More questions have arisen on why we do not just CLAIM the current entity called ‘Western Province’ of Zambia. “Surely it would be easier to claim that (western province) and maybe the Zambian government would more easily release it to you, SELFISH Lozis, rather than this greedy demand for BUTOKA and BULOVALE,” argued someone, followed by the usual unprintables we are now so accustomed to receiving.
POINTS OF NOTE.
Barotseland is NOT breaking away from Zambia. It is merely REVERTING to her status as it WAS before the Barotseland Agreement of 1964, because the current CLAIM for Barotseland independence is born out of Zambia’s abrogation of the 1964 pre-independence agreement. Zambia is the PARTY that BROKE AWAY. Not Barotseland!
Secondly Barotseland’s CLAIM is a LEGITIMATE claim PURSUED through LEGAL means rather than, say, through Military Campaigns, where one gets what they conquer. In a LEGAL claim you will rely on your LEGAL entitlements or what you think they are.
LEGALLY speaking ‘western province’ is NOT a party to the AGREEMENT of 1964 which was abrogated. So how can Zambia’s WESTERN PROVINCE even be a point of discussion in this LEGAL contest? The agreement was between BAROTSELAND and NORTHERN RHODESIA aka ZAMBIA, under the auspices of BRITAIN also as a PARTY and BENEFICIARY.
HISTORY OF WESTERN PROVINCE IN ZAMBIA.
The current province known as Western Province of Zambia was created by Zambia’s first president Kenneth Kaunda sometime after 1969, all in the effort to obliterate Barotseland, pretty much the same way Zambia’s fifth republican president Michael Sata created Muchinga province of Zambia. Both are born out of GOVERNMENT POLICY. Government policy is bound to change from time to time. For instance if I, Sibeta Mundia became president of Zambia, I could very well decide to influence change in current government policy (or even dictate, as this seems normal in Zambia), that both Muchinga and Western provinces be renamed or dismembered. Now such changes would be mere GOVERNMENT POLICY, which the next government may not necessarily uphold. It is as simple as drawing a government Gazette and it is DONE!
STATE TERRITORIES (whether sovereign or subservient as in the case of FEDERATED countries such as USA or UNITARY states such as Zanzibar/Tanzania or Barotseland/Zambia), however, cannot be changed by GOVERNMENT POLICY. If for example President Edgar Lungu of Zambia thinks it is a good idea to have Victoria Falls town of Zimbabwe (another state territory) joined with Livingstone on the Zambian side (for now), he cannot just DRAFT a government Gazette to combine it with Livingstone and make it a PART of Zambia. That would be considered ILLEGAL OCCUPATION or INVASION of foreign territory (ANNEXATION), which could land Zambia at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) or TRIGGER a bloody WAR with Zimbabwe.
So TECHNICALLY and LEGALLY the creation of ‘Western province’ in Barotseland territory did NOT alter the ACTUAL state borders of Barotseland. In fact, if anyone wants to declare WESTERN PROVINCE or MUCHINGA PROVINCE independent from Zambia, it will be rightly considered ‘SECESSION’ and one would probably NOT use the COURTS for such a CLAIM. MILITARY conquest or a demand for a referendum from the PARENT country may be a more FEASIBLE option than LEGAL recourse.
Therefore, while Butoka was given to Northern Rhodesia, for administrative purposes ONLY, (the Butoka NEVER at any time declared independence from Barotseland. In fact as will show later, they protested being ruled under the Northern Rhodesia government, pledging loyalty to the Litunga and Barotseland), Balovale District on the other hand was given to Northern Rhodesia via a government Gazette of 1941 preceded by a Commission of Inquiry. SEE here: http://barotsepost.com/images/important_barotse_documents/balovale_despute_1941.pdf So, ideally this should not alter the STATE boundaries of Barotseland because while a government Gazette can’t change state boundaries in the latter case, Zambia disinherited herself of Butoka through the abrogation of the Barotseland Agreement 1964, which being the successor TREATY to Lewanika Concessions and all other treaties SUBSISTING between Barotseland and Britain. Of course the issues that led to the petitions of the BALOVALE to the extent that a huge part was set ‘FREE’ from Barotse rule MUST be considered. So, the CLAIM for BULOVALE or parts of it is on FIRM legal ground.
CHUNDU NATIVE COURT PREFERRED BAROTSELAND TO NORTHERN RHODESIA ADMINISTRATION.
It may interest many BUTOKA people to know that in fact Chief Sekute (Kazungula) and all Leya Chiefs and their people of CHUNDU native court, in charge of the large part of BUTOKA actually did protest the administrative changes that put them under Northern Rhodesia administration as they preferred to be ruled DIRECTLY under the LITUNGA of Barotseland and his government. In their letter of PROTEST dated 29th December, I96I, and addressed to the DISTRICT Commissioner at Kalomo, with copies to The Provincial Commissioner, they directly told the Commissioner that they did not want to be administered through Northern Rhodesia government but rather through the Litunga’s government. (A copy of that letter is reproduced below.) It is, therefore, expected that the BATOKA people will GLADLY wish to be Barotseland CITIZENS without much DOUBT, and must be given that first opportunity. Should they NOT, their discontent will be entertained by the Barotseland government on merit using Barotseland laws. This situation may also APPLY on the people of BULOVALE.
