• 10
  • Oct

1.    Immediately after signing the Unitary Treaty BA’64 it was Zambia that repudiated and abrogated it indicating she was repentant of her former act and thus craved for separation and divorce.

2.    Zambia never included the Unitary Treaty BA’64 and its principles in her subsequent constitution meaning that she was not interested in it altogether in consequence to reason no. 1 above.

3.    Zambia was there comfortably and officially represented and never objected as if in relief from the importunate acts by Barotseland for nearly 50 years golden period of futile efforts to reason with Zambian regimes for restoration of the defunct BA’64, during the historic day when Barotseland proclaimed the 2012 BNC Resolutions and ratified the UDI Mandate for total free Barotseland.

4.    Zambia received communiques regarding Barotseland’s new status quo and was given chance according to international law principles to challenge Barotseland’s declared independence but Zambia remained mute and has never challenged it up to now. Silence means consent.

5.    Zambia knows that Barotseland boundaries are equally documented at the world centre in Washington even long before there was a country called Zambia. This is a clear testimony that Barotseland and Zambia are two separate geographic territories, a fact that she cannot refute.

6.    Zambia’s continued mal-interaction with Barotseland monarchy structure (BRE); the persistent preying of Zambia on Barotseland only validates the incompatibility of the once companions of the monarchy and republic government system in the abortive unitary state form.

7.    The continued abuse of BRE by ‘Zambian’ government is a clear testimony that the Royal constitutional monarchy system of government of Barotseland is the best option of administration of Barotseland as RBG. I presume the British opted to give newcomer North Eastern Rhodesian governance political power over Barotseland monarchy in the unitary statehood of Zambia because we lacked a 100% political structure then in Barotseland to also continue enjoying our surrogate protectorate status under Zambia. Zambia should now be ready to face the political counterpart governance function of RBG for amicable disengagement talks, instead of fretting the weaker function of BRE.

8.    Zambia’s 2016 abrogation and repudiation of her constitution is a clear ratification of the abrogation and repudiation of the BA’64 that Barotseland has no trace chance to get back into the rogue union treaty and would be a complete misfit in such a bogus unitary statehood with a partner highly contemptuous of her national and international legal framework.

9.    The voting pattern (5 years after the last 2011 tripartite elections) in the just ended controversial quadripartite election pronounced a blessing in honour of the 2012 Barexit from the failed union of states of former Zambia, in addition to declaring the national and state boundaries.

10.    Against all these reasons ‘Zambia’ has totally failed to demonstrate any valid reason and legal documentation why Barotseland should continue cohabiting with her illegally, given the fact that there is NO GHOST OR MONO UNITARY PARTNERSHIP IN INTERNATIONAL LAWS!

Barotseland could only do so at the very cost of sacrificing her nationality and culture whilst being objects of derision, human, economic and political abuses. Thank God for visionary elders of motherland who rose up to the challenge of the occasion which culminated in the 2012 BAROTSE NATIONAL COUNCIL (BNC) RESOLUTIONS AND UDI MANDATE we wholeheartedly uphold at all cost!

Tukongote wa mwanaa nongolo.

  • 05
  • Oct

 

President Ian Khama’s celebratory mood was dealt a serious blow when his colleagues within the SADC region snubbed the country’s golden jubilee celebrations on Friday. Officials at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation had early in the week refused to state the number of Head of state they were expecting. Only Mozambique and Swaziland were represented by the heads of state while Cuba and Namibia sent their vice presidents and Zambia was represented by the minister of foreign affairs. BOT50 organisers had early this year revealed that they are expecting more than 10 heads of state to attend the celebrations. Botswana, Lesotho, Zambia and Tanzania are the only countries within the SADC region which have gained the golden jubilee status. On Thursday morning, Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe cancelled his trip Gaborone though he had earlier confirmed attendance. His cancellation is seen as arising from the recent utterances by President Khama in which he called for his retirement on basis of old age and failing policies. Khama told Reuters that Mugabe should step aside without delay for the sake of Zimbabwe and the region, comments that "shocked" officials in Zimbabwe. "The government of Zimbabwe is shocked by this uncharacteristic behaviour on the part of President Khama. It is taboo in African etiquette and diplomacy," Zimbabwe's Information Minister Chris Mushohwe said in a statement. "We sincerely hope that this will be the last time Botswana's leader opens his mouth to bad-mouth President Mugabe and fellow African leaders. Why should President Mugabe be removed from office unconstitutionally as President Khama's sentiments seem to suggest?" hit out Mushoshwe.

