BASED (OB) EDUCATION IN BAROTSELAND! That is, our struggle requires first and foremost the passion of compatriots who have a native character to affect the desired national outcomes. In my view this is why the issue of mindset change is so crucial this time around, in God’s great clock of our reckoning and time.

When all will have been said and done it will not be important to ask what kind of teacher you will have been. Rather, it will be more important to ask: What kind of human Lozi have you been to your learners who are also human lozis? Were you a lozi ‘character’ first and then a teacher? Your Lozi humanity should clothe your teaching. When this happens, your learners are built and empowered into the future citizens envisaged of the free Barotse state. When our teaching clothes humanity, our learners will fail to grow as individual and patriotic Lozi citizens; that is, if we reverse the formula of CB – OB to OB - CB.

  • 21
  • Mar

PEACEFUL INDEPENDENCE STRUGGLE; THE OVERVIEW OF BAROTSELAND INSIGNIA

It has now clocked three years down the line from the time people of Barotseland declared independence on 27th March, 2012, during this period many things have taken place such as arrests , torture of the Activists, division of tribes on ethic lines by the occupying power, luring some activists to trade the independence resolutions for government job offers, oiling of the hands of some activists with Zambian money to work against the resolutions, emergence of underground cartel to disorganize the liberation groups by weakening the BRE and Lozi royalist , deaths, arrests and long detentions of activists etc.

The Mongu saga of 2011 was not a riot but police brutality, and must be seen in that light. We cannot treat those incidences like the smashing of police vehicle windscreen on 16th March, 2015 in Mongu by alleged Barotse Activists in isolation from the Barotseland Agreement 1964. Riots and protests do not just happen unless there is something simmering on the ground. The 2012 BNC resolutions talked of pursuing our independence struggle through a non violence and peaceful approach. In this regard I will sort of look at non violence resistance (NVR or nonviolent action) in the Barotseland insignia. It is also important to bear in mind the background that led to Barotseland independence declaration of March 2012 in order to have a broader picture of the issue regarding peaceful sentiments of independence struggle. Furthermore, it will add value to specify actions considered nonviolent in any independence struggle and the possibility to achieve independence without some degree of violence in such actions! Is it possible to attain independence on a silver plate? This question would require serious input of considerations in order to agree or disagree to the highly preached undefined peaceful independence struggle by some of the Barotse Activists as a shield for their failed rational.

I may fail in my responsibility if I overlook to define the word “VIOLENCE". Violence is an act of aggression; it means actions that can cause damage to property, injuries or death. Violence is defined by the World Health Organization as "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, mal development, or deprivation." It is worthy to note that the inclusion of "the use of power" in its definition expands on the conventional meaning of the word. Non violence action is the practice of achieving goals through symbolic protests, civil disobedience, economic or political noncooperation, or other methods, without using violence.

Do the people of Barotseland do the exact? Contrary, what is witnessed in Barotseland independence struggle is undefined docility methodology mingled with the element of cowardice. Where on Earth is independence given freely without demand in Diplomacy and Non violence resistance actions such as civil disobedience?

Civil disobedience is the active, professed refusal to obey certain laws, demands, or commands of a government, or of an occupying international power in the case of Barotseland, Zambia. Civil disobedience is sometimes, though not always, defined as being non-violent resistance, however, I will not dwell much on its connotations. It is true to mention that independence struggle with non-violent uprisings is more likely to emerge in a democratic state.

There are plenty of examples in history that show that violence is not necessary in order for change. One of the most famous examples is Gandhi in India whose non-violent civil disobedience movement was able to push for independence from the British Empire. Another example is Martin Luther King Jr. in the United States who was able to push for civil rights without ever resorting to violence by non-violent tactics, like sit-ins, to change Jim Crow laws. Given these two successes, it is clear that violence is not required to cause change in our independence struggle. History is full of examples of people who have effected change non-violently. Throughout history, non-violent resistance has often been a catalyst for change and this is possible in Barotseland too.

The merits for NVR are:

i) Can often cause a crisis of legitimacy of Zambian government, which can in turn cause the government to fall in Barotseland. Despite that the Zambian state always has the military force at its disposal to crush just about any uprising.

ii) A violent struggle can end up polarizing people in support of Barotseland legitimate independence demand while NVR can augment the people’s resolve as they work together.

iii) Whereas a Zambia government crackdown against the Barotseland non-violent freedom struggle will often reduce public and international support for the regime and pity the oppressed.

vii) Look at hunger strikes and labor strikes. These can be successful even without violence

viii) Change can be obtained with compromising or avoiding situations where violence can happen. Violence only causes more and more violence and, in the end, people get hurt and no achievement occurs.

In Zambia - Barotseland case, peaceful methods have not really been employed to force the Zambian government come to terms of disengagement. However, in the absence of fear the people of Barotseland can still use NVR such as:

a) Peaceful protests. This occurs in democratic nations the world over, and it is not classified as violence.

b) Mass resistance and labor strikes can force even oppressive states like Zambia to change and accept the dictates of international law. This led Poland to democracy against the Soviets, and it led to change in India in the time of Mahatma Gandhi.

c) Public workers withholding their labor can force Zambian governments to fail to govern Barotseland territory and eventually frustrate its illegal administration of the territory. When too many public workers boycott reporting for work, the signal will be strong to catch the attention of international media.

It is true to mention that peaceful resistance does not work when those in power have no problem killing those who disagree, who organize any type of protest or who strike. This is the problem mostly in countries where the minorities’ human rights are not respected. See North Korea, Iran and Zimbabwe for modern examples of this. Barotseland has been impoverished to such alarming levels that our territory is full of Zambian government boot licking loyalists and cowards, and I will not mince words in mentioning that!

Violence is undoubtedly sometimes the only choice, but it is not always and in all cases the only choice.

Violence can be a dreadful thing that most people avoid, however, it is sometimes required to solve big problems. Of course violence sometimes can be the answer, but not the most efficient choice even at the best of times. The leaders of such a cause then become just common criminals who use violence as a method of control or to gain headlines for their said cause. People may agree with me that Zambia police are a tool of the state to maintain a monopoly of violence on the general population of Barotseland. The people of Barotseland should not fail or avoid protests as a way of disagreeing with the occupying power's continued detentions of Barotseland National

Youth League executive leaders and Barotseland transitional government Administrator general and three members of his cabinet.

Peaceful methods do not mean sitting idle, wondering what comes next; it rather involves the use of legal pursuit and physical expressions of NVR. It is time people and members of liberation groups in Barotseland woke up from the ‘docility’ syndrome and use the power of demonstrations and strikes to achieve the goal of independence. Freedom struggle does not classify physical expressions of a peaceful nature as violent actions. Independence struggle is twofold; use of brain and physical expressions without use of force. Failing to ‘Protest’ for the right cause, yet believing you can do it peacefully is why those in Zambian government classify Lozis as "disorganized people" and they laugh at our docile peaceful attitude in our independence struggle because they KNOW it will do nothing to threaten their presence and illegal occupation of Barotseland while they are free to come down harder and harder on our Activists.

Tukongote Litunga Ni lyetu

  • 15
  • Mar

PREAMBLE

The fundamental principle of democracy is the freedom of expression and right to affiliate or associate freely with any group or organization without violating the tenets of freedom. I hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men (women inclusive) are created equal before the law and have equal RIGHTS; and the fact that all HUMANITY is endowed by the Creator with the power of decision making, should be understood and embraced as UNITY in DIVERSITY.

Allow me, therefore, to discuss the issue of ‘Transitional Authority’ verses ‘Transitional government’ and highlight which is appropriate for Barotseland at this stage. I sincerely respect people's views; therefore, I would like to run over the issue in a simplified and logical manner to draw the attention of the subject closer to its visualization.

GOVERNMENT

One may have been confronted with the question (s) relating to the word ‘Government’, its meaning and how Governments are formed. According to Advanced English Dictionary (AED), it is:

I) the organization that is the governing authority of a political unit OR

II) The system or platform by which a community or other political unit is governed.

Going by the above definitions government is a group of people that governs a community or unit through which public policies are set out. In addition, the government exercises executive, political and sovereign power through customs, institutions, and laws within a state.

I must, firstly, emphasize here that the people of Barotseland want nothing less than being governed by a CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY type of government, in an independent state of Barotseland separate from Zambia, and not Federalism arrangement of some kind within Zambia. Indeed, the people of Barotseland have a long train of abuses and usurpation afflicted on them by the Zambian authority, especially the Barotse activists who are pursuing the implementation of 2012 BNC resolutions, the same issue that some Elite Lozis schemed to have these true patriotic advocates for government formation arrested by the Zambian authorities. I wish to urge that it is everyone's duty to throw off such leaders who scheme to dilute the efforts and contributions of others who have provided new hope for tangible governance of Barotseland.

TRANSITIONAL AUTHORITY

It is interesting and encouraging to note that some group leaders who were not in support of inaugurating the government in Barotseland have now revisited the matter and realized the need of ‘government formation’ in line with the 2012 resolutions of Barotseland independence declaration.

It will be better to look up at the words ‘Transitional’ and ‘Authority’! The word ‘transitional’ speaks of the stage between and before being fully independent, especially when applied in the context of politics, while ‘Authority’ is:

I) The power or right to give orders or make decisions OR

II) (Usually plural) persons who exercise (administrative) control over others.

Therefore, ‘Transitional Authority’ is a group of people who exercise administrative functions over others by making decisions and giving orders, but lacks political element to sustain or spearhead the territory’s interaction at international level among sovereign states to lobby for the territory's recognition.

In simply terms a ‘Transitional Authority’ in the case of Barotseland would lack the leverage to interact with other sovereign states of the world for Barotseland’s state recognition.

The BNFA are reported to be proposing an agenda to establish a ‘Transitional Authority’ for Barotseland. Firstly, one is made to wonder as to what would have changed for the BNFA to encompass the idea of government formation to take control of the territory now, when the same leadership was against the idea of inaugurating the government, such as the current transitional government,  in place advancing the argument that Zambia has not yet ‘withdrawn’ from the territory. I wonder whether Zambia has now ‘withdrawn’ so much that the BNFA is now planning to set up their kind of "government" in the form of a ‘Transitional Authority’!
The proposed Barotse Transitional Authority is not only ambiguous but its ideals contravene the political principle to facilitate the day to day governance in the territory where a ‘Transitional government’ is already established.