It is also expected and hoped that BAROTSELAND will be one of the BEST governed countries in Africa and the world. This humble assumption is based on the FACT that when others have OPTED to use military means to attain their INDEPENDENCE, Barotseland wishes to use LEGAL and PEACEFUL means to achieve her independence. It may just well be the first country on earth in present TIMES to gain independence using LAW rather than WAR.
So, what we are saying is that you can’t simply go to COURT, say ICJ, and claim WESTERN PROVINCE which does not exist as a STATE territory. Western Province is Kenneth Kaunda’s CREATION, which we dare say he created ILLEGALLY, maybe because he was ill advised to think that he NOW had the power to do so. But his action was in DIRECT violation of the Barotseland territorial integrity. It could, however, be tolerated superficially if the Barotseland Agreement 1964 had been in force, although even then it would be a LEGAL blunder that would haunt him later. BEFORE the current entity was named WESTERN province, the current COPPERBELT with parts of North Western Province is what was known as ‘Western Province’. He first named it Barotse Province, and then finally got rid of that ‘Barotse’ factor to name it western province.
Finally, in the notion of ‘REVERSION’ Barotseland goes BACK to what it was before the AGREEMENT of 1964. This territory, unlike ‘western province’, is a more solid LEGAL claim, because Barotse people are more easily able to identify and prove LEGALLY what entity the Barotseland under CLAIM is. All COUNTER claims from quarters outside of Barotseland MUST have to be proved in competent international COURTS of law. Future internal challenges or discontent, if ANY, will be handled by the Barotseland GOVERNMENT.
Demanding the independence of WESTERN PROVINCE from Zambia would be ILLEGAL and rightly deemed SECESSION, and can ONLY be pursued by MILITARY action or FORCED demand for Zambian SPONSORED referendum, WHILE a demand for BAROTSELAND independence is PERFECTLY Legal and SECESSION does not APPLY as it is Barotseland’s right to revert to pre-agreement STATUS, now that the Barotseland Agreement of 1964 is a DEAD issue in the eyes of BOTH Zambia and Barotseland.
Recently a respectable Zambian constitutional lawyer stunned the Zambian audience when he stated on National Television; ZNBC, MUVI TV and popular radio station Phoenix when he said that Barotseland could separate from Zambia and it wouldn’t be secession! To this day, Zambia police have never questioned or arrested Dr. Ludwig Sondashi for this because they knew that he simply knew what he was saying as a CONSTITUTIONAL law expert and former government officer in first, second and third presidents’ government to the highest level of CABINET minister.
Editor’s Note: The foregoing are Sibeta Mundia’s personal opinions. They are NOT necessarily representative of the Royal Barotseland Government’s Legal Positions on the subject under discussion.
ADDITIONAL READING MATERIAL
CHIEF SEKUTE AND THE CHUNDU NATIVE COURT PETITION GOVERNMENT TO JOIN BAROTSELAND PROTECTORATE CONSTITUTION TREATIES
Copy of ORIGINAL PETITION HERE: http://barotsepost.com/images/important_barotse_documents/chuundu_native_court_chief_sekute.pdf
Chundu Native Court,
P.O. Box 48.
29th December, I96I.
The District Commissioner,
1. We, the Leya Chiefs, and our people, have the honour to write and submit our Petition, to the Government through you, in which we ask to join the Barotseland Protectorate Constitution Treaties, as has been the case long before.
2. As far as we can remember the Treaty of the 25th June 1891 which King Lewanika signed with Sir Robert Thorne Coryndon, at the Victoria Falls, and the 1910 Treaty of Concession with Colonel Fair in Livingstone were both attended by our fore-fathers.
This meant that they were all King Lewanika’s subjects as those In Barotseland Protectorate, who are still enjoying the rights and privileges of the protection of Her Majesty, the Queen.
3. To give more detail, that is why King Lewanika had to travel a long distance to come down here in order to protect our country under the Treaties.
4. We have a strong; belief and confidence that the Litunga and His Government (Barotse Native Government) will gladly accept us and care for us in the same way as it was in the past, if only the Territorial Government allows us to join the Protectorate.
We have the honour to be,
Your most humble and obedient servants,
Signed: Chief Sekute
The Provincial Commissioner
To declare independence of any territory, it must be expressly determined the extent of the territory under CLAIM, without any ambiguity.
Thus; the interim Barotseland government’s letter of legal suits to the Zambian government quoted the 2012 Barotseland Emancipation Act and Restoration Order 2012, part 1 article 1.2 which states the following on the boundaries of Barotseland currently under CLAIM:
"The National territory of the Kingdom of Barotseland in the meantime shall consist of the whole territory of Barotseland as it was from 1900 to 1947, without taking areas that were regarded as her subject or dependent territories into consideration; that is, its Eastern boundaries shall stretch from Itezhi-Tezhi to the confluence of river Chiababi with Zambezi (longitude 26 degrees East) and Northern boundaries shall stretch from the confluence of Lufupa river with river Kafue, Westwards to the Lungwebungu river, (longitude 22 degrees East). The boundary on the west shall start from Lungwebungu river (Latitude 13 degrees 28 minutes South) then Southward to Cuando river, down to the confluence of Cuando with river Luiana extending to Katima Mulilo Rapids, running along the Zambezi, Eastward to its confluence with river Chiababi (longitude 26 degrees East)”. END.