Zambia, which celebrated their golden jubilee last year, send its Minister of Foreign Affairs Harry Kalaba.  During the Zambian golden jubilee celebrations President Khama delegated former Presidents Ketumile Masire and Festus Mogae. The foreign dignitaries that attended the celebrations included presidents of Mozambique Filipe Nyusi, King Mswati III of Swaziland and King Letsie III of Lesotho. Namibia’s vice president Dr Nickey Iyambo, Cuba’s vice president Mr Salvador Valdes Mesa, Former president of Namibia Hefikepunye Pohamba, former president of Nigeria Gen. Dr Yakubu Gowon and US assistant secretary of state for African Affairs Linda Thomas-Greenfield as well as UK’s Prince Andrew and King Leruo Molotlegi of Bafokeng from South Africa. Some political pundits have said that the snubbing was inevitable as President Khama has failed to attend a lot of Heads of State meeting in Africa and beyond. Political analyst Anthony Morima said the absence of both regional and continental heads of state is a clear indication that Botswana has been absent in the foreign affairs through its head of state. “It shows that our relationship with our fellow African leaders is not cordial as President has seldom visited other countries and or attend both regional and continental meetings,” observed Morima.

NATION CELEBRATES

Meanwhile, Batswana didn’t seem to be affected by those missing from the guest list as they went fully out to enjoy the moment across the country. The country was in a fervent mood as the nation united in celebration of the golden jubilee in grand style. For two days the National Stadium was filled to capacity as people from all walks of life donned in Botswana national colours to enjoy ceremonial proceedings. On the independence eve, the nation broke into song and dance enjoying cultural performance and retreat ceremony by the Botswana Defence Force (BDF). The cultural performance took the crowd through the history of the country – from being one of the poorest in the world to be one of fastest developing in the world. There was deafening silence when an actor mimicked the speech by the first President Sir Seretse Khama made 50 years ago. The engaging drama was well choreographed. It was when they started to narrate the modern history of Botswana that spectators broke into ululations as they related well with the events.

The performance by local artists especially Scar, Franco and Charma Girl, Jeff Matheatau and Maxy took excitement to the highest level. It was Dr Vom’s performance that had everyone on feet; singing and dancing his famous song ‘Tsaya thobane’. Even President Ian Khama danced along. Independence Day celebrations started slowly with a parade by BDF followed by the arrival of the roving torch. The crowd went wild when over 7000 school children performed the Chinese callisthenics showcasing the history of Botswana. BDF Air force raised the bar when their jetfighters flew past; the crowd broke into ululation. In his address to the nation, President urged Batswana to think what they can achieve as nation. “As we celebrate our progress over the past fifty years, let us further contemplate what we can and should achieve if we continue to work together towards overcoming our current challenges, while building a society that delivers a dignified life to all,” he said. He urged the nation to work hard to achieve more.

  • 25
  • Sep

 

Frank Elliot Lochner made several attempts to persuade King Lewanika of Barotseland to sign a concession with him. After extensive consultations within the Kingdom, an assembly of the nation, comprising members of the King’s Council, area indunas, village headmen and ordinary people was convened at Lealui on 27-6-1890 for the signing ceremony.

The signatories were as follows:

Lewanika (the King), Litia, his eldest son and heir to the throne. ( Litia succeeded his father in 1916 as King Yeta III).

Other signatories were Mwauluka, who was Ngambela (Prime Minister), and members of the inner cabinet (Councilors) as follows: Akufuna, Mukulwakashiko, Galibotse, Beunya, Kalonga, Nalishuwa, Namunda, Ingangwana, Lucanana Muwana, Imasikuana, Sikota and Alisheke.

The concession was further endorsed by representatives of regional authorities as follows;

From NALOLO KUTA – SENANGA: Induna Sambi - Administrator and Chief Advisor to the Regent Princess of Nalolo (Senanga), with fellow Councilors Ishee Kwandu, Mukwakwa, Imbuwa, Saywa, Sambiana, Namunda and Mukata.

From LIBONDA KUTA – KALABO: Induna Muleta - Administrator and Advisor to the Resident Princess and a Concillor Munono.