It is also surprising that the terminology of the phrase; TRANSITIONAL AUTHORITY is being advanced in a territory where the Royal Authority already exercises the same Authority in the name of the Barotse Royal Authority (BRA) or the Barotse Royal Establishment (BRE)! We, therefore, cannot have Authority over another Authority. Similarly, we cannot have ‘dual’ governments, unless the law and order has been suspended or there is a discontinuity of the hierarchical monarchy system.
Accordingly, the question may arise as what will happen to the Ngambela (Traditional Prime Minister)'s position as a member of both the Privy Council of the Litunga as well the cabinet council? Besides the idea of forming government has already been taken care of through the current Afumba led transitional government that is already in place, and it takes care of the above ambiguity.

Secondly, the proposed BNFA transitional authority seems to gravitate more to ‘Absolute Monarchy’ type of government where roles of governance are totally controlled by the royal authority. If the Induna in charge of Education, for example, is included in the Ngambela’s cabinet as secretary of State for Education or as a minister of Education, I foresee an old arrangement resuscitated in Barotseland, the very system of government that failed to advance the idea of statehood in 1964. Therefore, the unfolding scenario will not only bring the old system of government we had in Barotseland that failed to negotiate for Barotseland independence in 1964, but may also cause us to remain subservient citizens of Zambia, against the wishes of the people. What is more puzzling with this proposal is that it will be going against the majority of the people in Barotseland who have now opted for a CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY, and not an ABSOLUTE MONARCHY where the Royal and government roles are not separated.

TRANSITIONAL GOVERNMENT

Government is very important to oversee the smooth running of a country. It will be right to revisit the definition that a government is the system by which a state or community is governed. In Commonwealth English, a government more narrowly refers to the particular EXECUTIVE in control of a state at a given time--known in American English as an ADMINISTRATION.

As alluded to under Transitional Authority the word Transitional means or may refer to the process before COMPLETION.

Transitional governments the world over are not born out of popular ballot elections but by politically organized group or groups through mere consensus. In August 2013, the Barotseland Transitional Government was inaugurated through a public swearing in ceremony that was made available to many media houses locally and internationally. The willing and politically organized groups in Barotseland at the time participated in this transitional government, while others, either due to lack of understanding or due to fear of Zambian government reprisals, opted to refuse the idea of government formation, arguing that such a government would not be considered ‘legal’ because Zambia had not yet withdrawn her administration from Barotseland! It must be emphasized here that the LEGALITY of what Barotseland does now and in future does NOT lie with Zambia or any other country because Barotseland is now free to pursue her own Political destiny in accordance with the BNC declaration of Independence of 2012. Consequently, Barotseland is not in crisis of governance. We have both the Transitional Government and the Royal Authority in place, and the two are coordinating well together so far.

The transitional government in place is already working and has already achieved some success in advancing the cause of Barotseland, among these being the forging and pursuing of bilateral working arrangements with other countries which is has already achieved implied recognition in some cases, ratification of the Katengo legislative council, appointment of constituent assembly, formulation of government Acts and Orders, delimitation of constituencies, legal process against Zambia at ICJ is underway, establishment of media such as Barotseland post and Radio, etc.

It is now, therefore, hoped that the BNFA’S proposed Agenda, if pursued, is not going to be another way of ‘grinding rice with a stick of carrot.’

GOVERNMENT FORMATION

The process of government formation occurs most commonly following an election, but may be understood that even during independence liberation each and every group is a government in waiting, and can come up with a shadow government. Once the political parties have reached an adequate accommodation, and a government is able to be formed, it is expected that the parties will make appropriate public statements of their intentions.

The process of forming a government is political, and the decision to form a government must be arrived at by politicians and not the Monarch. Therefore, it is unacceptable that the proposed BNFA Agenda of the BTA wants to bring on board the Indunas as members of the constituent assembly and cabinet council.

By convention, the role of the Monarch in the government formation process is to ascertain where the confidence of the people lies, based on the parties' public statements, so that a government can be supported. It is not the Monarch’s role to form the government or to participate in any negotiations under the Constitutional Monarchy type of government (although the Litunga in his role as the Head of State might wish to talk to party leaders for clarification).

CONCLUSION

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments established in good faith like the current Transitional Barotseland government, led by His Excellence Rt.Hon Afumba Mombotwa, should not be changed for light and transient causes.

Therefore, the BNFA should endeavor to prevent the population of their membership from being misguided away from the present truth that the Transitional government is in place and working because it has commenced the process of taking Zambia to the competent court of ICJ on a Government to Government basis. Further, the BNFA should not make their members to be dependent on their wishful thinking alone for the tenure of forming governance body.

Equally important is our hope that the BNFA should not obstruct the administration of unity by refusing to recognize and embrace the Transitional Government in place. If their concern now is lack of adequate representation in the current transitional government, having snubbed it before, they could pursue representation by cooperating with the already established government, and therefore, be a part of the reconstruction of the Barotseland Kingdom, or simply consolidate themselves for checks and balances as they organize themselves to participating in the general elections and seek people’s mandate to form future government.

If by any cause, the ‘Transitional Authority’ proposed is to be formed is a ‘Government’, a question may arise about the current Barotseland Transitional Government we have in place since August 2013, and how many governments Barotseland will have in place? However, if it is not a government but just an ‘Authority’, questions will similarly arise as to where the current Barotse Royal Authority will be placed, because the BTA is the authority we already have in our land in the form of BRE.

If the proposed March 26th – 27th 2015 BNFA sponsored conference is dubbed to be a Barotse National Council (BNC), a question may arise, as to who sanctioned its hosting? To my best knowledge, only the head of state can sanction the hosting of BNC.

As things are now, the document proposing the March 26th – 27th 2015 BNFA sponsored conference has neither been disowned nor assented to by the BNFA. It could not be attributed to Linyungandambo as its source, either, because to my best knowledge Linyungandambo is not part of the BNFA ? Therefore, it can only be assumed that this BNFA Agenda is really alive. It is with this in mind that this opinion has been written to highlight what I believe are weaknesses of this BNFA Agenda.

Nevertheless, I believe that a united Barotseland is the only hope forward to independence and peaceful co-existence among political players and followers. Let us, therefore, avoid "Moya wa ka kundukundu" (going with the whirlwind of confusion) and move forward together in UNITY.

Tukongote Litunga Ni lyetu.

  • 08
  • Mar

As an independent observer allow me to categorically express my utter dismay at what BNFA is reportedly trying to do. Where is Kopano ki mata if what is reported here is something to go by? After having come this far in our political struggle and then they just want to undo everything this way! Do they really understand the implications of their move? If the BRA allows this to take place then they should know that

1. They are condemning to death those who are already still for this same cause by Zambia. They need the same BRA's support to stand by the Transitional Government progress so far and the ideals of our land they stand for.

2. The world will not take us serious and will not trust us with their cooperation in this regard. It will be like we do not know what we want! Are we politicking for self glory or that of Barotseland?

3. The legal case for ICJ will be nullified in effect until the warring parties come to good terms with each other in purpose, methods and goals.

4. We will all believe that indeed BNFA is Zambian sponsored because they do not seem to champion the same cause Linyungandambo is holding for motherland Bulozi.

Otherwise why the hurry and frustration when your counterparts have not tired up yet at it?

How else can we interpret their miscalculated move (after the poorest Lozi has struggled and sacrificed to contribute toward the litigation in ICJ) other than that of trying to sell off our land again to the opponents of our Total Independence, a second time.

BNFA will not lose anything by waiting for the final resolution of the Linyungandambo agenda in ICJ and participate in the general election thereafter. Otherwise, whatever reasons are being advanced for their move they are ill-timed and subject to be viewed just like the AGAPE agenda.

I, therefore, wish to appeal to all peace loving Barotzish not to allow this to happen. May all the elders of the land sit down with the BNFA leadership and find better ways of resolving this problem. Personally I see the Lungu-Inonge government behind all this saga to try and thwart our hard earned progress and goal so far.

Litunga ni lyetu.

  • 27
  • Feb

INTRODUCTION

The subject of the Nkoya relationship with the rest of Barotseland has been in public domain for some time now, and because of the misinformation that is carried on about it by those that deliberately wish to use it as a tool to divide and rule Barotseland, we have decided to feature a paper that was written by Hon. Namushi Nyambe who is BRE Induna Yutanga. He is also the current Acting Imangambwa at the Naliele District Kuta of Kaoma, which is at the centre of the Intransigence of the Nkoya of Mwene Mutondo. This paper, in our opinion, is one single most contextualized writing on this matter, as it features not only the historical genesis of the problem, with references to correspondence between the Litungaship and the Zambian presidency, but also outlines the efforts made by the Barotse Royal Establishment to have this matter amicably resolved to date.

We publish it under the title; ‘Scramble for Barotseland: The Intransigence of the Nkoya of Mwene Mutondo.’ The original, however, was simply titled ‘The Intransigence of the Nkoya of Mwene Mutondo’ and was written in 2014.

We wish, therefore, to thank Hon. Nyambe Namushi most sincerely for his efforts in putting this paper together and for permitting us to reproduce it entirely, save for the slight change in the title. It is our hope that the public will use this material as a reference manual vis –a- vis the Nkoya subject matter, and be better informed about it.

It is a lengthy paper; therefore, we here publish it in page-break format to coincide with the original pages of the paper, and it is here filed under SPECIAL REPORTS. Click Next >> to continue reading OR simply select a title in the Article Table of Contents above to READ..