THE ABOVE CLAIM ROUGHLY AFFECTS FOLLOWING ZAMBIAN DISTRICTS - note: (The use of 'Zambian' as they may be called something else under Barotseland)
Kazungula, Livingstone, Kalomo, Itezhitezhi, Namwala, Mumbwa, Kaoma, Kabompo, Zambezi, Chavuma, Lukulu, Kalabo, Mongu, Senanga, Shangombo and Sesheke.
This present CLAIM, however, mantains the Barotseland borders with Angola, Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe as they are, currently.
Should there be any counter CLAIM over the stated territory, as a civilized society, Barotseland will do what all civilized societies do; seek international ARBITRATION. The matter will be handed over to relevant international courts for determination where proof of CLAIM of such territory will be presented.
However, it must be stated that Barotseland is adequately prepared to DEFEND her CLAIM of the stated boundary in any independent court on earth, as this will not be the first time in history that the borders of Barotseland will be subject of international court of Arbitration, the other having being the one between Britain and Portugal at the arbitration of the King of Italy in 1903-1905. See a copy THE BAROTSELAND BOUNDARY CASE (GREAT BRITAIN, PORTUGAL) ruling for your further reading here: http://barotsepost.com/images/important_barotse_documents/The-Barotseland-Boundary-Case.pdf
Any one or any groups of people that may not wish to belong to the above claimed Barotseland territory will be given the opportunity to repatriate to Zambia or stay in Barotseland as foreigners complying with the prevailing Barotseland laws. Conversely, Barotse people currently in Zambia who will chose Barotseland citizenship will be given the opportunity to repatriate to Barotseland or stay in Zambia as foreigners complying with the relevant Zambian laws.
The Barotse National Freedom Alliance, too, in their April 2015 position statement served to the Zambian president also collaborated with the interim Barotseland government position on boundaries above, with an extended elaboration worth considering;
"The territory of Barotseland, currently under claim, shall comprise all the areas that immediately before mid - night 23rd October 1964 were comprised in the former Barotseland Protectorate as defined by the Northern Rhodesia (Barotseland) Order - in - Council of 1953 and 1963 and the Lewanika Concession of 1909 relating to the area covered by the Kafue National Park up to the Kafue river, together with other areas as may from time to time be declared as such, subject to inhabitants’ consent."
The boundaries of Barotseland have been put in two settings; the first being Barotseland without the areas covered by the Lewanika Concessions and the other is of Barotseland as existed before the said Concessions.
Barotseland with concessions, comprised in the former Barotseland Protectorate, is free to proceed to full statehood because it arose out of the reserved territory (the Barotse Reserve) which was precluded from ruler ship of the colonial authority by King Lewanika's concessions. This is why it later acquired the status of protectorate within the protectorate of Northern Rhodesia to emphasize its self - governing status. This status was maintained by the Barotseland Agreement 1964, the only link between this territory and the Zambian government, and its termination freed the former to become a separate state with fully fledged government structures.
The Barotseland existing prior to concessions takes care of the provisions of the 1900 and 1909 concessions as well as the Balovale excision of 1941. The Lewanika Concession of 1900 (copy here: http://barotsepost.com/images/important_barotse_documents/Lewanika-Concessions.pdf ) placed the Butoka territory to the south and north - east of Sesheke district into the hands of the colonial administration of Northern Rhodesia while the 1909 Concession did the same to the areas north and east of the Barotse Reserve. BY VIRTUE OF THE BAROTSELAND AGREEMENT 1964, THE ZAMBIAN GOVERNMENT INHERITED THESE CONCESSIONS, AND BY VIRTUE OF UNILATERAL TERMINATION OF THAT AGREEMENT, THE SAME GOVERNMENT DISINHERITED ITSELF OF THE SAID CONCESSIONS AND THE SUBJECT AREAS.
The areas under concessions remain the property of the Litunga and their fate is to be determined by the Barotse government, upon formal constitution of Barotseland as an independent state. There are, of course, different options in which these areas may be claimed as dictated by their current geopolitical status.
1. The Butoka area comprises the present districts of Kazungula, Livingstone, Kalomo, Itezhi - tezhi and Namwala. These are populated areas and it goes without saying that the inhabitants thereof have a say on what happens to the territory. Therefore, Barotseland's reclaim of these areas can only be sustained if the concerned people choose to go that way through a referendum restricted to them only [Organized by the Barotse government, and if there is contention by the inhabitants of these area]. These are areas that are covered by the 1900 concession.
2. The 1909 concession is in regard to the Kafue National Park as lying west of the Kafue River. Here there are no people to consult over its return to Barotseland, save for a few poachers who have no right to be in the area. Therefore, this area's return to Barotseland is immediate and straight forward. There can be no valid counter claim by anyone.
COPPERBELT, CENTRAL AND LUSAKA PROVINCES
Meanwhile, the matter relating to the areas comprised in the Copperbelt, Central and Lusaka Provinces needs to be understood within the context of which they became part and parcel of the territory of the former Barotseland - North western Rhodesia. THESE AREAS WERE TRANSFERRED TO THE SUZERAINTY OF KING LEWANIKA BY THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONVENIENCE, AFTER DETERMINING THAT THE ARRANGEMENT WAS BETTER THAN PLACING THEM UNDER NORTH - EASTERN RHODESIA OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, CREATING A THIRD JURISDICTION CALLED ‘ NORTH - CENTRAL RHODESIA ’.
