• 31
  • Jan

The recent suggestion, by President Edgar Chagwa Lungu, to hold a referendum over the Barotseland issue is not only laughable but also embarrassing to every Zambian who loves his country and knows its fifty years history. Such a move will not only be unrealistic in Barotseland’s case but also unjustifiable due to several undeniable factors which can only be ignored by someone out rightly ignorant about the relevance of a referendum, let alone its meaning. As such, we reject the idea with due respect while understanding the mentality of those outside Barotseland who may be in its favour.

Seemingly, the Honourable President may not be aware that a referendum over the same issue actually took place in 1969. Below are some of the reasons why such an exercise may even be termed a plot from the very pit of hell. Before going any further, it is worthwhile to point out that it is an accepted view that, from the very beginning, the Zambian government never committed itself to honor the Barotseland Agreement 1964. This is proved by the deliberate enactment, from 1965 leading to 1969, of several legislations which were in direct breach of the BA ’64.

The 1969 Referendum

In 1969, after having deliberately destroyed the Barotse Native Government in its bid to completely absorb the Barotse nation, the Zambian government of the day decided to organize a national referendum from which it hoped to legalize its illegal complete takeover of Barotseland. That referendum (commonly called, “lifu la ndambo” in Lozi – directly translated as the death of a neighbour ) was subjected to the entire Zambian populace of the time. Majority of people in Barotseland had voted against joining Zambia while basically all non Barotse voted otherwise. The outcome was obvious; and based on that, the Zambian government decided to unilaterally terminate the BA’64 and renamed what they were already maliciously referring to as “Barotse Province”, “Western Province”. The original Western Province was subsequently renamed “Copper Belt Province”.

Any sensible person would have known that this was not only unjust but also day light robbery. There was no way that the population of Barotseland would have been anywhere near the population of the rest of Zambia in number. It was going to be understood to some extent had the referendum been conducted only in Barotseland as was the case in Quebec, Scotland and Cataluña in Spain. Besides that, a referendum on Barotseland was still wrong in that Barotseland only got associated with Zambia via an international treaty which the latter decided to unilaterally terminate.

Demographic Sabotage

Following the resounding “No” vote in Barotseland in the 1969 referendum, the Zambian government realized that its trick had been unmasked as some Barotse kept on calling for the honouring of the Agreement despite the referendum’s outcome. The Kaunda regime then hatched another diabolical plan of populating Barotseland with non Barotse under the guise of one Zambia one nation. Some indigenous Barotse, particularly the skilled and learned ones, where transferred to the eastern region while Barotseland was flooded with dull non Barotse; so dull that they could not even learn Lozi. On the contrary, the Barotse who went elsewhere were forced to learn local languages since the tribes they found could, for obvious reasons, hardly understand English.

The other purpose for this exercise was to create a division among Barotse nation consisting of Nkoyas, Mbundas, Luvales, Luyanas, etc. It was also in order to cause insubordination to the Litunga and senior chiefs like Senior Chief Ilukena in Mankoya or Luena. The very name change of Mankoya to Kaoma was in line with this brain wash.

Furthermore, all refugees from Angola and the Great Lakes area who refused to be relocated back to their native countries were naturalized as Zambians and resettled in Barotse territory. This was done to even those refugees who had been previously kept in places like Luapula. The idea was to corrupt our culture and customs since these resettled refugees felt indebted to the Zambians and would only want to communicate in languages foreign to Barotseland. The Radio Liseli non Lozi songs and programs issue is only another example. A financial support scheme was set up under the same guise of resettlement in order to economically empower naturalized refugees at the expense of the locals. This deliberate tempering with our demographics was done with a future localized referendum in mind when the majority will look negatively at anything to do with the Barotse nation outside Zambia.

The legality of Zambia’s Claim on Barotseland

Barotseland was never originally an integral part of Northern Rhodesia but only became associated with Zambia based on a legal document called the Barotseland Agreement of 1964. When this international treaty was breached by the Zambians, Barotseland was legally free to go it alone. However, our people wanted to do so in a peaceful manner, yet while nursing the possibility of reversing the unilateral abrogation. Barotseland finally accepted the termination on 27th March 2012. However, our previous calls for the restoration of a treaty that never saw the light of day was read as weakness on our part. The Zambians mistook our diplomacy as acknowledgement of our helpless “unity” with them.