THE INTRANSIGENCE OF THE NKOYA OF MWENE MUTONDO

By Nyambe Namushi, Induna Yutanga (Acting Imangambwa), Barotse Royal Establishment, Naliele District Kuta, Kaoma - 2014

PREAMBLE

Imutakwandu (late King) Litunga Ilute Yea 1V did not economise in language when he made the following frank clarification to the late President of Zambia Dr. Frederick Jacob Titus Chiluba in a bold letter dated 1st February, 1994:-

“Mr. President if the Nkoya chiefs Mwene Mutondo and Mwene Kahare are not prepared to adhere to the customary law jurisdiction of Barotseland, then they should go elsewhere away from Barotseland where they can exercise their new found jurisdiction”. He continued; “the important thing to note is that Barotseland is a Kingdom even as of now and that should explain to you why the Chiefs Act Cap 479 (now Cap. 287) of the Laws of Zambia recognises the customary law jurisdiction of the Litunga throughout Barotseland; notwithstanding the fact that there are several tribes who are not strictly Lozi. In a kingdom one cannot find a chief who was independent and separate from the king because such a situation is untenable. The chiefs in Barotseland unlike elsewhere in Zambia are installed by us and they hold office by strictly following our tradition and custom”.

This statement underscored the traditional set up of governance in Barotseland. It also throws light into the official policy governing the management of affairs and relationship of the elaborate but clear line of command in the kingdom of Barotseland; which has survived political, legal, economic harassment and marginalisation by the colonial powers and the Zambian administrations from the first President Kenneth Kaunda to the current President Michael Sata.


NKOYA MIGRATION INTO BAROTSELAND

The history of the Nkoya speaking people in Barotseland is somewhat convoluted. This is because there is no authoritative written history about them and that they were in several groups entering Barotseland at different periods. The written documentaries which have surfaced recently contain narratives of historical accounts from doubtful sources. However, the migration of the most notable groups that migrated into Barotseland namely: - the Lushange (Mutondo), the Mashasha (Kahare) and the Lukolwe (Kabangu) is well known. These people were previously called “Mbweras” before they assumed their now famous name Nkoya; which is said to have derived from the siluyana name “Ñoya”.

The Nkoyas themselves have made wild and uncoordinated rumbling claims relying on myths and fables about their origins. However, what is not disputed is the fact that they came into Barotseland after the Humbu war which resulted in their expulsion from Kola. They were expelled because of their insubordination in that they did not adhere to the circumcision practices which the Nkoya-Lushange had abandoned. The Humbus, a Lunda sub-group, were the chief whip that ensured that all those within the kingdom of Mwatayamvu, adhered to the law on circumcision of all male children. That is how cousinship (simbuye) between the Nkoyas and Lundas developed, hence today their joking relationship.

Their expulsion saw them trek into Angola where they failed again to live side by side with the Luvale at Luena. They came to Barotseland to seek refuge during the reign of King Mwananyanda Liwale the 10th King. Upon arrival in Barotseland, they were welcomed and resettled accordingly. One group settled in Makoma area in Kalabo district under the leadership of area chief Lioko. Another group remained at Lukona, also in Kalabo district, under the leadership of area chief Katusi. These two groups are still found in Kalabo district today. The Lushange and Lukolwe groups lead by Kayambila, Kabonge and later Manenga preferred to settle in the eastern forests between the Makwangwa and the Kafue River (which the Luyana called Lwenge River). This area appealed to their appetite for hunting because they were great hunters. Prince Maimbolwa, who became King Mulambwa, was assigned to resettle these people by his elder brother King Mwananyanda Liwale. They joined the Mashasha who have distinct origins led by Mwene Kahare, who are recorded to have arrived earlier after their flight from Kaondeland. The Mashasha and the Lushange are two clans which borrowed the title Mwene from the Mbunda to identify their leaders, while the Nkoya-Lukolwe of Kabangu - Dongwe area does not use the title.
King Mulambwa was enthroned to succeed his brother King Mwananyanda in 1780. Mulambwa was famous for his anti slavery stance against the Arab slave traders; hence he was nicknamed Mulambwa which means (mu ule ambwa) “buy dogs”. Mulambwa reigned until 1830 just before the invasion of Barotseland by the Makololo from the south in 1835. King Mulambwa is credited for welcoming the Mbunda and related peoples from Angola after the arrival of the Nkoyas. It was during Mulambwa’s reign as King of Barotseland that the Nkoya-Lushange installed their first Mwene Mutondo named “Shinkisha Mate Lushiku” who, on assuming the title said the following “ami Mutondo mwana Manenga”. He is the first leader to assume the title “Mutondo”.

The Mashasha of Kahare claim to originate from Sioka Nalinanga, whom they corruptly refer to as “Shihoka”. Sioka is a Luyana ancestor who settled in Lukulu and Mongu areas. Archival records reveal that “Kahare the first chief of the Bamashasha is said to have been the younger brother or nephew of Shihoka and came with him from Barotseland”.. Sioka’s mother Nalinanga was a sister to Mwambwa the ancestor and originator of the Luyana royal dynasty. Sioka had stolen Mwambwa’s royal drum called “mutango” in an apparent claim that he should also be accorded royalty status. He escaped to Mwito in present day Lukulu district where Isimwaa, his cousin, retrieved the drum. Prior to that incident, Sioka was raided by Mwanambinyi, his nephew, who looted his cattle and drove them south to Imatongo in present day Senanga. A dejected Sioka drifted north to Dongwe then to Kabompo where he died. It is in Kabompo where he must have integrated with the Mashasha group, and became the ancestor and originator of their leadership.

During the Makololo occupation of Barotseland from 1835 to 1865 the various tribal and ethnic people in Barotseland were disorganised and displaced because their leaders had fled into exile at Lukwakwa in present day Kabompo district. This is where the Lozi government in exile was domiciled. The Nkoyas in particular were scattered and some of them had fled to Kaondeland. The Nkoya leader, Mutondo the 2nd, Shiyengi, had been captured by the Makololo together with Prince Lutangu, King Mulambwa’s son, (later called Sipopa). These two with the aid of agents from Lukwakwa led by Njekwa managed to escape in 1859 from the Makololo and joined their kith and kin at Lukwakwa in 1863. In 1865 the Makololo were effectively removed from the surface of the earth by the Luyana. Sipopa who became the King of Barotseland with Njekwa as his Ngambela had the task of restoring and reconstructing the Barotse Kingdom. Shiyengi was ordered by Sipopa to return to his people the Nkoya – Lushange but he was disowned and thus he died a dejected man.

After Mutondo Shiyengi’s death there was a serious vacuum in the leadership of the Nkoya-Lushange. Thus Sipopa had to find a successor and brought in Munangisha from Katusi in Lukona to become Mwene Mutondo. Munangisha at first declined in preference for his nephew Kashunkami who became Mutondo the third. Later Munangisha became jealous of Kashunkami. He plotted Kashunkami’s removal and Munangisha was installed Mwene Mutondo the fourth.

In 1892 the King of Barotseland Lubosi Lewanika received very disturbing reports about the suffering of the Nkoyas who had fled to Kaondeland during the Makololo occupation of Barotseland. One Mwene Kahare had been killed and skinned by the Nyamwezi, a predatory tribe from East Africa. The Kaondes were also reported to be co-operating with the Arabs to catch and sell Nkoyas into slavery. The Nkoya sought protection and asked the King to rescue them. Thus a battalion called likolo la Kabeti under the command of Mukulwakashiko was sent to rescue the Nkoyas at Munte which is today known as katumbwe ka musongolwa.

After the rescue operation in which many Lozis and Mbundas lost their lives, the Nkoyas were once again resettled with a view to give them further protection. Thus Mutondo was moved from Kalimbata in Kalumwange area along the Lalafuta River to Shikombwe. This is where Munangisha, the fourth Mutondo established his capital which he named Lukena meaning blessed in siluyana and in remembrance of the other settlement in Kalabo which is Chief Lioko’s capital at Makoma.

To safeguard the Nkoyas from further Kaonde raids, King Lewanika created the boundary between the Kaonde and Bulozi at Lalafuta River. In 1895 he posted Kafunya a Mbunda warrior and hero brother of Mwene Chiyengele, who fought in the Kaonde war, at Lalafuta and became the first Mwene Kasimba. The eastern border was allocated to Libinga and Kakumba to give further protection to Mwene Kahare as well. Kahare was resettled at Litoya the ruins of Mukelabai Simulyañumba who had decided to return to his original home in Senanga district. He named his village “Njonjolo”. Njonjolo is the name of the first Nalikwanda built for King Mulambwa by the Nkoyas of Katusi at Lukona!

In 1889, during the last raid on the Ila (Mashukulumbwe) at Bwengwa, Lewanika had noticed an active and brave young warrior by the name of Shamamano. On enquiry, he found out that Shamamano belonged to the Kahare dynasty. The King therefore decided to reinstate the Kahare chieftainancy which had gone into limbo due to lack of quality leaders. At first Kabwata was installed before Shamamano who is the grandfather of the present Mwene Kahare, Bollen Munguya.


INTERVENTIONS INTO THE NKOYA LEADERSHIP

We have stated elsewhere in this paper that the Nkoya speaking people came to Barotseland as refugees to seek protection after their flight from the Humbus and against the marauding Kaondes who were selling them into slavery. They were given land on which to settle and even allowed to establish their chieftaincy which they did not have when they entered Barotseland. The chieftaincy positions were not allowed to be independent of the King but were installed and functioned in accordance with the Lozi tradition and customary law. Therefore on a few occasions the Nkoya had to seek intervention from the Litunga in order to resolve wrangles surrounding successions. For instance King Sipopa resurrected the Mutondoship after the demise of Mutondo Shiyengi and Lewanika resurrected the Kahareship when he appointed Kabwata in 1889. Below we give a list of occasions which prompted interventions. In all cases it was for the good of the people that such action had had to be taken in response to their complaints and not otherwise:-

1. Mutondo 11 – Shiyengi - During the Makololo invasion of Barotseland Mutondo Shiyengi had escaped from Sekeletu together with Sipopa and joined the Lozi government in exile at Lukwakwa. In 1867 King Sipopa revived the Mutondoship and ordered the Nkoya to respect Shiyengi as their leader upon his return. Shiyengi, however, died a dejected leader.

2. Mutondo 1V – Munangisha - After Shiyengi’s death King Sipopa could have abolished the Mutondoship if he had wanted at the time when the chieftaincy went into limbo due to lack of suitable and willing leadership. Instead he despatched Munangisha from Lukona to take over the throne. Munangisha had at first declined in preference to game hunting; hence chance was given to his nephew Kashunkami who became Mutondo 111.

3. Mutondo V – Mushunga – Mutondo Mushunga was removed because of the people’s dislike for their new chief. They sent their appeal to Lewanika who removed Mushunga and installed popular Wahila who became Mutondo V1.