The linkage of these areas with Barotseland is, therefore, via the agreements that the British government signed with King Lewanika, which agreements were succeeded by the Barotseland Agreement 1964.
In state territory TRIBE is not an issue. There is NOTHING like we are English, Bembas or Nkoyas, or Tongas, or Lundas, or Mbundas, etc. The Kingdom of Royal Barotseland is a Multi-cultural, Multi-ethnic, Multi-party Democratic Constitutional Monarchy that will adhere to good governance and a strict observance of the same Human Rights that she is relying on to CLAIM their right of Self-Determination. What will matter, therefore, is does one wish to live in Barotseland as a citizen or as an alien?
Any complications and challenges that may arise will be resolved by the Barotseland government using Barotseland laws.
By Sibeta Mundia
A Barotse National Council (BNC) is the climax of a national decision making process in Barotse governance whose decisions reign supreme, and will remain binding on all institutions and peoples of Barotseland. It has no meeting schedule but only called upon when a critical national decision must be made by the entire Barotse nation, similar to a national referendum.
It is the most representative, most inclusive and most decisive. It involves every tribe, chief, man and woman at village, district and regional level of Barotseland. It is in every sense a ‘National’ referendum in as far as Barotseland is concerned, and MUST be considered the VOICE of all the people of Barotseland. Those waiting for the VOICE of the Litunga, particularly in this matter should know that, in Barotseland, the voice of the people of derived through BNC is automatically that of the Litunga.
When, therefore, In March of 2012, the Barotse National Council duly called and appointed by the Litunga in accordance with Barotseland tradition, and with representation of people who came from across Barotseland, resolved that Barotseland had finally accepted the repudiation of the Barotseland Agreement 1964 by the Government of Zambia, and inter alia that Barotseland no longer wished to be part of Zambia but resolved instead for its people to exercise their own right to self determination as an independent nation, it must be understood for all intents and purpose, that this was a YES vote for Barotseland independence similar to that which would be passed in a national referendum.
PROCEDURE AND COMPOSITION OF A BAROTSE NATIONAL COUNCIL
As previously mentioned, the supreme source of authority in Barotseland is the Barotse National Council. Not the chiefs (Silalo Induna), Lord Princes (The Privy Council) and not the Litungaship (Monarch) which in Barotseland is largely POLITICALLY NEUTRAL, and would automatically enforce the decision of the BNC.
The Barotse National Council is duly summoned by the Litunga. It, however, would always be preceded by similar meetings at village, district and regional level to discuss the same questions, and then appoint delegates to accompany the village headmen, district and regional chiefs to the national meeting.
The National Council would then meet with representations of thousands of delegates representing the express views of every member of the population as collected from the household, village, district and regional levels.
A decision thus made at the National council would be rightly termed as collective or indeed national. It can never be the views of a select few, or disgruntled elements of the Barotse society. Neither can it be attributed to a single tribe, chief, Lord Prince nor the Litungaship. No tribal grouping or chief can exclude themselves from the decision made at the BNC as all their views would already have been considered at Village, District or Regional level, as you will see in the concluding chapter below.
BAROTSELAND NATIONAL COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 26TH – 27TH 2012
The latest Barotse National Council met on 26th and 27th March 2012 at Limulunga, expressly to consider the situation and future of Barotseland in regard to the ABROGATION and REPUDIATION by Zambia of the Barotseland Agreement of 1964.
This too was a meeting duly summoned by the Litunga, and was therefore regularly held. It too was preceded by similar meetings at village, district and regional level to discuss the same questions, who then appointed delegates to accompany the village headmen, district and regional chiefs to the national meeting. When this National Council met there were in excess of 50, 000 delegates present, and every member of the population had had his or her opportunity to express their views.
Additionally, the government of the republic of Zambia was formally represented at the national council by the highest governmental officers in the western province. All Zambia intelligent and military security wings were also represented at highest levels. The government of the Republic of Zambia also provided logistical support to the 2012 national council meeting as proof of official endorsement.
Foreign dignitaries, their excellences ambassadors and high commissioners accredited to the Republic of Zambia were equally present or represented, as the Barotse National Council resolutions were read out by the reigning Ngambela who acted as chairperson of the council.
Chief amongst the Resolutions passed were the following:-
a) We now inform Zambia and the international community that we finally accept the unilateral nullification and the abrogation of the Barotseland Agreement 1964 by the Zambian government, WHICH ACTION HAS FREED Barotseland from being part of Zambia.
b) In line with the post liminium doctrine WE CAN NO LONGER BE OBLIGED TO HONOUR an International Agreement that the other party has nullified and abrogated, WHICH HAS REVERTED US TO OUR ORIGINAL STATUS. (pre-agreement status)
c) We the people of Barotseland declare that BAROTSELAND IS NOW FREE, to pursue its own self-determination and destiny.
d) We are committed to a PEACEFUL DISENGAGEMENT WITH THE ZAMBIAN GOVERNMENT in the same manner that we attempted integration as a state within Zambia.
e) The Zambian government to IMMEDIATELY REFRAIN from committing actions of violence and intimidation against the people of Barotseland.
f) The Barotse Government should immediately formalize the DECLARATION OF DISPUTE with the Zambian Government on the basis that the Zambian Government has violated and unilaterally abrogated the Unity Treaty whose purpose was to bind the two territories of Barotseland and the rest of Zambia, and also notify the SADC, AU, Commonwealth and United Nations of that fact.
g) The people of Barotseland SHALL EXERCISE THEIR RIGHT TO REVERT BAROTSELAND TO ITS ORIGINAL STATUS AS A SOVEREIGN NATION, so that the people of Barotseland shall determine their POLITICAL, CULTURAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT”.