From SESHEKE REGION the following tribal leaders endorsed it; Induna Ratau, Katukula, Tahalima, Mwanamwalye, Nalishuwa, Mulife, Sekombwa, Mukamba (Chief of KAZUNGULA/KALOMO region), Liku (Chief of the NANZWA at WANKIE) Kwenani and Mukwela (of the LINYATI region), Musialela and Munukayumbwa (King’s brothers), and Likokwani (King’s nephew). Lastly, Liatika (King’s Secretary) also put his mark on the document.

The concession permitted the company to prospect for minerals in selected areas of the Kingdom. In return, the company, on behalf of the British government, gave guarantees of protection for the Kingdom and an annual grant of 2000 pounds to be paid in perpetuity.

Frank Elliot Lochner signed for the company with Francois Coillard and Adolph Jalla as witnesses. These two witnesses were missionaries of the Paris Evangelical Mission Society (PEMS), which established its first station at SEFULA (near Mongu) in 1897. They had earned the trust of the King and were entrusted with translating and explaining the implications of the document to the King and Council prior to its signing.

After the conclusion of these concessions, the company administration established fortresses at Fort Jameson (Chipata), Fort Rosebery (Mansa) and Abercon (Mbala). These fortresses were established to check against incursions of the Portuguese from East Africa, the Belgians from the Congo and the Germans from Tanganyika. At this stage the British Central African Protectorate was split into two administrative zones, with Fort Jameson becoming the headquarters for the area surrounded by the new fortresses which was named North Eastern Rhodesia. Zomba remained as the headquarters for the other part, named Nyasaland (Malawi).

Later, apprehensions were expressed regarding the authority of the 15 chiefs who had signed concessions with Joseph Thomson. See The origins of the North Eastern Rhodesian Territory'

In a telegram addressed to Codrington, Administrator of North Eastern Rhodesia, on 15 March 1904, H. Wilson Cox of London Wall Buildings said, inter-a-lia, “Under the Lewanika Concession, our rights to minerals are very clear. But in North Eastern Rhodesia, our rights are founded upon a very large number of contracts made with personages whose existences today are somewhat mythical.

Subsequently, Henry Hamilton Johnston, Commissioner and Consular-General at Zomba, was tasked by Her Britannic Majesty’s Government to enquire into this matter, with a view to settling all land claims within the territories under British influence. In the process, the authority of the signatories to the concessions of North-Eastern Rhodesia was proven unreliable.

In order to remove the ambiguities and uncertainties of the ‘mythical personages,’ Johnston issued certificates of claim in favor of the BSAC dated 25 September 1893 in respect of all land within the areas represented by the 15 chiefs who had signed concessions with Thomson.

Four such certificates were issued as follows;

i) Certificate of Claim “A” covering areas of the present day Central, Lusaka and some parts of Luapula and Northern provinces up to the Luangwa River.

ii) Certificate of Claim “B” covering present day Eastern and some parts of Luapula and Northern provinces.

iii) Certificate of Claim “EF” and “K” covering the area around Mbala and part of Tanganyika (Tanzania) territory.

iv) Certificate of Claim “L”, known as the North-Charterland concession, covered present day Chadiza and Katete districts in the Eastern province.

With these certificates the company and its successors secured direct access to the land without resort to any other authority.

The areas covering present day Zambia’s Copperbelt province together with the land buttressed by the lower part of Kafue River and the lower Zambezi were treated separately by the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

In order to bring a semblance of order in these areas, the British authority requested King Lewanika of Barotseland to hold the lands by establishing control structures within the areas.

The British offered Lewanika mineral royalties as remuneration for this service.

It should be stressed at this particular point that these areas are not necessarily part of Barotseland but were transferred to the Barotse King’s rule for convenience ( in the same manner the territories of Barotseland and Northern Rhodesia were administered under one Governor), in return for specific remuneration.

This ‘transferred area’ and Barotseland make up the territory which was called BAROTSELAND - NORTH WESTERN RHODESIA.

I hope this explains why the boundary of Barotseland under claim does not include Lusaka, Copperbelt and areas east of Kafue National Park and remove innuendoes of boundary orchestrated by enemies of Barotseland.

On the request of King Lewanika, the Company stationed a Resident Representative at Lealui. However, due to hostile conditions of mosquitoes and other water borne ailments, this representative asked to be shifted to higher ground.

Thereupon, he was shifted to Kalomo which became the British administrative center for Barotseland - North Western Rhodesia.