One may understand calls for a referendum in a situation where the Agreement was being honored and where some people felt that such a legal co-existence alone was no longer enough. Ours is a situation where one party deliberately decided to get out of the Agreement. Surely the party that is left does not need a referendum to determine whether it is still part of the separated part or not. Zambia left us alone and we must fend for ourselves. This is exactly what the March 2012 Barotse National Council decided to address. There cannot be a Parallel Tabulated Votes (PTV) on that.

Conclusion

We are glad that finally President Lungu has understood the seriousness of the Barotseland issue and our determination to stand on the BNC Resolutions. It is also gratifying to learn that the honourable Zambian President, like his predecessor, also acknowledges the position Barotse activists hold on this matter. We, therefore, take this opportunity to remind His Excellency that whatever talks he hopes to hold with us will not be fruitful while the key players in the matter are still in Zambian prisons. We call upon him to unconditionally release Hon Afumba Mombotwa and the rest Barotse activists in the interest of peace. Their continued incarceration does not help anyone and as such, only makes the bad situation the Zambian Government is in worse. We already passed the time for a referendum in 1969. Now is a time for peaceful disengagement or else the Zambian Government must file its opposition to our independence claim at the International Court of Justice. Mr. Lungu has only a year to act wisely on this issue. As a lawyer himself, he surely cannot handle our justified claim unwisely.

Shuwanga Shuwanga

  • 04
  • Feb

"Luyanas are descendants of Mwambwa while Nkoyas are descendants of Ñoya. Mwabwa and Ñoya were blood sisters, both daughters of the same mother, Noshaa"

I would like to shed light on the genesis of the Nkoya tribal group of Barotseland, in order to disprove the innuendo being peddled that certain tribal extractions are under subjugation of other tribal groupings in Barotseland. This incorrect assumption is being engineered by political stewards who are our brothers and sisters from the group that professes to be of the "Nkoya" extraction which claims not to belong to Lozi nationality. They have argued that Nkoyas are not part of the Barotse-speaking people. According to a Nkoya traditionalist, Robert Litungu.

It is better to explain this issue because the matter is being exaggerated and fueled by forces outside Barotseland who are Zambian politicians aiming at bringing division among the diversified ethnic groupings of Royal Barotseland Kingdom. It is therefore, proper to discuss this matter honestly in order to remove the unnecessary innuendos on this argument. To start with, let us examine who the "Nkoya" people are?

It is stated that the "Nkoya" people are descendants of Sioka Nalinanga and that this argument is not carried forward beyond this level. If you go further, though, you will see that Sioka Nalinanga is a descendant of Ñoya sister of Mwambwa the Luyana founder.

The fact is that the name "Nkoya" was adulterated from the name Ñoya who was a sister to Mwambwa and both of them being daughters of Noshaa.

On the occasion of the death of their mother while residing along the "Loi" River in the present day Congo DR, the first dispersal took place which saw the moving away of notables like Inyunyi, Mbukushu, Yutoya, Ngambwa, Imanga, Kayawe, Nyimbwamoyo, Mbakala and many, many more. The dispersal was ignited by the desire to change leadership from women to men and that there were problems of disposal of the chattels of the departed leader (their mother Noshaa). Notables, among others, like Isimwaa had resisted the idea to replace the leadership from women to men. Following this episode, the first group went away leaving others including Mwambwa and Ñoya with their children.

After sometime, the group decided to take a similar movement which brought them to the present settlement of "Ului" which was derived from the name "Loi" River in present day Congo DR.

While on the trek, incidentally, they found or stumbled on Yutoya while others had gone in different directions, which were later located. During this time, Mwambwa was the leader who was supported by Ñoya and the other people. Ñoya had daughters by the names of Nalinanga and Nolea who later had sons by the name of Sioka and Imatakwana who later became famous and got known as Mange.

Sioka, being a nobleman, was given responsibility to look after the royal regalia during the reign of Mwambwa. In the meantime, Ñoya had moved to settle in a land which became known as Ñoya which is sandwiched between Mwito under Induna (chief) Mayankwa in Lukulu district, Luambuwa under Induna (chief) Kabilamwandi in Kaoma district while the other side is in the area of Sikusi under Induna ( chief) Iloke and Luena / Sitoya under Induna (chief) Sibetta in Mungu district respectively.