The referendum through BNC of 2012, having decided YES vote to the Barotseland independence question above, concludes the matter on Barotseland leaving Zambia. As such Zambia can no longer put the Barotseland question to their ‘own’ national referendum, as they have proposed elsewhere. It would simply be a sheer waste of their time and meager resources because Zambia now stands as a country foreign and separate to Barotseland. Besides, Zambia technically disinherited herself of all legislative rights over Barotseland the moment they repudiated and abrogated the Barotseland Agreement in 1965 - 1970. Of course the total death of the Barotseland Agreement 1964 was with the eventual acceptance of its abrogation by Barotseland herself in 2012.
Therefore, should there be any further need for national referendum, as I expect there will be, these will be held under the auspices of the new Barotseland government which will be constituted under Barotseland laws and norms.
By Sibeta Mundia
The adoption of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights marked a new beginning in Africa’s history where Human rights are concerned. The nature of most leadership in African states is either authoritarian or perversion of democracy. The sanctity and legitimacy of any human rights system depends on its effectiveness in protecting and promoting respect for and observance of human rights guaranteed by various international instruments. Thus most international human rights instruments do not stop at establishing norms; they also incorporate mechanisms for supervision and adjudication of individual complaints, where appropriate as locus for the enforcement of human rights.
A closer observation at Zambian's submission as a respondent to the African commission on Human and people's rights is nothing but a shame going by argument advanced by Zambia on the admissibility of the case as tabulated in Zambia's eight page document.
Barotseland as a victim of Human rights violations has exhausted local remedies to redress the restoration of the Barotseland Agreement 1964 and feels that there has been no adequate or appropriate redress. In principle Barotseland should not have unfettered access to a supranational mechanism of Zambian state mechanism that has no agenda for respect of rule of Law. Barotseland's initiating complaint at African commission is a just step in seeking impartial justice. This is indeed the underlying principle that animates international human rights law.
However, noted questions in the protocol about the relationship between the Court and the Commission in such cases to be referred by the Commission also not clear whether this is a certificate for the creation of a two-tier system of adjudication. It appears that only the Court’s procedural rules and practice may answer some of these questions such as whether there are any indicia for the category of cases that qualify for referral to the Court arise; At what stage should the Commission refer a case, and if referred after a decision on admissibility, should the Court still consider the question? Can the Court refer back a case submitted by the Commission as contemplated by Article 6(3) of the Protocol? Does the Commission become functus officio upon referring a case, or does it have a role in the proceedings? Etcetera.
Although article 55 only provides that the Commission shall consider communications other than those of State Parties, the interpretation of the article and the practice of the Commission, evolving and culminating in article 114(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission, now repealed, has seen the granting of locus standi to individuals and organizations including non-African NGOs. See C. A. Odinkalu, ‘The Individual Complaints Procedures of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights: A Preliminary Assessment,’ (1998). Advisory Opinion OC5/85, Series A. No. 5, 86 (1985), at para. 25, available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr
It follows that in order to offer justice to all, international and regional human rights mechanisms must be accessible to all players in the equation of enforcement, which the Zambian government denied Barotseland for 50 years with intimidations, arrests and deaths, confirmed with the Barotseland Activists still in custody at Mwembeshi state prison and four others detained in Zambian controlled courts across Barotseland territory.
It is a well known fact that Zambia is generally unwilling to surrender or succumb to structures and processes that would pin it down to international scrutiny. However, it is Barotseland's desire to exit from a Zambian regime by exposing it on the radar screen of international law for scrutiny.
Zambian’s argument over its abrogation of BA64 is that the Agreement came into force in 1964 before the period of the application of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights which entered into force in 1986. Zambia went further quoting Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969, Article 28 that states,
"Unless a different intention appears from the treaty or is otherwise established, its provisions do not bind a party in relation to any act or fact which took place or any situation which ceased to exist before the date of the entry into force of the treaty with respect to that party"
Zambia misguided itself because the African commission adopted the AU chatter of 1946 that existed before the BA64. The commission has the right to adjudicate or refer to other human rights convention as indicated Under article 61 of the Charter, the Commission is enjoined to take into consideration other sources and principles of international law only as subsidiary means of interpretation. Article 61 states that;
" The Commission shall also take into consideration, as subsidiary measures to determine the principles of law, other general or special international conventions, laying down rules expressly recognized by member states ....." This brings in hope and fresh breath to individual organization and non party entities seeking justice.
Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969 under law and observance of treaties, states that,
"A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty". This rule is without prejudice to article 46,
" A State may not invoke the fact that its consent to be bound by a treaty has been expressed in violation of a provision of its internal law regarding competence to conclude treaties as invalidating its consent unless that violation was manifest and concerned a rule of its internal law of fundamental importance". Zambia in 1969 introduced constitutional Amendment No.33 under which it was provided that:-
"This section shall not apply to the Barotseland Agreement 1964 (that is to say, the Agreement dated 18th May 1964 between the Government of Northern Rhodesia and the Litunga of Barotseland which provided that, it may be cited by that title) which Agreement shall, on and after the commencement of the Constitution (Amendment) (No.5) Act 1969 cease to have effect and all rights (whether vested or otherwise) liabilities and obligations there under shall thereupon lapse". Zambia has tied itself in relation to Article 27 of the Vienna Convention, the territorial integrity of Zambia is at stake.
Furthermore, WHAT THE LAW SAYS is that a crime one did commit years ago can be prosecuted and get jailed for things that were not crimes when they were done. An ex post facto law (Latin for "from after the action" or "after the facts") is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law.
From the foregoing, Barotseland's case against Zambia at the African commission is unique and interesting to watch its legal conclusion. The African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights must be regarded as part of the genius in the development of human rights in Africa, going by the issues Barotseland submitted, Zambia has no access to escape. It needs noting that the primary object of Zambia's submission hangs on admissibility which is washed away by Barotseland's forensic evidence submitted earlier on.
Bulozi fasi la bondata Luna
By Saleya Kwalombota
It is often incorrectly claimed by some Zambians that 'there are many other tribes besides Lozis' living in Barotseland today. One wonders, however, why Zambians would wish to claim that there are many so called “other tribes” living in Barotseland besides Lozis? What they fail to realize is that everyone living in Barotseland is essentially LOZI by nationality and NOT by TRIBE as there is NO such TRIBE. It is, therefore, fair to show and prove that Barotseland or even Lozi is not a tribal enclave as portrayed by some Zambian people and politicians, but rather LOZI is a nation as the 1962 Barotseland protectorate tribal statistics (CENSUS) will prove this point.
Firstly, we must examine briefly who the Barotse people are. Originally a people known as Aalui, had occupied the extensive plain through which the Zambezi river passes from 14°35’S to 10°25’S, throughout the reigns of successive Litungas (kings), approximately since the commencement of the 17th century. They dominated the area and conquered the people for many generations, and ruled a country two and a half times the size of Great Britain. When the Kololo (a warring group from South Africa) came and conquered them, they called them ‘Barotse’ which means ‘people of the plains.’
Later, however, the term ‘Barotse’ was generally used to refer to all the people of Barotseland who spoke the southern Sotho language, Silozi. ( left by the Kololo after their eventual defeat and extermination from Barotseland). The term was extended to include all people of Barotseland including those who did not necessarily live in the plains, but as long as they spoke Silozi, be it the Kwangwas, Mbundas, Nyengos, Tokas, Nkoyas etc. They today all form one people called Lozi or Barotse with Silozi or Lozi as their unifying language. Some still speak and practice their tribal languages and culture respectively, while others have completely been overtaken by the LOZI national culture to the point that it is NORMAL for some LOZI not to know which of the 30 PLUS tribes they really are.
A pervasion of the term LOZI occurred more predominantly after 1964 when the Zambian government decided to obliterate the Barotseland nation and reduced it to a mere province of Zambia which they called Western Province in 1969. The term LOZI was then further reduced to refer to some NON-EXISTENT tribe called ‘LOZI’ as they could NOT tolerate a LOZI nation within the Nation of Zambia.
In proving this point further, we will extract figures from the information under the ANNUAL REPORT OF THE RESIDENT COMMISSIONER OF 1962 OF BAROTSELAND PROTECTORATE TRIBAL STATISTICS, recorded just before Zambia’s independence of 1964, and you will CLEARLY see that no SUCH tribe as LOZI existed in the RECORDS.
The reason for showing these details is to demonstrate that the nation of Royal Barotseland Kingdom had lived under tranquility within a diversified ethnic mixture, and that there was no time when tribal friction was experienced as was/is the current situation when Barotseland had joined the so called “unitary” state with Zambia where disorder is/was prominent.
Furthermore, these details are provided in order to disprove the innuendo being peddled by Zambia that certain tribal extractions, more recently the Nkoya and Mbunda, are under subjugation of other tribal groupings, such as the NON-EXISTENT Lozi tribe. It is very uncertain who they really refer to as LOZI.
Here below are the official Barotseland protectorate tribal statistics of 1962, (two years before Zambia's Independence) placed in order of majority; and as will be seen from the list, no tribe called 'Lozi' or 'Ma Lozi' existed on the list until Kenneth Kaunda started calling the Lozi Language (Lingua franca) as a tribe to 're-base' Barotseland into the province 'Western Province' in order to foster his plan of subjugating the people of Barotseland, under the guise of 'One Zambia One Nation' slogan, long after 1964.
Even the Barotse National Council (BNC) which was elected in 1963,as part of the independence process, had, among some of its members, the following÷
1. Mongu District
- C.H.Masosa - Mbunda tribe
- M.Katota – Mbunda tribe
- A.J.Kapatiso – Nkoya tribe
- K.B.Kalyangu - Mbunda tribe
- A.K.Mutaima – Nkoya/Kaonde
- S.K.Lyoka – Nkoya tribe
- M.Mutti – Mbunda tribe
In addition to the above elected councilors the Mwene shihemi who was a senior Induna representing the Mwene Mutondo chieftainship at the Naliele Kuta was one of the Litunga’s nominees.