  • 20
  • Sep

 

The recently sworn in but disputed Zambian president, Edgar Chagwa Lungu, has once again put himself up for public scrutiny by declaring that his government will soon start the process of discussing the defunct 1964 Barotseland Agreement.

According to the 19:00 hrs Monday prime time news monitored from Zambia’s national and government broadcaster, ZNBC, Mr. Lungu made the remarks about the dead Barotseland agreement in New York while entertaining scores of Zambians based in the US.

Mr. Lungu is in New York for the United Nations (UN) General Assembly.

This is not the first time he has personally made similar pronouncements over the matter at the sidelines of a major international forum, with the last such pronouncements having been made in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia last year at the sidelines of the African Union (AU) summit meetings early in his presidency.

IS IT TOO LITTLE TOO LATE?

In the run up to Zambia’s disputed 11th August presidential and general elections, Mr. Lungu, with his counterpart, Lubosi Imwiko II of Barotseland, set up a committee of mostly ruling Patriotic Front (PF) party sympathizers and compromised elements from Barotseland who he met at State House in Lusaka to purportedly prepare for the process of negotiations stage managed from State House. This move was widely seen to be an attempt to merely woo Barotse voters who responded by rejecting Mr. Lungu’s electioneering maneuvers. The entire region instead voted for Mr. Lungu’s main presidential challenger Hakainde Hichilema of the United Party for National Development (UPND) in seeming protest to his failure to fulfill earlier public pronouncements made on the matter.

DOES LUNGU MEAN WELL FOR BAROTSELAND?

ABSOLUTELY NOT as far as the majority Barotse are concerned, and the argument is that if Mr. Lungu’s plans towards Barotseland were well-intentioned, he would not be arresting those Barotse who supposedly want the same good intentions for Barotseland. He was indeed going to collaborate with them and listen to them through open and honest dialogue rather than curtailing all dialogue initiated by the major stakeholders, the people, in preference to a selected clique of the ruling elite. Mr. Lungu and his government have instead continued to arrest and imprison all the Barotse that peacefully wish to resolve the 1964 Barotseland agreement conclusively. Therefore, simple logic and common sense proves that his wishes for Barotseland are not the same as the wishes of those he is arresting. It is clearly why he is using everything and everyone he can afford to buy with money to confuse, if not stop the vision for a self-determined Barotseland.

WHAT DO THE BAROTSE PEOPLE WANT?

The Zambian government now want to impose a dead ‘Treaty’ on the people of Barotseland that has long been rejected firstly by Zambia in 1969, and then by Barotseland in 2012, only because international pressure has lately been mounting on Lungu and his Zambian government to peacefully let the Barotse exercise their right of self-determination outside Zambia, after it failed to inure under the abrogated 1964 Barotseland Agreement.

Mr. Lungu’s present efforts have deliberately sidelined and excluded all major stakeholders in Barotseland and senior citizens who have been pursuing the Barotseland case. Some of those notably sidelined are leaders of the independence movement Linyungandambo; Afumba Mombotwa and a couple of his Barotseland transitional government members, who are still serving lengthy prison sentences at Mwembeshi Prison over the same matter that Lungu now wants to discuss with the select ruling party cadres masquerading as Barotseland representatives. Others conspicuously left out of Mr. Lungu’s proposed Barotseland discussion committee are the Barotse National Freedom Alliance (BNFA) headed by former Ngambela Clement W Sinyinda.

However, and according to Mr. Lungu, the process will not be allowed to degenerate into ‘anarchy’ – whatever that means.

IS BAROTSELAND’S CONTINUED ZAMBIAN DOMINATION AN OPTION?

To the people of Barotseland, no solution deviating from the 27th March 2012 Barotse National Council (BNC) which called for the restoration of Barotseland sovereignty will be acceptable as BNC decisions are considered sacred and must be obeyed by all, including the Litunga of Barotseland. The BNC is the supreme and highest policy making body under Barotse governance, and in 2012, the council voted to accept Zambia’s termination of the 1964 treaty which attempted to unite the two British protectorates of Northern Rhodesia and Barotseland to form the unitary state of Zambia. All the major stakeholders in Barotseland are resolute in standing by the unanimous decisions of the 2012 BNC which is also the most representative organ in Barotse governance and represents the consensus of the Barotse nation in the same way a referendum would.