4. Mutondo V11 – Kanyinka – The appointment of Kanyinka as Mwene Mutondo by the District Commissioner was irregular. Thus the Nkoyas protested to Lewanika. Lewanika nullified this appointment and confirmed their choice Mushonto as Mwene Mutondo V111.

5. Mushonto V111 – was succeeded by Kanyinchya who became Mwene Mutondo 1X

6. Mutondo X – Muchaila succeeded his father Kanyinchya – Muchaila was clearly insubordinate and rebellious. The Litunga allowed freedom of expression and opinion provided that his government did not suffer. Muchaila was removed because he went against this dictum. After his removal in 1948 by statutory order of the Governor of Northern Rhodesia he was restricted in Kalabo for five years. He spent another five years in Lealui before he returned to Mankoya as a reformed man. He was succeeded by Mutondo Kalapukila in 1949. Muchaila became Mwene Mutondo again in 1980 after the death of Kalapukila.

7. As regards the Kahare chieftaincy, it had also gone into limbo through no fault of the people. King Lewanika revived it by appointing Kabwata in 1889 and later Shamamano in 1898.

8. Kahare V1 – the short lived deposition of Timuna who was Kahare the sixth was based on reports of the chief’s misdeeds and unfitness by his people. After investigations he was found not wanting, hence he was reinstated.


NALIELE

The Nkoyas have contested the legality and relevance of the royal establishment at Naliele as the headquarters for the senior chief for Kaoma district (now Kaoma, Luampa and Nkeyema). We shall outline below the structure of the Barotse traditional monarchical administration. As a prelude, we shall give a brief narration of the reasons which led to the establishment of Naliele in 1937.

The Nkoyas, unlike other tribes in Barotseland, were a disorganised and uncivil society because they were unaccustomed to administration and education. They are fundamentally disunited, fragmented, disconnected and lacking political organisation and judicial structure. Basically they are full of intrigue, unpredictable and barbaric. A civilised society can function well only when there is order. This required the administration of authority and good governance. The alternative is chaos and anarchy. The Naliele kuta therefore was established to provide proper organisation of good governance, good order, education, proper judiciary and public administration; and above all to set the Nkoya free from themselves. This called for the arm of government to be brought nearer.

In the early 1930s the colonial administration established various administration posts called British Overseas Military Administration, (acronym BOMA) at Mongu, Senanga, Kalabo, Mankoya and Sesheke. In these areas there were already princes or princesses who were running the affairs of the Barotse Native Government (BNG), except for Mankoya. The traditional affairs of Mankoya district were administered from Lealui. Therefore to complete the exercise, the Governor of Northern Rhodesia in consultation with the Litunga and the Resident Commissioner proposed the establishment of a similar position of a resident prince to provide leadership and uniformity in administration, more so that the Barotse Native Government was introducing the Barotse Native Treasury. A meeting was called which was addressed by the Governor in which all the area chiefs from Mankoya district were invited. Mwene Mutondo Kanyincha did not attend but he did send a representative. The Governor outlined the functions of the native treasury to be established which was an arm of the Barotse Native Government and how it would be applied. He explained the requirement to open a district kuta in the district to dispense law and order and provide effective public administration as was the case with other districts.

All the area chiefs welcomed the new arrangement as it would reduce the travel to Mongu/Lealui for their allowances and other duties; these would now be performed locally. In 1937 the Naliele royal establishment was opened and Mwanawina was appointed to be the new senior chief for Mankoya district. The Naliele Kuta got off to a good start. Mwanawina coordinated the affairs of the district very well, and Mutondo and Kahare were each given two positions on the kuta. Thus the administration of the Barotse Native Government was based at Naliele in line with other BNG regional posts at Nalolo for Senanga, Libonda for Kalabo, and Mwandi for Sesheke.

In 1947, Mwene Mutondo Mwita Muchaila, a young former district messenger who had succeeded his father, Kanyincha in 1944, rebelled against Mwanawina. Muchaila was summoned to Lealui and in view of his insubordinate attitude the Kuta recommended for disciplinary action. The Litunga accepted this advice and was supported by the Resident Commissioner and Government of Northern Rhodesia. By order of the Governor, Sir Gilbert M Rennie, dated 31st March 1948 Mwene Mutondo Mwita Muchaila, Mampila Timuna and Mayunka were ordered to leave the district within 30 days. Muchaila and his arch supporters were removed and sent into restriction to Kalabo for five years. He spent another five years of rehabilitation in Lealui before he was allowed to return to Mankoya in 1958. During the period of his restriction, Mutondo Muchaila was treated well and he was even paid his Indunaship salary by the Barotse National Government. The reformed Muchaila was reinstated as Mwene Mutondo after the death of Mwene Mutondo Kalapukila in 1980. The disciplinary action taken against Muchaila was because of insubordination and undermining the authority of chief Mwanawina.


TRADITIONAL SET-UP OF CHIEFTAINANCY IN BAROTSELAND

Barotseland is divided into seven major regions which are headed by a member of royal family except Mongu-Lealui region as follows:- Mongu-Lealui – Induna Inete (a commoner- current holder Mr. Akapelwa Silumbu); Senanga –The Litunga-la-Mboela, (current holder: Princess Mukwae Mbuyu Imwiko); Kalabo – The Mboanjikana, (current holder: Princess Mukwae Kandundu Yeta); Sesheke – Mulena Inyambo, (current holder:- Prince Lubasi Yeta); Kaoma – Mulena Amukena II, (current holder:- Prince Makweti Isiteketo Lewanika); Lukulu – Prince Anañanga Imwiko; Shangombo – Prince Meebelo Mutukwa. This level of leadership reports to His Majesty the Litunga through the Siikalo Kuta led by the Ngambela of Barotseland. Under these regales, they are followed by area chiefs called in Lozi ‘Silalo Indunas’. The majority of them are commoners but wield immense powers of public and judicial administration. It is this tier of administration in which the four mwenes fall; namely Mwenes Mutondo and Kahare (Nkoya) and Mwenes Chiyengele and Kandala (Mbunda). The last tier is that of village headmen and silalanda heads called ‘bo lyaminzi’.

There are more area chiefs in Barotseland than any other province in Zambia. All the tribes in Barotseland have a recognised area chief/Induna by Lealui. The Nkoyas for instance have been allowed to maintain their leadership in Lukulu, Kalabo, Kaoma and Sesheke as follows:- Kalabo district: chiefs Lioko and Katusi; Kaoma district: Mwene Mutondo and Mwene Kahare; Lukulu district: chief Kabangu; Sesheke district: chief Mungabwa.

In reference to Kaoma district, there are thirteen area chiefs or Silalo Indunas taking into account the various tribal groups which inhabit the district in order to dispense public administration not based on tribal affiliation. These are: chief Mwanambuyu (Kwangwa) for Lukute Silalo; chief Mwene Kasimba (Mbunda) for Lalafuta Silalo; chief Mufaya (Totela) for Mayukwayukwa Silalo; chief Kabilamwandi (Luyana) for Luambuwa Silalo; chief Libinga (Subiya) for Mulamatila Silalo; chief Kakumba (Kwangwa) for Shishamba Silalo; chief Mwene Kahare (Nkoya) for Litoya Silalo; chief Afumba (Luyana) for Liyunyi Silalo; chief Mwene Mutondo (Nkoya) for Shikombwe Silalo; chief Siwiwaliondo (Luyana) for Nalifalamba Silalo; chief Mwanatete (Nkoya) for Kahumbu Silalo; chief Kasabi (Luvale) for Kabaa Silalo and chief Kanguya (Luvale) for Mulwa Silalo. The district has a permanent representation by Induna Mbongwana at Lealui and had several representatives on the Katengo, the de-facto parliament for Barotseland.

During the period approaching the independence of Northern Rhodesia and Barotseland, the Barotse Native Government was reformed. After the reforms which excluded chiefs from participating in the National Council, each district was represented equally on the Katengo (Parliament) by five elected Councillors and nominated councillors. Mankoya (Kaoma) district had the following representatives: Mr.Kenneth Mbandu Kalyangu (Mbunda) Mr.Kashiwa Mutaima (Nkoya) Mr.Jevans Kapatiso (Luvale/Luchazi) Mr. Simon Liyoka (Nkoya) and Mr. Misheck Mutti (Mbunda). Mr. Simon Liyoka was appointed to Sir Mwanawina’s cabinet and held the portfolio of Minister for Transport and Communications. Among the nominated councillors were; Induna Imangambwa Mr. Munalula, Mwanamulena Imasiku, Induna Kabilamwandi from Naliele Palace and Mwanashihemi Ngwelela (Mutondo), Mwanashihemi Muleka (Kahare) and Mr. Kankolomwena represented the Nkoya community.


DEFINITION OF CHIEF AND INDUNA

The conflict between the English term “chief” and the Lozi word “Induna” appears to have brought some confusion in the application of the terms in relation to the meanings of the two words. We must explain here that the term chief does not denote royalty but leadership. The Roget’s Thesaurus gives the following synonyms for chief: leader, ruler, head, person in command, boss, captain, person in charge. From these synonyms it can be seen that there is no royalty connection. An Induna on the other hand is also described as a leader or ruler of a community. Thus, all the area chiefs are in effect indunas who receive high respect in recognition of their status in society. An Induna in the Barotse structure is a highly respected leader and ruler assigned to lead a community. Therefore the terms Induna and chief are interchangeable and mean one and the same.

As a kingdom, Barotseland has no chiefdoms in the really sense. The correct definition of a silalo is “county”. Silalo Indunas do not preside over chiefdoms, but counties and are supervised by a senior chief (Mulena) at district level. Tribal chiefs at Silalo Induna level are also “Indunas” and are installed by strictly following their family lineage just as is the case with regales. Notwithstanding this arrangement, they have authority to preside over the customary and traditional affairs in their areas by following the Barotse customary and traditional law.