Finally, the Barotse people are peaceful but not cowards and very united under the old founded monarch. Hopefully, many Zambians who thought a tribe called Lozi existed in Barotseland will now understand that LOZI is in reality a name in reference to the nationality of people who speak Silozi.
Remember also that Barotseland was renamed by Kaunda two times from Barotseland to Barotse province, and then finally, to western province in order to subdue the Barotzish. Alas, the Zambian government today is witnessing the re- establishment of the well coordinated country of Royal Barotseland Kingdom.
The rest of the world is already preparing to live with Royal Barotseland Kingdom as a sovereign country following successful recognition from two international institutions, already.
Resulting from my interactions with many Zambians on social media, I have compiled some FIVE key areas that I try to address and answer here below.
It is UNDERSTANDABLE that many Zambians try very HARD to DISPUTE that Barotseland has NO further 'special' CLAIM in Zambia, in spite of ALL the TREATIES, Arrangements and Agreements subsisting between the British and LATER with Zambia herself. This is the view that the Zambian High Court also seemed to conclude in the 1991 court ruling after State Advocate Mwelwa Chibesakunda laid out evidence of all the ‘WRONG’ constitutional amendments to the Zambian Constitution that abrogated the Barotseland Agreement of 1964, which amendments Zambia under took between 1965 – 1970. This was in the matter of The Barotseland Agreement 1964 And in the INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLES 4 & 8 Of the said Agreement Between: THE LITUNGA OF THE WESTERN PROVINCE PLAINTIFF And THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE REPUBLIC OF ZAMBIA DEFENDANT, which can be found here: http://www.barotsepost.com/images/important_barotse_documents/1991_judgement_between_barotseland_vs_zambia_in_high_court.pdf
In fact many Zambians SEEM to be suggesting that ALL those TREATIES and AGREEMENTS and ARRANGEMENTS between Britain and Barotseland or with Northern Rhodesia / Zambia were FAKE and of NO legal consequence? This is a TERRIBLE stand POINT because it WOULD mean that even ZAMBIA is FAKE and INVALID. Remember also that BAROTSELAND is MUCH older than BOTH Northern Rhodesia and Zambia? So how CAN one REFER to the Barotseland AGREEMENT of 1964, for example, which was PART and PARCEL of the VERY creation of Zambia FAKE and of no LEGAL effect? This view POINT is NOT true as the Barotseland Agreement of 1964 was legally binding, and that is WHY EVEN the ZAMBIA INDEPENDENCE ORDER of 1964 and the ZAMBIA INDEPENDENCE ACT of 1964 which granted INDEPENDENCE to ZAMBIA consolidated the position of Barotseland.
Some in their DESPERATION to perpetuate Barotseland subjugation continue to spread MISTRUTHS based on EMOTIONALISM.
THAT Barotseland was accorded a PROTECTORATE status by Britain is BOTH a HISTORICAL and LEGAL fact acknowledged even by some of Zambia’s TOP legal and CONSTITUTIONAL minds, notable among them; MESSRS DR. RODGER CHONGWE and DR. LUDWIG SONDASHI, who BOTH have been on NATIONAL television (MUVI and ZNBC) stating the same legal FACT.
Here below, however, is what is also TRUE.
Firstly, although BAROTSELAND was not GRANTED independence, BRITAIN had accorded a SPECIAL status & relationship with the LITUNGA, his COUNCIL and CHIEFS as well as the PEOPLE of Barotseland (usually indicated in those segments because in Barotse governance for any decision to be deemed nationally binding it has to include all three tiers of decision making of the LITUNGASHIP-Monarch, the Royals and the common people. This institution is also known as a Barotse National Council - BNC).
This relationship status was SUSTAINED through TREATIES, AGREEMENTS and ARRANGEMENTS which they HONORED and PERFORMED effectively. This SPECIAL status has, also, nothing to do with TRIBE as it cut across over 30 ‘tribes’ of Barotseland. LOZIS are NOT a ‘tribe’ but a NATION. It is a COLLECTION of ‘tribes’. So the status was for the LOZI or BAROTSE nation with over 30 tribes and dialects such as; 1. Aluyi, 2. Chokwe, 3. Imilangu, 4. Kwamashi, 5. Kwandi, 6. Luvale, 7. Lushange, 8. Mafwe, 9. Maikwamakoma, 10. Makololo, 11.Makwamwenyi , 12. Makwengo, 13.Maliuwa, 14. Malukolwe, 15. Mambumi, 16. Mandebu, 17. Mashanjo, 18. Mananzwa, 19. Makwamulonga, 20. Mahumbe, 21. Mayauma, 22. Mandundulu, 23. Mashasha, 24. Mbunda, 25. Mbukushu, 26. Matotela, 27. Lushange, 28. Luvale, 29. Nkoya, 30. Simaa, 31. Subia, 32. Mafwe, 33. Nyengo, 34. Toka- Leya and others, here alphabetically listed.