The 2012 decision set Barotseland on an unstoppable trajectory for independence, and some reports indicate that it has started receiving documented bilateral and diplomatic recognition. Therefore, the Zambian government will do well to be cautioned against imposing a ‘solution’ that will not be acceptable to the people of Barotseland, who are already pursuing national and international processes for the peaceful disengagement from Zambia guaranteed under various international laws and politics.

  • 19
  • Sep

 

One great thinker once said an ignorant person is not only a danger to himself but also to the people surrounding him. In this vain I would urge most of those people especially Zambians to just read through this brief article below in order not to become a nescience in the society.

The origins of the North Eastern Rhodesia territory is here explained.

Following the Berlin Conference of 1885 on the modus operand of partition of Africa, the British secured for themselves what became known as the British Central African Protectorate. This territory comprised the land east of the Kafue River including present day Malawi, and it was administered from Zomba.

On 29 October 1889, a Charter was promulgated in England giving birth to the British South African Company Chartered and Limited. This company then went into negotiations for mining concessions in Southern and Central Africa as a consequence of discovery of diamonds in Kimberly, South Africa in 1886. This hunt for concessions was spearheaded by Cecil John Rhodes who sent out two expeditions. One of these, led by Joseph Thomson and Alfred Sharpe went to the British Central African Protectorate while the other, headed by Frank Elliot Lochner, was sent to Barotseland.

The Thomson expedition had an encounter with and entered into concessions with a number of personalities. Whether these were chiefs or not will be decided by the reader. They were as follows:

On 12-5-1890, Mwape-chief of the Lukusasi country. His witnesses were Msoni and Zuza. The company was represented by Thomson with Sharpe as witness. The company paid 40 British pounds for this concession.

On 10-9-1890, Kambwiri - Paramount chief of Kibende, acting in conjunction with an Arab Salim bin Nasser who signed as a witness. 40 British pounds were paid by the company for this concession. The company was represented by Thomson as signatory while Charles Wilson and I.S Grant signed as witnesses.

On 15-9-1890, Katara- chief of Kusa and the Mchinga Mts. He had no witness. 20 pounds paid. Thomson signed for the company with Wilson and Grant as witnesses.

On 22-9-1890, Nansara- Female chief of the Bisa people. She had no witness. 10 pounds paid. Thomson on behalf of company with Wilson as witness.

On 4-10-1890, Chitambo-paramount chief of the Bisa plateau. He had no witness. 20 pounds paid. Thomson and Wilson on behalf of company.

On 11-10-1890, Mshiri- paramount chief of the Baushi country on the east of the Luapula and the Kabende people to the west of the river. No witness. 50 pounds paid. Thomson on behalf of the company.

On 16-10-1890, Kalonga- Sultan of the Eastern Lamba. 50 pounds paid. No witness. Thomson on behalf of the company with Grant and Wilson as witnesses.

On 18-10-1890, Simesi- Sultan of Western Lamba. No witness. 50 pounds paid. Thomson on behalf of company with Grant and Wilson as witnesses.

On 26-10-1890, Mkwemba- Sultan of the Central Lamba. No witness. 60 pounds paid. Thomson for the company with Wilson as witness.

On 6-11-1890, Mshiri- chief of Southern Lamba. 10 pounds paid. No witness. Thomson on behalf of the company.

On 12-11-1890, Chipepo-Sultan of the Lenje, a country occupying the middle basin of the Lukanga river and the upper basin of the Mulungushi river as far south as latitude 140.15 South. No witness. 20 pounds paid. Thomson for the company.

On 22-11-1890, Kanyesha of the south-western country of the Lala people. No witness. 20 pounds paid. Thomson for the company with Wilson and Grant as witnesses.

On 25-11-1890, Chavira- chief of the western Nsenga. No witness. 20 pounds paid. Thomson for the company with Wilson and Grant witnessing.

On 27-11-1890, Chevia and Miembe-chiefs of the Nsenga. No witness. 20 pounds paid. Thomson for company with Wilson and Grant witnessing.

In all these transactions an Arab, Jumah Abubakar, served as interpreter. Whether or not he was fluent enough in the diverse languages of the Bisa, Bemba, Lamba, Lala, Chewa, Lenje etc is a matter of speculation.