PROBLEMS OF KAOMA DISTRICT

Kaoma region has been a haven of peace since the Nkoyas’ arrival in Barotseland in the mid 1700s. As mentioned earlier above, the first problems in the management of Mankoya district rose in mid 1940s resulting in the disciplinary action taken against Mwene Mutondo Mwita Muchaila in 1948. Nkoyas are born intriguers hence chances of continued peace were disrupted again in the 1980s after the re-installation of Mwene Mutondo Mwita Muchaila. In an address to the nation entitled “I wish to inform the Nation”, delivered on 25th August 1969, President Kenneth Kaunda stated the following policy statement concerning chieftainship in Barotseland among other anti-Barotse statements:

“I know that certain chiefs in Western Province have been performing the functions of chiefs without government recognition. I wish to announce that I am making investigations into the possibility of having more chiefs in that province.............All I am saying is that where my investigations reveal quite clearly that a chief has been acting as a chief but has been deliberately denied recognition such as Chief Mwene Mutondo in Mankoya, I would be prepared to give them recognition”.

This was the turning point in the sour relationship between the Barotse Royal Establishment and the Nkoyas of Kaoma supported by the Government. Kaunda recognised Muchaila vide Statutory Instrument No. 113 of 1981 without adhering to the provisions of the chiefs’ act which require recognition by the Litunga and council first before presidential recognition. As a result of this anomaly, there were no consultations between the Litunga and Government, with the result that this statutory instrument wrongly included Lalafuta and Luambuwa in the areas of jurisdiction for Mutondo. No protest is known to have been lodged by the Barotse Royal Establishment. Clearly the recognition of Mutondo by President Kaunda was preconceived and in tandem with his speech mentioned above. It was done outside the provisions of section 3(2)b of the Chiefs’ Act which requires that for a chief to be recognised as a chief that chief must first of all receive the blessing of His Majesty the Litunga of Barotseland. Therefore we hold that Kaunda acted outside the provisions of the law.

What followed was the publication of the Village Register for Western Province in 1985 which divided Kaoma district between chiefs Mutondo and Kahare. This publication listed all the area chiefs under either Mwene Mutondo or Mwene Kahare completely ignoring the structure of the Barotse Royal Establishment and the existence of the Senior Chief for the district as follows:-

MWENE

MUTONDO

MWENE

KAHARE

Area

Area chief Area Area chief

Shikombwe

Shikemi Litoya Muleka

Mulamatila

Libinga Liyunyi (Iluya) Afumba

Lukute

Mwanambuyu Nalifalamb (Chilanda) Siwiwaliondo

Luambuwa

Kabilamwandi Shishamba Kakumba

Kahumbu

Mwanatete Mulwa Kanguya

Lalafuta

Mwene Kasimba    

Kaaba

Kasabi    

Mayukwayukwa

Mufaya    

The General List of Chiefs published in 1978 and used by the Department of National Registration to determine and verify area chiefs, produced the following record which is at variance with the Village Register of 1985 thus throwing more confusion.

1. Chief Litia

– Naliele –

Imangambwa

 

2. Chief Kahare

– Litoya

Chief Mutondo –

Lukena - Shikombwe
Area Area Chief Area Area Chief
Lukute Mwanambuyu Luambuwa Kabilamwandi
Kaaba Kasabi Lalafuta Mwene Kasimba
Mwito Mayankwa (Lukulu!)    
Luambuwa Kabilamwandi    
Kahumbu Mwanatete    
Mulamatila Libinga    
Shishamba Kakumba    
Luampa Mululumi    
Mulwa Kanguya    
Liyunyi Iluya (Afumba)    

What boggles the mind is that even the geographical distribution of the areas listed under Kahare militate against reason as shown on the area chiefs’ map for Mankoya district produced by the District Commissioner in 1958. This map currently serves as the official recognised government document listing area chiefs and their boundaries. The two Government publications mentioned above have not been revised despite our protests pointing out the anomalies contained therein. For example the General List of Chiefs contains some non areas such as Luampa under Mululumi and an area located in Lukulu district – Mwito for Chief Mayankwa was also listed under Mwene Kahare! The government of Zambia has not shown either political or administrative will to make the corrections by publishing revised editions.


MUTONDO EDWARD MBOMBOLA MOYO

Mr. Edward Mbombola Moyo became Mwene Mutondo in 1992. Since his accession to the throne this district has seen the worst of intransigence by the Nkoya speaking people. He was gazetted as chief by President Frederick Chiluba in 1993 vide statutory instrument No.56 of 1993. Mutondo Mbombola Moyo has created the Nkoya royal council and the Kazanga cultural society. Both institutions have the professional mission to destabilise peace and promotion of Nkoya tribal hegemony, and outright rebellion against the Barotse Royal Establishment. He has attempted to create illegal parallel indunaships or what he terms “sub-chiefs”, in various sub-districts (lilalo) in total defiance of the 1958 area chiefs’ map which is the official government document for chiefs’ boundaries, and the statutory instrument captioned above stating his authorised areas of jurisdiction.

Concerning the procedures of installation of chiefs, it was clarified in an affidavit sworn by the Ngambela of Barotseland Mr. Griffiths Musialike Mukande. He stated that, following the death of the holder of Mwene Mutondo, Mr. Dominic Chipimpi in 1992, His Majesty Imutakwandu Litunga Ilute Yeta IV directed the Ngambela, and the KUTA to find a successor from the family of the deceased Mwene Mutondo in accordance with the customary and traditional practices of Barotseland. Thereafter consultations with the family members of the late Mwene Mutondo were made. The Ngambela and the Kuta were approached by elders of the late Mwene Mutondo in October 1992 who presented Mr. Edward Mbombola Moyo as the most suitable and acceptable person in the family to be installed. The Kuta and His Majesty the Litunga accepted the nomination and in accordance with the traditions and customs of Barotseland, the Kuta directed the Ngambela to carry out the initiation rites in order to prepare the candidate for formal installation and eventual recognition.

The initiation rites were by tradition carried out in two stages. The first initial rites are usually conducted after the prospective chief is introduced to the KUTA and are intended to put him under probation for about three months after which the Ngambela would then conduct the final traditional rites and subject to good behaviour and satisfactory conduct, the prospective chief would then be presented to His Majesty the Litunga. After the Litunga’s recognition, the candidate in then formally installed, thereafter it is the duty of the Ngambela to submit the name to the Government for recognition by the President in accordance with the provisions of section 3(2) b of the Chiefs’ Act pf the Laws of Zambia.

The procedures outlined above were followed. As stated earlier, Mr. Edward Mbombola Moyo was presented to the Kuta by elders of his family who were instructed to take him back to Lealui at the end of February 1993 to enable him complete the second stage of the initiation rites. Contrary to instructions Mr. Edward Mbombola Moyo failed or refused to return to Lealui, thus was the beginning of the insubordination by Mwene Mutondo supported by the Government who meddled in the traditional and customary practices of Barotseland. Soon thereafter the new uninstalled Mwene Mutondo began to issue press statements demanding the removal of the late Senior Chief Litia from Kaoma district and the creation of Kafue province by detaching Kaoma district from Barotseland. Furthermore reports were received that jointly with the late Mwene Kahare Timuna; they would use violence and cause bloodshed in Kaoma to achieve their tribally soiled objectives.

A barrage of adverse and violence threatening press reports prompted the Barotse Royal Establishment to summon both Mr. Edward Mbombola Moyo and the late Mwene Kahare Timuna to Lealui for discussions with the KUTA and His Majesty the Litunga on their demands but they both declined. In an apparent show of disloyalty and contempt of the Kuta and the Litunga, Mr. Mbombola Moyo fraudulently presented himself through the then Permanent Secretary in the Office of the President, Mr. Mulubisha (a Nkoya), to the Government to recognize him as Mwene Mutondo. Eventually the government of Zambia by acquiescence succumbed and gave him recognition vide Statutory Instrument no. 56 of 1993 by the President of Zambia Mr. F.T.J. Chiluba, without consultations with His Majesty the Litunga as required by article 3(2)b of the Chiefs’ Act Cap. 287 of the Laws of Zambia.

On 18th July 1993, following the recognition of Mwene Mutondo by the President, the Mulongwanji was convened by the Ngambela at the request of the KUTA. The Mulongwanji is the highest disciplinary body in Barotseland. It is composed of all the district regales or district chiefs and chieftainesses, and chaired by the Ngambela. According to the customary law of Barotseland, a decision taken by the Mulongwanji is final and irreversible. At this meeting it was resolved to dethrone Mwenes Mutondo and Kahare for gross indiscipline, misconduct, insubordination and undermining the authority of Senior Chief Litia and the Barotse Royal Establishment. This resolution was communicated to Government but was frustrated by President Frederick Chiluba who refused to withdraw the recognition of both chiefs. Instead the President threatened His Majesty the Litunga Ilute Yeta IV and the Barotse Royal Establishment with stern action.

On 24th December 1994 The Ngambela of Barotseland Mr Griffith Musialike Mukande filed an application in the High Court for Zambia to seek judicial review against the recognition of Mr. Edward Mbombola Moyo as Mwene Mutondo on the ground that he was not duly enthroned as he did not receive the blessing of His Majesty the Litunga as demanded by tradition and customary law of Barotseland and the Chiefs’ Act referred to above. The application also sought to quash the recognition by the President of Zambia on grounds that it was a nullity in law since it did not conform to the provisions of the Chiefs’ Act. This cause was discontinued for unknown reasons after applying for an injunction to restrain Mr. Edward Mbombola Moyo from performing the chiefly functions of Mwene Mutondo. The Barotse Royal Establishment may have decided to discontinue the matter because no Zambian High Court judge appointed by the President can be expected to rule against the wrongful act of the President who has flaunted the law.

Following the failure to conclude this matter in the High Court for Zambia, Mwene Mutondo Mbombola Moyo continued with his campaign to undermine the Barotse Royal Establishment as testified by the following actions by which he created parallel structures in all the lilalos adjacent to Shikombwe Silalo:-

a) Lalafuta Silalo: He appointed Yuvwenu and Malasa instead of Mwene Kasimba the legitimate area chief.

b) Luambuwa Silalo: He appointed Lumano instead of Chief Kabilamwandi the legitimate area chief.

c) Lukute Silalo: He appointed Mangothi instead of Chief Mwanambuyu the legitimate area chief.

d) Nalifalamba Silalo: He appointed Munyikwa alias Matanda instead of Chief Siwiwaliondo the legitimate are chief.

e) Mayukwayukwa Silalo: He appointed Muyani a Kaonde instead of Chief Mufaya, the legitimate area chief.

f) Mulamatila Silalo: He appointed Sintunya as area chief instead of Chief Libinga who is the legitimate leader of the area. He also appointed Derrick Moyo as sub chief Mulemena.

g) Kabaa Silalo: He attempted to corrupt Chief Kasabi to be answerable to him taking advantage of the boundary conflict between Kasabi and Mwanambuyu.