The land of Ñoya is eulogized by people who truly confess to be members of the Ñoya stock. As to the position of Sioka, true members of the Ñoya stock, will say:-

" Ami Kankoya ka Shihoka Nalinanga, bantu ba tula mikabo baka kulya nshima kuanga. Ba Mununga, ba nungile mpanda mwilu", meaning, “I am a Nkoya of the line of Sioka Nalinanga, one who eats nshima having climbed a tree".

The differences between the Nkoya people and the rest of Barotse tribes does not arise and is a non issue which should not be politicized. The insinuation of this matter is too dangerous to Barotseland and Zambia as a whole. The BRE is more democratic than the Zambian government. The Zambian government is democratic in theory, but for the past 50 years has marginalized and abused power. Kenneth Kaunda Zambia's first president was a semi-dictator under one party participatory democracy, whatever that means?

Before Zambia’s independence in 1964, the people in Barotseland were voting their Legislative council in power, representing their constituencies. The Litunga does not rule by decree or creed. There is no force.

Also note that the Litunga does not speak. This is how decisions are made and not by the Litunga.

There are three chambers in the Kuta, Bana Ba Malena, Commoners and the Indunas. This is how Barotse Royal Establishment is composed of. Also it is good to note that all tribes in Barotseland are in the governance systems of Barotse Royal Authority (BRA) or Barotse Royal Establishment (BRE) according to Zambian imposition.

The BRA is not intending to go back to the days of slavery and enslave Nkoyas.

As a matter of fact, Litunga was the first African leader to end slavery. The name Litunga ‘Mulambwa’ signifies people should stop slavery but buy and sell dogs instead. This was way back in 1830. Lewanika upheld anti- slavery tendencies.

To add a bit on the relationship between the Luyis’ and the Nkoyas’, Mankoya/Kaoma had also been invaded and subjected to Makololo rule and was only reclaimed by the Luyi impis who wiped out the Makololos.

Makololos are the ones who imposed Lozi language across Barotseland and Mankoya had equally been headed by the Makololo, just like all other ethnic groupings of Barotseland.

This, therefore, should surely explain the connection between Mankoya and the rest of the people of Barotseland. As explained from the historical narration, the Nkoya people are from the root of Ñoya who was a blood sister to Mwambwa, therefore, the children of them are relatives of the same stock.

Finally, the Nkoya people should not violate historical and ethical codes of professional decency, thereby, being untrue to the History of their genesis in Barotseland by allowing themselves to be used by politicians with historical theory mixed with errors and polluted with political propaganda.

Tukongote Litunga Ni lyetu.

Research by Saleya Kwalombota

  • 30
  • Jan

The recent unfolding event where Barotseland provisional government leaders have been committed to Kabwe high court is hard to bear. These are ex-diplomats of another country and it is interesting to note how the accused will be tried in the High court of Zambia without violating the principle of justice. The people of Barotseland and world over should stand to condemn this nonsense. The way the whole issue is handled is like the master- servant relationship and as if Barotseland is a Zambian conquered territory. We don't remember when Barotseland was at war and conquered by Zambia to be under hostage where our people are tossed left and right at Zambian government's discretion. The wonders will never end in this circus of Barotseland autonomy struggle. Zambia on the other hand behaves as if it is innocent in this issue when it is the major culprit, it arrests, detains and drags our people before her courts without condemnation from her citizenry or international community. Where is justice, when the power that may be arrests and subjugate the people of Barotseland and at the same time is the complainant and prosecutor?

One may be confronted with a question of where the once brave and fearless men of Barotseland have gone. The docility being exhibited among elite Lozis is worrying, for how long should we stand and watch our Leaders being bundled up like wastage assets for disposal? The KUTA must also add its voice to push for the agenda that will bring the end to human rights violation. It is immoral for any well meaning Mulozi to ignore any longer the sufferings our activists endure in the hands of Zambian authority. All genuine Activist groups should put off their pride and lay out a genuine plan for Barotseland government take off, while the legal pursuit to overseer disengagement is in process.