  • 19
  • Sep

Our own history has it that Zambia was made up of three distinct territories namely BAROTSELAND, NORTH-WESTERN RHODESIA and NORTH-EASTERN RHODESIA; each one with traceable clear boundary. Of the three the first one to get organised as a political entity, with ANTIQUITY ORIGINS, was Barotseland followed by North-Western Rhodesia by action of LOCHNER TREATY of 1890 between the British Empire and Kingdom of Barotseland. The Barotse Reserve as it appears in some historic records referred to Barotseland reserved for Litunga and his nation and was recognised as a state and nation already  from 1885-1916 during the partition of Africa while the concession areas offered to the BSAC for mineral prospecting, mining and other commercial enterprises formed the territory known as the North-Western Rhodesia. The two territories were amalgamated and brought under the administrative jurisdiction of the British Crown in 1899 by way of an Order-in-Council as BAROTSELAND – NORTHWESTERN RHODESIA. On the other hand, North-Eastern Rhodesia was a newer establishment by BSAC by way of the North-Eastern Rhodesia Order-in-Council of 1900. Furthermore, NORTHERN RHODESIA was established in 1911 by the BSAC for the purpose of bringing the above mentioned territories; Barotseland-Northwestern Rhodesia and North-Eastern Rhodesia under one jurisdiction for administrative convenience.  Forty three (43) years later ZAMBIA was born out the three territories in 1964 by way of the Union Treaty called BAROTSELAND AGREEMENT (BA’64) evidently rather pre-maturely because unfortunately the treaty was repudiated and abrogated long before the signature inks could even dry up! The conclusion here is that it was simply a forced union since the territories were seemingly not really ready for the integration; in the spirit and import of the International Treaty BA’64.

The current circumstances surrounding the three territories formally dubbed as “Zambia” should not be surprising therefore, because Zambia has been in denial for too long and in injury time now, since the expiry of the defunct BA’64. As Zambia begins to fade into a failed state many political analysts now expected that she will do everything available and possible in philosophies of dictatorship to preserve the remnants of her faked “unitariness”, to save her face as well as maintain her status quo, due to her constitutional crisis. But this is purely fighting a wrong battle with most dire consequences. All this could have been avoided if only Zambian successive regimes had been committed and compliant with both her local or national constitutional and International legal frameworks.

To start with history has recorded that the founding republican president Dr. Kenneth David Kaunda became president whilst a foreigner, overtaking native politicians likes Litunga Mwanawina Lewanika III in Barotseland, Simon Kapwepwe, Harry Mwanga Nkumbula, and others from North-Eastern Rhodesia and North-Western Rhodesia respectively. He only became a Zambian citizen in 1971! Since his time the politics of abrogating constitutional principles, overtaking others and disregarding legal frameworks became the norm, climaxing into the present awful anarchic scenario. Therefore, the 2016 political landscape is nothing new but a consummation of the half century political saga, this part of Africa.

The Bible states in John 18:14 and I quote “Now Caiaphas….. gave counsel to the Jews that it was expedient that one man should die for the people “[KJV]. When uttering these words the High Priest Caiaphas actually did not know that his evil scheme to kill the man Jesus would be a blessing in disguise consistent with the plan of redemption for the salvation of all willing members of the whole race of mankind in both Testament dispensations! Unmistakeably, that was the paradox of it all for they were fighting the wrong battle. I find a similar parallelism of this fact in “DUNUNA REVERSE” – really going by the prevailing political atmosphere it is beyond doubt that Zambia must reverse to her individual territories before 1964. I find this turn of events quite unfortunate for the proponents and engineers of Dununa Reverse because it has a contradictory message in favour of what they did not expect. It is a continuation of the legacy of fighting wrong battles and as it were a can of worms has instead been opened! Fortunately, it is the only way forward now, in my view, and following the “F.I.F.O.” principle of First-In-First-Out of the failed unitary statehood. With Barotseland having opted out first as Barexit in 2012 and it will not be surprising also to see North-Western Rhodesia territory start her exit crusade from the failed unitary state of Zambia. Obviously, North-Eastern Rhodesia will have no choice but to opt out and accept her own mess and have a chance to experience real peace thereafter, contrary to the bogus peace preached for the past half century. That will be the beauty of fighting own battles all together by the former Zambian territories! And so, it is ‘Dununa Reverse’ in the following withdraw order from 1 to 3, at complete disintegration:

1.    Barotseland (Royal Kingdom transformed to democratic/Constitutional form in 2012)

2.    North-Western Rhodesia (Concession Areas between Barotseland & North-Eastern Rhodesia)

3.    North-Eastern Rhodesia

The stage 4 and 5 which formed an important role in the formation of Unitary Zambia are now irrelevant and overtaken by the political imperatives owing to the defunct BA’64 and the consequent failed unitary statehood of Zambia.