In an act of further defiance, irresponsibility and insubordination, in July 2003, the Mwanashihemi for Lukena Mr. D.S.Yowela issued a circular letter replacing silalo indunas in areas claimed to be under the jurisdiction of Mwene Mutondo namely:- Kabilamwandi, Mwanambuyu, Kanguya, Mwanatete, Siwiwaliondo, Kakumba, Kasabi and Afumba. Upon receipt of this letter the then District Administrator for Kaoma Mr. Ngombo, directed the Mwanashihemi to withdraw the letters for the following reasons among others:-

(i) His action was contemptuous since there was still a cause in the High Court for Zambia in which Mwene Mutondo had sued Senior Chief Amukena II.

(ii) There was already a resolution reached between the two Mwanashihemis and the Imangambwa arising from a meeting chaired by the District Administrator that all matters pertaining to land and the Royal Establishments must not be discussed or dealt with until after the disposal of the suit.

(iii) The history and appointments of the silalo indunas affected viz:- Libinga, Kasimba, Mufaya, Kabilamwandi, Mwanambuyu, Kanguya, Mwanatete, Siwiwaliondo, Kakumba, Kasabi and Afumba were well known.

Despite being cautioned by the office of the District Administrator, this behaviour was repeated each time a new District Commissioner is appointed. Hence it was repeated during the tenure of the following District Commissioners:- Messrs Kasempa, Chinyama, Nasilele and Manjolo.


EFFORTS OF THE BAROTSE ROYAL ESTABLISHMENT

In 1998, a meeting of the Barotse National Council was held on 16-18 August to discuss the problems of Kaoma district. This meeting was attended the Mwanashihemis (senior or chief Councillors) for Mutondo and Kahare. Among the resolutions reached, under resolution 3(a) rejected the Village Register Book of 1985 concerning the Kaoma district because it was badly edited and unsuitable for use and application by Government. This book ignored the presence of the Senior Chief at Naliele and divided the district between Mwene Mutondo and Mwene Kahare as the only chiefs. The rest of the area chiefs or Silalo Indunas falling under the two as has already been shown elsewhere in this paper.

In 1999 the resolutions of the Consultative Meeting of the Indunas of all Districts of the Barotse Royal Establishment held in Lealui on 12th – 14th February, 1999 on the Problems of Kaoma District made the following resolutions:-

1. That a meeting of all the ten (10) Chiefs of the Barotse Royal Establishment should be convened as soon as possible to resolve the problems of Kaoma district.

2. That Statutory Instruments No.63 of 1981 and No. 112 of 1996 and Village Register of 1985 should be amended because the meeting felt they were published in bad faith and therefore they were repugnant to natural justice.

3. The Naliele Chieftainship should remain.

In January 2010, the Naliele Kuta assembled all the eleven area chiefs in the district accompanied by their senior indunas to Limulunga where their grievances concerning the Nkoya chiefs, and the administration of Kaoma district were presented to the Saa-Sikalo Kuta and His Majesty the Litunga. The meeting lasted over three days and concluded by reiterating the same resolutions that had been made before. Significant resolutions however dealt with the dethronement of Mwene Mutondo and that statutory recognition of all area chiefs in Kaoma and by extension the whole of Barotseland was recommended to government. The latter resolution was arrived at in order to find a lasting solution to the Kaoma problem by gazetting all the area chiefs in the district so as to counter the Nkoya chiefs who have been selected by government at the expense of other tribes. These resolutions were never acted upon by Namuso.

In July 2010 the previously unknown Nkoya-Kaonde Royal Establishment in Kalumwange wrote to the District Commissioner for Kaoma that it was withdrawing the recognition of ‘sub-chief’ Kasimba in Lalafuta area for what was termed to be in the interests of ‘peace, order and good governance’. This letter was copied to His Majesty the Litunga. Following this letter, in September 2010, the Mwanashihemi for Mutondo wrote letters revoking the appointments and recognition of area chiefs Mwanambuyu, Mwanatete, Libinga, Mwene Kasimba, Mufaya and Kabilamwandi. These letters were ignored though the government of Zambia took no action against these rebellious activities. Namuso were informed as well, but as usual no action was taken against the so-called Nkoya-Kaonde Royal Establishment supported by Mutondo.


MUTONDO’S CLAIMS AGAINST SENIOR CHIEF AMUKENA AND THE GOVERNMENT

In the year 2000, Mr Edward Mbombola Moyo suing as Chief Mutondo filed a claim against Senior Chief Amukena II and the Attorney-General, seeking to remove him from Kaoma district as senior chief and that he Mutondo was the legitimate heir to the senior chieftainship of Kaoma district. The matter has not passed beyond interlocutory stage, since the action was commenced. A summary of his statement of claim states the following main claims among many others:-

(a) That Senior Chief Amukena was and has always been the Administrator of the Naliele Native Authority since its inception in or about 1937 and that Senior Chief Amukena was erroneously appointed by the Litunga.

(b) That upon the establishment of Kaoma District Council Senior Chief Amukena should have ceased to perform the functions of administrator of Naliele Native Authority instead continuing as a chief of the Lozi people.

(c) That the appointment of a senior chief based at Naliele is wrongful, null and void, and contrary to the provisions of the Chiefs’ Act.

(d) That Naliele royal village is in chief Mutondo’s area of jurisdiction and control.

Furthermore, Mwene Mutondo claims to have jurisdiction and control of the following areas:- Lukena, Shikombwe, Luambuwa, Mulamatila, Kaaba, Mayukwayukwa, Lalafuta,and Kahumbu.

This law suit is still pending in the High Court for Zambia awaiting trial; but we hope it will now finally take off as it is scheduled to take place from 6th to 10th October 2014 before Mrs. Justice M Mungomba.


THE SANGENJO SHINDIG

As though there is no case before the High Court of Zambia, in his desperation, Mutondo has continued to defy law and order by fomenting further acts of destabilisation. On Saturday 16th June 2012, over thirty (30) Nkoya tribesmen descended on Mr. Mupala Chipango who is Induna Mooto of Naliele Kuta at his home in Sangenjo area. Sangenjo is an area located in area Chief Siwiwaliondo’s Nalifalamba Silalo. The group was led by a self styled chief Matanda alias Innocent Munyikwa Lushato. The tribesmen had travelled some 12 kilometres away from Katunda. The purpose of their attack was to evict Induna Mooto and burn his homestead. They alleged that they had been instructed by Mwene Mutondo and Mwene Kahare with firm support from the Zambian President Mr. Michael Sata.

At 13.00 the Naliele Kuta received a phone call from Induna Mooto who reported the intruders at his homestead. This report was relayed to the Police and the District Commissioner, who acted promptly and police were dispatched to the area.

Meanwhile, the residents of Sangenjo, who are predominantly Luchazi, Luvale and Lozi speaking organised themselves to defend Induna Mooto. They quickly surrounded the Nkoya militia to prevent them from attacking Induna Mooto until the arrival of the Police. It is reported that there was a scuffle which resulted in Matanda being manhandled as he tried to escape and had his trousers torn to pieces.

The Police collected Matanda and a few others. To our surprise the insurgents were delivered back to their homes in Katunda, instead of arresting them, and they were merely ordered to report to the Police the following Monday since it was a weekend.

On Monday 18th June 2012, Induna Mooto and his people went to the police where they found Matanda and many Nkoya speaking people who included Mwitila Shumina (a former Member of Parliament), Kashandula ( then Patriotic Front District Chairman for Kaoma now District Commissioner for Nkeyema) and Greenwell Kakumba (Naliele Ward Councillor). The District Commissioner, Mr. Manjolo, ordered everybody to go to the Council Chamber where discussions were held. Among those who attended the meeting were senior Government officials, namely the Officer-in-Charge for Kaoma Police, Office of the President Intelligence Officer, and Army Officer of the rank of Captain from Luena Barracks, several government officials. Induna Malenga was assigned by the Kuta to accompany Induna Mooto.

In his statement Matanda proudly and with impunity told the meeting that he had been sent by Mwenes Mutondo and Kahare with the presidential sanction from President Sata to evict what he terms illegal settlers in Kaoma district. He described these to include all non-Nkoya speaking people. Arrogantly and rudely Matanda said that even Senior Chief Amukena II is a squatter and that he must go and leave Nkoyaland for Nkoyas.

The Naliele Kuta took action and lodged a formal complaint against Innocent Munyikwa Lushato that he should be arrested and charged accordingly with the following offences:-

(a) Criminal trespass and conduct inimical to public order and peace in Luampa district.

(b) Holding himself as a chief when not a chief in contravention of section 12 of the Chiefs’ Act Cap 287 of the Laws of Zambia.

The Kuta also recommended to government that Mwene Mutondo and Innocent Munyikwa Lushato alias chief Matanda should be considered for indictment for contravening Section 46 of the Penal Code of the Laws of Zambia which states that “Any person who, without lawful authority, carries on, or makes preparation for carrying on, or aids in or advises the carrying on of, or preparation for, any war or warlike undertaking with, for, by, or against any chief , or with, for, by, or against any tribal group, is guilty of a felony, and is liable to imprisonment for life on conviction”.

In relation to the second option, the Naliele Kuta had received intimation from the Kaoma Police that a directive from the Director of Public Prosecutions has been communicated to the effect that there must be an attempt to reconcile the two, because the dispute is purported to be embroiled in some tribally motivated political connotations. In the event that reconciliation is not achieved the Police should prefer charges of criminal trespass against Lushato and prosecute him accordingly. The letter from the Director of Public Prosecutions also stated that land in Kaoma district belongs to Mwene Mutondo but that he was given the land by King Lewanika. Here lies the misunderstanding and misrepresentation of facts concerning the issue of customary land administration in Kaoma district as interpreted by the Government! This is at variance with the policy on land administration in Barotseland, which states that all land in the province is under the custodianship of the Litunga. Area chiefs are agents of the Litunga in the management and alienation of land. Therefore Mutondo does not own land per se and does not have power over land above the district chief, but administers land through the district chief on behalf of the Litunga and Council who in turn holds it in trust for the people of Barotseland. The view expressed by the DPP is not correct and does not find support from historical facts and the traditional and customary laws of Barotseland.