Academic freedom fight will take us centuries to actualize our resolve if we ignore effective ways such as protests, rallies and wide spread patriotism. These are no way classified violence activities because our issue is of political nature that requires act of presenting something to sight. The people involved are defenseless and subdued by the armed power that does not recognize what we might consider peaceful approach, by way of engaging international courts.

I would like to borrow the words of former dictator, the president of Zambia Dr. Kenneth Kaunda that when demanding independence from an African power, "use a Gun", but from a White power, use "the Brain". The approach taken so far of using brain is recommendable but does not work well because the power that besieged our territory is African hence the need for game changeover consideration now.

We are dealing with the government that made a position in regard to Barotseland Agreement 1964 as been stale under the late president Chiluba, still the same government under the late president Sata that rubbished the Dr. Chongwe commission of inquiry of 2011 Mungu saga that recommended the restoration of BA64, still the same government that refused to assert signature to have the issue settled at international court, it is the same government that militarized our territory in readiness to hit back at any possible uprising, the list goes on and on. In this regard, it leaves us to conclude that Zambia is not standing for peaceful settlement of Barotseland case.

It is important to note that freedom from decolonization is achieved with the atonement of blood of freedom fighters and freedom is not given on a silver plate but should be demanded by the whole being of human life.

The independence decision was arrived at by the people at the BNC meeting in 2012; the resolutions are biding and the basis for our independence patriots’ power to organize and to legislate in our territory.

What more than this are we still waiting for? Power is synonymous with governance and given to leadership by people, the will of the people is paramount where power is concerned.

Tukongote Litunga Ni lyetu

By Saleya Kwalombota

  • 30
  • Jan

As copied directly from the Zambian Watchdog.

The history on how Zambia was created has remained hidden from the average Zambian through deliberate omission from the school syllabus.

Today even schooled Zambians do not understand why Zambia is called a unitary state or worse still what a unitary state is.

A unitary state is a country that is formed by more than one segment through an agreement or treaty and one common feature of such states is that they can break if the conditions agreed are not observed.

The other formation is a federal state which has similar features and conditions as unitary states. Examples include the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland to which Zambia, (Northern Rhodesia and Barotseland) where part. The Federation broke up because it only benefited the settler interests in Southern Rhodesia.

The third one is a monolithic state formed out of a single entity and some examples are Zimbabwe and Angola, these states are indivisible.

Zambia is or was called a unitary state because it was created out of two separate countries namely the British protectorate of Northern Rhodesia and the British protectorate of Barotseland.

Barotseland became a British protectorate in 1890 and the assurance was conveyed through Lord Knutsford in 1891.

Several assurances were made by the British among them one that read as follows; ‘The Barotse have been assured, repeatedly, that Barotseland is a Protectorate of the Crown, (and) that this status is preserved under the successive Orders-In Council and that they are only part of Northern Rhodesia as an administrative arrangement with safeguards under the Governor representing the Crown.’   

A total of 27 assurances were issued by the British Crown among them 1911 Order-In-Council, the 1924 Order-In-Council, and the 1925 Barotse Fund Ordinance under which a special fund was established to fund the running of the Barotseland Government.

The 1953 Special Order- In-Council assured Barotseland Protectorate status within Northern Rhodesia before it could join the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland

The Orders-In-Council are what culminated in the 1964 Barotseland Agreement because the two countries should have attained independence separately but entered a treaty to form a unitary state which Zambia did not want to respect and abrogated it in 1969 technically abolishing the unitary state of Zambia

What was agreed in this agreement?

Just like single people cannot sign an agreement to divorce yet not married, the Barotseland Agreement was not about Barotseland breaking away from Zambia but was about the two countries co-existing as one under a unitary arrangement with the motto of One Zambia One nation extracted from the Agreement which read;

‘And where as it is the wish of the government of  Northern Rhodesia and the Litunga of Barotseland, his Council and the Chiefs and people of Barotseland that Northern Rhodesia should proceed to independence as one country and that all its peoples should be one nation.’