4.    Northern Rhodesia (Barotseland North-Western Rhodesia + North-Eastern Rhodesia)

5.    Zambia (Unitary State premised on Barotseland Agreement of 1964 – BA’64).

All along Barotseland continued to enjoy her British protectorate and autonomy status but trouble started at stage five (5) above, when Kenneth Kaunda appeared on the political arena!

There is no need now to remerge with any territory for once beaten twice shy. Each territory has enough resources to render them viable politically and economically. What may be lacking in one country creates room for international trade with those who have according to the economics of competitive advantage and comparative advantage. So where is the problem I ask?

The opposition on the other hand has equally been caught fighting a wrong battle for their slogan Zambia Forward seems to resonate better with the out dated slogan of One Zambia One Nation against the ordeal that they cannot rule Zambia because they are not Zambians. Hence justifications of calls by North-Western Rhodesians for further mutilations of the former nation of Zambia, as Zambia gets poised to experience a second ‘seismic wave’ of further separation this time by the North-Western Rhodesians gaining momentum and impetus by the prevailing political environment in that territory. It happened in the history of Europe and I wonder if this could be a truism of what we find in Daniel 2:43 “And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay” [KJV]. Besides the slogan of One Zambia One Nation inter-marriages (, mingling ourselves with the seed of men) also has been tried to cleave the three territories but to no avail like mixing iron and clay shall not cleave one to another.

In a nutshell, we need to learn lessons from the separation of the constituent states and nations of the former USSR and others which disagreed and agreed to separate amicably, and realised after all that life is still normal even after political disengagement from each other. We are not the first ones to be affected by intermarriages and the like.

Against all this background I wish to state unambiguously that it is dangerous for anyone to keep fighting wrong battles. Time has come for us as Barotzis to fight our own battle. The initial Barexit needs the second phase which involves the aggressive ascertaining of who we are wherever we are as Barotzish in concluding Barotse Change. For instance, who said that to speak Silozi is tribalism when Silozi is not a tribe just like English is not a tribe! This fact is a cause for concern, patriotism and nationalism among all Lozi tribes (Barotzis) wherever we are! Most of our people have been ardent speakers of other languages even on Barotseland soil for fear of being labelled tribalist! WE NEED THE SECOND PHASE OF BAREXIT TO OPT OUT OF THE “TRIBALISM” LABEL, EXUDE THE BAROTSE CHANGE AND SHOW THE WORLD THAT IT IS NOT TRIBALISM TO EAT OUR LOZI FOOD BUT NATIONALISM; IT IS NOT TRIBALISM TO SING OUR NATIONAL ANTHEM BUT PATRIOTISM AND NATIONALISM; IT IS NOT TRIBALISM TO DRESS OR  WEAR BAROTSELAND ATTIRES BUT NATIONALISM AND PATRIOTISM; IT IS NOT TRIBALISM TO WALK THE BAROTZISH WALK BUT NATIONALISM AND PATRIOTISM; IT IS NOT TRIBALISM TO WRITE AND READ ABOUT BAROTSELAND BUT NATIONALISM AND PATRIOTISM; IT IS NOT TRIBALISM TO DANCE TO LOZI MUSIC BUT NATIONALISM AND PATRIOTISM; LAST BUT NOT THE LEAST, IT IS NOT TRIBALISM TO SPEAK OUR SILOZI WHEREVER BECAUSE BEING LOZI IS NOT A TRIBE BUT NATIONALISM AND NATIONAL LANGUAGE, NOT NATIONAL TRIBE JUST LIKE ENGLISH IS NOT TRIBE. We can go on and on to show why we have every reason to be proudly Barotseland citizen, demonstrate the beauty of fighting your own battle and supporting our Royal Barotseland Government and national programmes. This has been the passion behind our story of Barotse Change articles since 2013. It has been all about you and me being true to self and converting from the beguiling guile and leaven of ‘Zambianism’ to purely Barotzish mindset because that is what we are. Remember, “if you cannot do great things, do small things in a great way” Napoleon Hill, and Vidal Sassoon once said “The only place where success comes before work is in the dictionary.” So, do something about Barotse Change no matter how big or small. It is BAREXIT second and final phase. The beauty of fighting your own battle is that the truth shall vindicate you and set you free!

TUKONGOTE, LITUNGA NI LYETU!

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.