NKOYA ROYAL COUNCIL PLOT TO ELIMINATE OPPONENTS

The Naliele Kuta stumbled on some minutes of the Nkoya royal council revealing a plot to eliminate certain personalities. Upon discovery of this document, the Kuta on Wednesday the 21st of May 2014 summoned the heads of security departments and the District Commissioners for Kaoma and Luampa. The purpose of the meeting was to bring to their attention security concerns orchestrated by the so-called Nkoya Royal Council; arising from minutes of a meeting held at Lukena village. The minutes which are self-explanatory reveal serious strategies aimed at assassinating politicians, area chiefs and Barotse human rights activists loosely identified as Linyungandambo.

More striking and mind boggling is the purported co-operation between the Office of the President and the Nkoya royal council; where the latter had requested the Office of the President to supply them with assault weapons (pistols). They had gone to the extent of identifying certain individuals as their targets, namely Hon. Josephine Limata member of Paliarment for Luampa, area Chief Mwanatete for Kahumbu, area Chief Libinga for Mulamatila, area Chief Mufaya for Mayukwayukwa, area Chief Mwene Kasimba for Lalafuta, Crispin Shumina a former diplomat and Member of Parliament for Mangango, and Collins Lifasi Kashweka. This co-operation between the Office of the President and the Nkoya royal council has not been denied by the authorities in Government circles.

This latest discovery of the unholy alliance revealed through the minutes of the Nkoya royal council has strengthened our suspicion that the Government of Zambia if behind the problems of Kaoma district by promoting Nkoya tribal insurgency, hegemony and supremacy.


LUAMPA INTRUSION BY MUTONDO

The Naliele district Kuta again stumbled on correspondence from three different sources in connection with the proposed visits to Luampa district by Matanda and the Mwanashihemi for Lukena as well as bye-laws from the Litoya royal establishment of Mwene Kahare as follows:-

(a) Letter dated 9th May 2014 from District Education Board Secretary signed by the District Standards Officer for Kaoma advising heads of schools that a (chief?) Matanda would be touring all the schools in Luampa district.

(b) Undated document from the Mwanashihemi Litoya royal establishment advising village headmen that they have devised bye-laws to enable them levy chickens and cash from villagers and farmers in Shishamba in Nkeyema district and Liyunyi in Luampa district.

(c) Letter dated 6th June 2014 from the Acting Mwanashihemi Lukena royal establishment. This letter advises that the Mwanashihemi intends to visit Luampa district on 28th June, 2014.

After consultations with the Kuta, the alert District Commissioner for Luampa did not allow Matanda to undertake his tour of schools in the district. We wondered how a government education Officer could have written the letter authorising the illegal chief to visit schools. On the other hand the meeting by Mwanshihemi for Lukena did take place. It is at this illegal meeting where he announced that Mwene Mutondo had appointed Innocent Munyikwa Lushato alias Mwene Matanda as chief for Luampa district. Area Chief Mwanatete is reported to have advised the police not to allow the meeting to go ahead. They did not take action reasoning that the meeting was traditional therefore they had no authority. Mwanatete who is the area chief for Kahumbu took legal action to sue both Matanda and Mutondo for interference in Luampa district. The Mwanatete also sued Matanda for holding himself chief when not a chief in contravention of the provisions of Chiefs’ Act. This action is supported by the Naliele Royal Establishment and has been reported to the Siikalo Kuta accordingly.


CONCLUSION

We have attempted to show in this paper the problems orchestrated by the Nkoya speaking people in Kaoma region which is Barotseland. We have concentrated to highlight the problems caused by Mwene Mutondo only but we intend to do the same for Mwene Kahare in a separate paper.

Kaoma, Luampa and Nkeyema districts are not inhabited by the Nkoya speaking people only. There are several others who include the Lozi speakers such as Makwamakoma, Makwangwa, Makwamwenyi, Makwamashi, Maluvale, Mambunda, Maluchazi, Machokwe, Matotela and Masubiya to mention just a few. All of them are bonafide citizens of Barotseland. The Nkoyas who are a minority are the main cause of intriguing demands for separatism. The talk of secession of Kaoma from Barotseland is unacceptable and untenable. The Nkoyas are themselves refugees who sought and received protection from the Lozi. They did not enter Barotseland through war, therefore there is no record that they ever captured any part of Barotseland; neither is there evidence that they had captured slaves or cattle, but were themselves traded into slavery by the Kaondes, save for the rescue operation at Munte by the Lozi. The Lozi went to war and many died for their sake yet today they exhibit hatred against their rescuers and protector. We hold that as quid pro quo it was a requirement that they paid the Lozi for the protection they received and the land they were given to settle but not to kick out the owner of the land. They paid tribute to the Litunga just as other tribes in the outlying areas were required in order to sustain the Barotse economy.

The Lozi have interacted with the Nkoyas such that their relationship is interwoven in culture and tradition. This is because they have lived in peace for centuries together as a united people moulded into a nation by Kings Mulambwa, Sipopa and Lewanika. There are more than thirty (30) tribes in Barotseland but only one tribal group revolving around the Lushange of Mwene Mutondo and Mashasha of Mwene Kahare is threatening to divide Barotseland. More recently they appear to have recruited the Mbundas of Mwene Chiyengele to join their rebellious and insubordinate attitude against Barotseland.

Some of the royal drums that grace the royal occasions at Lealui, Nalolo and Libonda and in the Nalikwanda during the majestic Kuomboka ceremony have their source from the Mankoya people. We are proud of this. However, we must make it clear to our Nkoya relatives that chiefdoms are created to serve the people, if they fail to satisfy this need they wane and wax no more. The Litunga is on record as having tolerated unbecoming behaviour of Mwene Mutondo in particular. This may not be allowed to continue for long. Let them remember that the Lozi had in the past played major roles in resuscitating their leadership otherwise if it was not for King Sipopa and King Lewanika, there would be neither Mwene Mutondo nor Mwene Kahare today.

We concur with Van Binsbergen in the concluding chapters of his book “Tears of Rain” that the Nkoya are trying to build their kingdom out of myths. Mythology spring from arrested and unsatisfied desire, wish fulfilment or fantasy gratification.

We note that Mwene Mutondo and his Nkoya-Lushange royal council have been shadow boxing for a long time; it is now time to follow the footsteps of their forefathers. When Mutondo 2, Shiyengi had a problem, he went to Sipopa for assistance; when the Mutondo throne was on the brink of extinction it was Sipopa who revived it; when the Kahare throne was on the wane Lewanika reinstated it; when the Nkoya protested against unpopular Mutondo V, it was Lewanika they appealed to who resolved the issue by removing him and installing popular Wahila; when the district Commissioner for Mankoya made an unorthodox decision to appoint a Mutondo, it was Lewanika who intervened by reversing the appointment; when Mwene Kahare Bollen Munguya had a problem reclaiming the chieftaincy in a legal battle against his maternal cousin of Kaonde paternity, Mayowe, it was to Senior Chief Amukena II and His Majesty the Litunga he went for assistance. We advise Mutondo and his royal council to do the same now and turn to the Litunga of Barotseland to resolve their unsatisfied wish fulfilment springing from their mythological desires.

We also advise and recommend that the government of Zambia should undo the wrongs done by previous administrations by revoking the Presidential statutory instruments which wrongly recognised Mutondo as chief of the Nkoya people of Kaoma district. Mutondo’s area of jurisdiction is Shikombwe only and does not extend to other areas. The violation of the 1958 map for area chiefs in Barotseland by the government of Zambia should be corrected.

Finally, the words of His Majesty Litunga Ilute 1V quoted in the opening remarks of this paper underscore the policy direction of the Barotseland Royal Establishment. We reiterate and conclude by quoting the Litunga from the same letter when he stated categorically that “It was decided to withdraw our customary law mandate from them so that they may go elsewhere away from Barotseland where they would exercise their new found jurisdiction”; adding “that the Lozis are not willing to force the Mwene Mutondo and Mwene Kahare to accept the customary law jurisdiction of Barotseland and therefore there is no way they can continue to claim the chieftaincy which they have disowned”.

The Litunga’s disciplinary action was frustrated by the President of the Republic of Zambia who refused to co-operate. Hence it is this government support which has seen the Nkoyas making wild statements concerning the campaign for the creation of Kafue province and to elevate Mutondo to paramount chief! This can only be achieved if Mutondo and his people can be relocated elsewhere away from Barotseland. The Nkoyas constitute a paltry 16% of the population in Kaoma, Luampa and Nkeyema districts combined. What justification is there for Mutondo to reign paramount over the various tribes who make up the remaining 84% with the Lozi, Mbunda /Luvale speaking people in the majority? Barotseland cannot allow former refugees to cause anarchy in a region which has seen peace, harmony and tranquillity for many centuries as a united people. This scramble for Barotseland is ill conceived, and designed to stimulate undesirable problems whose consequences will be too ghastly to contemplate. It shall be opposed with all the vehemence at our command.

Our Nkoya brothers would be wise not to underrate the people of Barotseland. To arrest this mentality, the other solution is for the Government of Zambia to stop meddling in the customary and traditional affairs of Barotseland. In the words of His Majesty Litunga Ilute Yeta IV in the same letter to President Frederick Chiluba,

“....Barotseland is a kingdom even as of now.......and in a kingdom you cannot find a chief who is independent of the King, because such a situation is untenable”.

The government of Zambia should not encourage Nkoyas to establish independent chiefdoms within Barotseland.