(One Zambia one nation)

Just as a marriage certificate has no clause for divorce yet there are grounds for divorce if the marriage is not respected, you will not find a clause for secession in the agreement yet there are grounds for breaking or reverting to the previous status if conditions are violated, in this case its Article 70 of the Vienna convention on the law of international treaties which applies.

There is no longer one Zambia one nation without Barotseland because Zambia divorced Barotseland through abrogation of the unity treaty but has held on to Barotseland by force having repeatedly refused to restore the agreement so that the two remain in a unitary arrangement.

The government is aware of the facts and consequences but has kept the Zambian people in the dark. It is for this reason that the Zambian government is scared of having the matter arbitrated by an international body because they know their fate.

Unfortunately for Zambia the matter is now before international bodies and will soon have to explain the truth to Zambians.

The next article will look at the extent of the boundary of Barotseland and whether there is need for a referendum to leave the failed unitary state of Zambia and the position of Southern, North Western and parts of Central Provinces.

Editor's Note: A copy of The Barotseland Agreement 1964 can be found here: http://barotsepost.com/images/important_barotse_documents/The-Barotseland-Agreement-1964.pdf

  • 26
  • Jan

The much anticipated date and event of presidential by-election is past and indelibly inscribed as one of the pages of the annuls of Zambian history. The day has come and gone, leaving among us souls that are either happy with the outcome, dismayed or indifferent to all the euphoria of the presidential by-election. The big question is what next? Of course, to the Zambian political community all minds now focus on the forthcoming general elections of 2016 when the losers hope to do better while winning PF wishes to maintain power in government, using the same election wiles or other means. On the other hand the Zambian electorate looks forward to the blissful days of enjoying the government service deliverables as manifestoed prior to election.

However, it is not in the best interest of this article for me to articulate on the implications of all this on the indigenous Zambian environment and will therefore do well to rest all discourses on the subject matter with the competent Zambian native analysts. My concern is sharing my views with my dear brothers and sister of Barotseland nativity.

We have said it over and over again in this forum that “resistance to change is a fact of human nature.”

Most of our events are characterized by this phenomenon. Our own change agenda is no exception. Without necessarily disparaging our voting rights a number of us voted hopefully to usher UPND into office “for a better united Zambia” as it were.

Unfortunately all hopes and dreams were shuttered when the final result indicated otherwise-that perhaps in God’s time it is not time for HH to take the reins of power in Zambian politics and government. What I also believe in strongly is the notion that God’s time is the best always; in God’s time and plan over the current status quo between Zambia and Barotseland, HH would be the wrong president over wrong people, unless his roots are also from Northern Rhodesia. But as far as I can reminisce history tells me that Namwala, his home area, is part of Barotseland territorial claim. This observation makes it very serious such that other than seeing the election result a failure for UPND and the sympathizers rather it should be reckoned a blessing in disguise and victory for motherland Barotseland.

In other words, the apparent loss perspective implies that there is truth that most of us are still failing to assimilate into our lifestyle. The lesson however, is, unless we seriously come to terms with our present truth and embrace our dear change accordingly we will keep electioneering in Zambia in search for answers which God has long provisioned back home in Barotseland, in our quest for freedom of independence, original statehood and nationhood, as opposed to our former 50 years of freedom of dependence on Zambia. Our neighbor Zambia knows this very well and hence the frantic efforts not allow that folly to transpire. The other lesson from the election result is that there is no more room for Barotzish in Zambian politics because of what we stand for- clearly we were regarded as foreigners who could not be trusted with instruments of power, even when we were fulltime and co-partners in the birthing of Zambia. Even though we still had the residues of the BA ’64 in the Unitary Republic in later years,  history is full of evidence to that effect. Otherwise, why all the fear that “neither Lozi nor Tonga will ever rule Zambia”?  This is one reason I have gleaned from some international Zambia friends.

I find it quite perturbing that outsiders know the truth about our Change agenda and yet Barotse citizens still ignore or flirt away their true identity, in the name of love, peace and unity the very virtues that Zambia is abusing for self-aggrandizement. I hope we will take this hard lesson seriously and rise up to the occasion and take up the challenge in waiting for us ahead, as a new nation. We need to assert our true identity wherever we are; in whatever we are and exude the pride and confidence embodied in our reclaimed citizenship and statehood.

While some are not yet complying, it is worth taking advantage of this platform to acknowledge the many that are conforming in many ways to our very dear cause of total independence from Zambia. WE NEED TO BE PROUDLY BAROTSELAND CITIZENS AS NOBODY ELSE CAN DO IT FOR US. ARE YOU? FOR ME TO LIVE, IT IS BECAUSE I AM A LOZI AND TO DIE IT IS BECAUSE OF WHO I AM, THAT ‘S MY MOTTO, UNTIL I SEE THE FULFILLMENT OF ROMANS 17:26

“And hath made of one blood all nations of men, for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation...!”

My country and I do not exist coincidentally, but God determined beforehand. This is what roots the certainty of our change agenda. In God’s timetable our day of freedom and independence is certain and coming, to dwell in the bounds of our habitation from ‘Nyambe mushemi wa luna, mufi wa naha yaluna, musilelezi wa bana bahae’ .A –M –E –N!!!!

  • 25
  • Jan

As I pull myself together to start punching the key board for this write - up, polling stations across Zambia , including Barotseland by default , are busy counting the ballot papers. This means the dice has been cast and the decision has been made in as far as who takes over the mantle of leadership and the instruments of power in Zambia after the demise of one, Michael Chilufya Sata, MHSRIEP. Mr. Sata became famous for his campaign promise to do ‘ everything ’ in ninety (90) days when he becomes president , the ninety days prior to his replacement on the Zambian ‘throne’ have been characterized by mayhem and frenzy and a s well as so much paradox and inconsistencies as to boggle the mind. No wonder someone ended up wishing to go to the moon until the dust in ‘Zed’ settles down.

Watching from the terraces as Mwana’Mulozi , one can only conclude that indeed , ‘A revolution is not a tea party or an invitation to dinner , it is a violent overthrow of one class by another,’ said Chairman Mao Tse Tung of China . The manner in which presidential candidates traversed the land in search of votes, made it seem like a matter of life and death , no wonder we have seen unprecedented levels of violence prior to the actual voting day. This was due to the heat of the intellectual and moral combat spilling over into physical confrontation and violence in the negative sense. If the Zambia presidential candidates can engage each other so fiercely for an opportunity to go to plot one, let no Mwana ’ Mulozi think we can achieve Barotseland statehood by sitting idle, being armchair critics of those in the forefront and only participating by asking the famous question; “Luzamaela kai?” (How far are we?). There is no way we can move to our desired destination while sited in our ‘ Lazy - man’s rocking chair ’ , ever in motion but going nowhere. Actualizing Barotseland statehood is a serious revolution! It cannot be overemphasized that: ‘A revolution is not a tea party or an invitation to dinner; it is a violent overthrow of one class by another ’. I should not be misunderstood to advocate for violence in the negative sense. There is such a thing as being combative intellectually, morally, legally and using many other non - violent ‘violent ’ means to achieve a desired goal. They called it non - violent civil disobedience in the civil rights movement of America and the velvet revolution in the Arab Spring of most recent years

The ‘Zambian game of thrones’ means almost nothing to Barotseland because it is about another country. It is very unfortunate that it ha s actually extended to Barotseland , which has already decided to separate from the rest of Zambia. The auxiliary value of the current presidential elections to Barotseland is to produce the next occupant of the Zambia state house who has to be engaged on the actualization of Barotseland statehood as soon as he or she is sown in to office . In fact , I do not envy Zambia ’ s sixth president at all because we do not intend to give him or her the luxury of a honey - moon even for a week after the swearing in ceremony . As advocates for the statehood of Barotseland and activists for Barotseland ’ s Right to self - determination, we are in a hurry to actualize the aspiration of the people of Barotseland who strongly BELIEVE in their RIGHT to SELF - DETERMINATION and SELF - RULE

Barotseland issue, which has haunted Zambian politicians of all ages whether they admit it or not. The exchange of opinion and ideas on the Barotseland issue clearly demonstrate that it is a crucial issue that cannot be taken lightly by any sane person that aspires to occupy Zambia ’ s highest office. Sometimes people think that the Barotseland issue in Zambia is a none - issue once they enter in to state house . However, it has been a key election issue especially since the dawn of democracy in a multiparty environment in 1991. It can actually be said that some politicians as crafty and subtle as snakes have used the issue to gain entrance into state house. Let no one be deceived that the Barotseland issue is a none - issue in as far as Zambia is concern ed for it is the foundation of Zambia as a jurisdiction. This time round , it is even more crucial in the wake of the March 2012 Barotse National Council (BNC) resolutions , which have rendered Zambia a failed unitary state when the people of Barotseland finally opted out since she cannot continue to be part o f a union that ha s been trivialized , violated and unilaterally abrogated with scornful impunity by the other party .