We conclude by reiterating the passionate appeal by Mwene Mutondo Edward Mbombola Moyo signing as Watunga Moyo in a letter to His Majesty the Litunga in 1995 in which he acknowledged that “No any other person would come up with solutions to problems of your families in Kaoma other than you, Sir”. Yes indeed Mutondo and the people of Kaoma district belong to the larger Barotse family under the undisputed rulership of His Majesty the Litunga. Therefore no decisions concerning the chieftainship leadership in this district should be entertained by the Government of Zambia including the President who should refrain from arbitrary recognitions without full consultations with His Majesty the Litunga and Council. We believe very strongly and with confidence that the Litunga is more than capable of solving problems in this part of his kingdom. For meaningful solutions to be found both Mwenes Mutondo and Kahare should not shun attending meetings called by the Litunga and the Council designed to discuss their artificial concerns on the traditional governance and leadership of the district. This has been the main stumbling block because both had declined to attend such meetings in the past.


REFERENCES

1. Letter to President of Zambia Mr. Titus Jacob Chiluba by H.M the Litunga Ilute Yeta 1V, 1st February, 1994.

2. Northern Rhodesia Government, Barotseland Protectorate, Provincial Administration – Mankoya Tour Reports, National Archives of Zambia, BSE1/2/102, 1958.

3. Barotse Royal Establishment, Minutes of the Barotse National Council, Lealui, 1998, 1999, and 2000.

4. Barotse Royal Establishment, Report of the Meeting of Silalo Indunas from Kaoma, Lealui, 2010.

5. Government of Zambia, Statutory Instrument No. 56 of 1993.

6. Government of Zambia, Statutory Instrument No.63 of 1981

7. High Court for Zambia, Griffiths Musialike Mukande {suing as Ngambela of Western Province} versus Edward Mbombola Moyo {sued as Mwene Mutondo}, Lusaka, cause No.1994/HP/127. Lusaka, 1994.

8. Sunday Mail, “Nkoya chiefs defy Barotse court”, 3rd April, 1993

9. The Post Newspaper, “Nkoyas warn of Bloodshed” 23rd March 1993

10. Kaunda, Kenneth David, President of Zambia, “I wish to inform the nation” an address to the nation 25th August 1969.

11. Government of Zambia, Village Register 1985,

12. Government of Zambia, General List of Chiefs 1978

13. Barotse Royal Establishment, Naliele District Kuta, The Institution of Chieftainship in Barotseland vis-a-vis Zambian Government, 2013

14. Barotse Royal Establishment, Naliele District Kuta, Report on Mwene Mutondo’s Activities in the District, 2010

  • 20
  • Feb

The time for the annual Kuomboka ceremony has come again after last years’ ceremony was cancelled as Barotseland was mourning the queen who died weeks before the ceremony was scheduled to be held.

The ceremony has always been graced by a guest of honour from the Zambian government mostly the President or Vice President.

This trend should however not be a routine as Barotseland declared independence from Zambia and is at liberty to invite a guest of honour from within Barotseland or any friendly country.

Since Zambians have refused to peacefully vacate Barotseland and have maintained their presence by force, they should not be invited to grace our ceremony because this will be tantamount to shooting ourselves in the foot.

The Zambian government has so far refused to listen to the people of Barotseland and has continued to arrest and terrorise our leaders and people but want to officiate at our ceremony to mislead their people and the international community that all was well between Zambia and Barotseland.

It is however time for the people of Barotseland through the Barotseland Royal Authority (BRA) to send a clear message to Zambia that we are no longer interested in their make believe (Mandwani) games by not inviting them to officiate at the ceremony.

If the Zambian government is interested in attending the ceremony, either through President Lungu or Vice President Inonge Wina, then they should attend just as tourists.

  • 17
  • Feb

We are determined to restore our country's self determination, even though faced with resistance, but the process of overcoming resistance is the beginning of freedom. We will forever shame our oppressors (Zambia) as we courageously contribute to Barotseland’s independence struggle, and make strides to statehood recognition among the international community. Just like climbing a high mountain, those who are committed to justice don't expect to get to the top in one climb. They recognize the need to establish a base camp and then a series of more advanced camps before the final push. If Barotseland lacked the fabric of justice, it would have been at war with Zambia by now because our oppressors walk not in the interest of peace and justice but of deception and treachery.

Barotseland independence campaign will not be silenced by oppressive measures taken by our enemy by prolonged detention of Barotseland's Administrator General and three members of his cabinet. We draw our motivation logically from moral principles that govern our conscience and actions. The sad part is that the Zambian authorities together with their Zambian civil societies think that the occupation of Barotseland is "irreversible". That word - "irreversible" - is not in the vocabulary of Barotseland people because people are well enlightened on the issue.

Yet - thanks to the important work of citizens journalism and members of freedom movements through our platforms like Barotsepost, Linyungandambo secretariat, Barotseland broadcast network, Barotse voice, Barotseland free state and mutomo for their informative articles - the "irreversible" will soon be reversed.

Despite being faced with extraordinary challenges, including resource constraints to expand our communication platforms and paying for our own programs, isolation from media coverage (especially Zambian controlled media houses) and 'overwhelming odds'. The people of Barotseland have remained resolute and continued to campaign for independence focused on internationally agreed principles, eschewed ideology and non violent methodology. It will be a good gesture for every Mulozi to contribute to the struggle at all levels to maximize use of the international systems, media and civil society networks.

It is of importance too, in our independence demand to draw attention for justice. The Barotseland independence struggle should be embraced by all people who precisely believe in justice and rule of law. Unity is the foundation of achievement, in like manner; it is difficult in the absence of unity to attain our desired independence. We are dealing with a rogue state that does not respect the sanctity of human rights and preservation of public international law. I am of the view that it is important to call things by their correct names. It's not wrong to call "Zambia a rogue state and the genesis of Zambia is founded on lies". We must call an end to the ongoing illegal occupation of Barotseland by Zambia with affirmative "NO" demand. Barotseland must be free.

It seems Zambia has failed to adhere to our demand to release all our people detained on Barotseland related matters and have the impasse settled before the impartial court i.e international court of Justice. Nevertheless, we are thankful to our international lawyers’ standing- in for the Barotseland provisional government on behalf of the people of Barotseland to take Zambia to the international court of Justice despite Zambia's unwillingness to corporate.

Barotseland must be free. Tukongote wa Mwana Nongolo.



  • 16
  • Feb

The entire history of the freedom movements is replete with the saga of bravery, sacrifice and political sagacity of great men and women from all walks of life. Their stature often gives us an erroneous impression that it is only a man's movement. But it is not so. Many prominent women in some parts of the world played a leading role in the freedom movements. In Barotseland, the first name that comes to mind is that of the famous Grace Muyangana (M.H.S.R.I.P). She led her campaign for Barotseland liberation against the Zambian brutal government that landed her in Zambian prison. Even her enemies (Zambia) admired her courage and daring. She fought valiantly even after her release, she refused to surrender but chose to fall as a warrior should, fighting the enemy to the last. Her remarkable courage inspired many men and women in Barotseland.

As such, I wish to recommend strongly to the freedom movements to review the contents and spirit of the 2012 BNC resolutions, with a view to accurately and objectively reflect the sacrifices and contributions of all who have lost their life opportunities due to maiming and arrests by Zambian security.

We should take cognizance of the 2012 independence declaration as our compass and navigate within the right attitudes and longitudes of the resolutions, bearing in mind that BNC is the highest policy making body in our motherland.

Seriously, this calls for genuine participation as patriotic advocates for our country’s freedom. Women no exception! Women stand up and be counted. Join the ranks of our young men who contributed immensely to the extent of losing their lives and some even incapacitated due to bullet woods and torture.

Women should brace for bravely participation at various resistance movements levels in the rural or urban Barotseland, illiterate or literate it doesn't matter. All can play a passive or active contribution as comrades of their men folk.

Everyone and anyone has the right to play a role based on his or her values and the passion he or she has for Barotseland.

Tukongote litunga ni lyetu

By Saleya Kwalombota

  • 16
  • Feb

Media, especially the Print Media, has all along been the backbone of all mass movements or popular upsurge in other countries as a vehicle to total liberation and Barotseland independence struggle is no exception. Right from the time of BPF of Mutangelwa in the 1990s. In fact, many of the leaders of the Freedom movement themselves turned into journalists too, and used the press to propagate their ideas to the masses.

The value of the media in the development of nation-state campaign is prominent in nationalism against subjugation and colonialism. As such, as the struggle intensifies, we should inaugurate a process of tactical dissemination of information to reach the rural populace through any form of communication for proper awareness. However, I am of the view that;

1. During our Independence struggle, the media and newspapers should not be established as profit-making business ventures but should be seen as rendering national and public service to the people.

2. The media Impact should not be limited to towns; but aim to reach remote villages from North to south and from East to west of Barotseland territory.

3. The media should serve the purpose of not only political education but also of political participation where every Mulozi should be free to express his or her political views.

4. Government act and policies should be put to public awareness through the established media platforms.

5. In a scenario where most people are illiterates, even the press can hope to achieve only partial success; hence, theatrical drama could be of useful alternative.

Since media is synonymous with dissemination of information, the Acting Administrator General should look at the following raised concerns by our people at the grassroots for possible consideration;

a) Establish information center at Regional / constituency levels

b) cabinet to be pro-active - each government minister must function.

c) There must be harmony between the Royal Barotseland Government and the Barotse Royal Authority in order to foster liaison committee to be set (established).

d) Strong, patriotic, courageous and down -to-earth youth wing.

e) International relations and media liaison committee to be set (established).

f) Seriously engage the BRE to change the name to Barotseland Royal Authority (BRA), to remove an ethical divider of Zambian creation -BRE.

g) Consider putting the Radio on free to air satellite dish to improve our reach to a wider audience and cover news in all districts of Barotseland.

h) Launch the football league even at amateur level.

i) Organize peaceful demonstrations against Zambia at the UN HQ, Zambia embassies in UK USA and Botswana for international media attention of our issue (and SADC HQ).

Finally, the overwhelming critical features of the press in its relationship to the information dissemination can no longer be ignored at this crucial time when we are faced with fake propaganda from the Zambian side that is trying to project to be in good relationship with Barotseland to the international community when in fact it is the other way. The misinformation and half truths have characterized our independence struggle within and outside our territory due to lack of platforms where we can debate, discuss and layout our achievements towards Barotseland emancipation. The rational interest is however, to unfold the proper character at the point at which the media is acknowledged as a social force and tool in the promotion of political agenda, especially where peaceful approach is concerned.

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.