Among the current crop of men and one woman running for the office of president for the failed unitary state of Zambia, the one that spoke with so much clarity over the Barotseland issue is Dr Ludwig Sondashi, a constitutional lawyer and native of Kaonde land in what is today called the North - western province of Zambia. I must confess , it felt so relieving and indeed refreshing to hear someone speak with so much clarity about Barotseland’s right to self - determination and self - rule . The learned Sondashi clearly stated among other things that:

  • Barotseland is not a province of Zambia and , therefore , not like any province of Zambia. It was (until 27th March 2012) in fact a state within a state just like it was a protectorate within a protectorate from 1911 to 1964.
  • Zambia cannot be Zambia as we know it without Barotseland and the Barotseland Agreement 1964 on one side and Barotseland cannot be part of Zambia without the Barotseland Agreement 1964 on the other side .
  • The decision as to whether Barotseland should be part of Zambia (upon the restoration of the BA ’ 64 of course) or pursue its own independent statehood (as per the March 2012 BNC Resolutions) is a preserve of the people of Barotseland alone without the interference of the rest of Zambia

The position of Dr. Sondashi is not an afterthought but clearly spelt out in the Forum for Development Alternatives manifesto . What is interesting is that the learned Kaonde man has not been cited for treason or treason felony by the powers that be . Neither has his party been outlawed for being divisive nor his manifesto classified as being seditious material

Another candidate who made his position clear on Barotseland was Dr Nevers S. Mumba , of the Movement for Multi-Party Democracy who , among other things said that he will immediately embark on preparations for a Barotseland exclusive referendum to determine the course to be taken by Barotseland and its people, if elected to be the sixth president of the failed unitary state of Zambia . While other people and activists saw no need for a referendum when the people of Barotseland have already decide to separate from the rest of Zambia through the BNC resolutions, I am glad that the man of God w as conscious enough to at least know that t he Barotse reserve the right to determine their future. After all I BELIEVE the Barotse people are so fade up of the Zambian fallacy that no matter how many times you ask them in whatever form — BNC, referendum or otherwise — their answer is the same — self - determination and self - rule — just as they resolved in the March 2012 BNC resolutions. The other Candidates were mute about the issue except, Eric Chanda, leader for the Fourth Revolution who opened his mouth only to expose his total ignorance about the whole issue.

A number of things come to the fore in my min d at least, as a result of the electioneering debate , among which are :

  1. No Mwana ’ Mulozi from whatever walk of life should ever shy away from speaking freely about Barotseland ’ s Right to self - determination and self - rule or indeed participating in any way possible, from now henceforth because “ IT IS NOT TREASON TO SEEK FREEDOM! ” Dr. Ludwig Sondashi our traditional cousin ’ s example is there for all to see .
  2. Let it be known that it does not matter who wins the race to plot one. The people s of Barotseland are determined to actualize Barotseland statehood.
  3. There shall be no honeymoon or relaxing after the electioneering marathon. Zambia ’ s sixth president must touch the ground running over the issue of Barotseland.
  4. The Barotse people should be prepared to declare to the world at any time and in any w ay, that they BELIEVE IN BAROTSELAND’s RIGHT to SELF - DETERMINATION and SELF - RULE, nothing will change that. No matter how many times they are asked and w h at ever method is used. T he people of Barotseland should demonstrate that they have declared as per the March 2012 resolutions .

The people of Barotseland can hardly wait for the declaration of the sixth president of the failed unitary state of Zambia so as to prepare to lock horns with him or her on the transitional arrangements towards the Barotseland statehood . This is an issue that the past five presidents have not dared to do . By handling this issue he or she will stand up head and shoulder above his or her predecessors - BNFA.INFO

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.