Since Barotseland is a NATION state all these tribes are collectively called LOZI, Malozi or Barotse. A less confusing term recently introduced and gaining rapid acceptance is the term Barotzish coined by Barotseland independence advocates to avoid the Zambian pervasion of the usage of the term LOZI, which wrongly refers to a NON-EXISTENT tribe LOZI. However, just like the people of Bechuanaland (Now Botswana) are called Tswana / Batswana/Matswana or the people of Basutoland (now Lesotho) are called Sotho/Basotho or even the people of Swaziland are called SWAZI; so are all the people of Barotseland are rightly called LOZI/BAROTSE/MALOZI. These terms do not speak of TRIBE but RATHER NATIONALITY.
SECONDLY, this SPECIAL status & relationship was PASSED on to and INHERITED by the Republic of ZAMBIA through THE BAROTSELAND AGREEMENT 1964, which ZAMBIA signed and AGREED to HONOUR and PERFORM to the letter, to PERPETUATE the same STATUS. Reading the agreement will show that Barotseland would have a separate government of her own, separate TAXATION, ECONOMY and Banking systems, COURTS and JUDICIARY, LAWS and Land tenure system; among others different from the rest of Zambia. All these are characteristics of a SELF - Determined, self - governing state. That is WHY the Zambian government ABROGATED the agreement CLAIMING, and RIGHTLY so, that the situation CREATED a ‘STATE’ within a state and a ‘NATION’ within a nation. This assertion is TRUE because that is what the Barotseland Agreement 1964 sort to establish. WHAT is wrong, however, is that Zambia decided to UNILATERALLY abrogate the Agreement without consulting the parties (BAROTSELAND & BRITAIN) affected by the agreement. They FORCEFULLY stripped the LOZI (Barotse) of their RIGHTS to SELF-DETERMINATION which they signed to PERPETUATE through the Barotseland Agreement of 1964.
THIRDLY, although the SPECIAL status & relationship accorded to BAROTSELAND by both BRITAIN and ZAMBIA did NOT result into separate INDEPENDENCE of Barotseland from Zambia but within it, it, however, SUCCEEDED in MAKING the BAROTSE people with their CHIEFS and their MONARCH the LITUNGA into a SPECIAL entity CLASSIFIED under BOTH United Nations and African Union STATUTES and CHARTERS, VIENNA Conventions and various other INTERNATIONAL STATUTES and CHARTERS, which both ZAMBIA and BRITAIN are SIGNATORIES to, into a “PEOPLE” or if you like a “MINORITY” within an INDEPENDENT state of ZAMBIA. This STATUS, no COURT and LAWYER in the world can DISPUTE as it can be proved by all the TREATIES, ARRANGEMENTS and AGREEMENTS which were FULLY DOCUMENTED in WRITING and SIGNATURES.
FOURTHLY, any group classified as ‘PEOPLES’ or ‘MINORITY’ everywhere in the WORLD have an INALIENABLE, INDELIBLE and INVIOLABLE rights of SELF-DETERMINATION provided to them by ALL the above INSTITUTIONS and various other international STATUTES and CHARTERS that BOTH Britain and Zambia are a PARTY to. These RIGHTS are AVAILABLE to ‘PEOPLES’ and ‘MINORITIES’ to EXERCISE whichever way PROVIDED and as they SEE fit, especially if THEY can show MATERIAL breaches of the SPECIAL circumstances that BROUGHT them into this CLASSIFICATION.
FIFTHLY, Barotseland has come to that TIME and PLACE in HISTORY (BNC 2012) when they (The LITUNGASHIP, his COUNCIL and CHIEFS as well as the PEOPLE of Barotseland) have decided to CLAIM their RIGHT of SELF-DETERMINATION outside of ZAMBIA for the various REASONS that we have DELIBERATED here and ELSE WHERE. Self-determination OUTSIDE Zambia became the ONLY option after attempts to SELF-DETERMINATION within Zambia were BRUTALLY and PERPETUALLY denied them by Zambia.
In 1970-72 up to 10 LOZIS were arrested over treason for peacefully protesting the government ABROGATION of the Barotseland Agreement of 1964. In 2011 up to 19 Lozis were reportedly killed, with several reported missing, by the government of Zambia constituted commission of inquiry, The CHONGWE Commission. Hundreds were also arrested and detained only to be released, as there was no evidence of CRIMINALITY against them.
In August 2012 another set of over 80 LOZIS were arrested and charged over treasonous ACTS for peacefully seeking to pursue self-determination only to be released again on NOLLE Prosequi after three months of torturous imprisonment. Currently, 8 LOZIS are still in Zambian prisons; 4 serving 3 years jail sentences since last year January, while 4 have been detained without trial since December - all in SELF-DETERMINATION related causes deemed TREASONOUS by the Zambian government punishable ONLY by DEATH under Zambia laws.
Finally, here below listed, are SOME of those international STATUTES and CHARTERS that GRANT Barotseland the RIGHT to SELF-DETERMINATION remembering also that the CHOICE of how this RIGHT is EXERCISED will depend on the wishes of the ‘PEOPLES’ and the ‘MINORITIES’ themselves. On 27th of March 2012, after a regularly constituted Barotse National Council, the people of Barotseland DECIDED to accept Zambia’s abrogation of the Barotseland Agreement of 1964, WHICH was the ONLY legal connection between Zambia and Barotseland. Consequently they decided that they would PURSUE their SELF-DETERMINATION outside of Zambia.
INTERNATIONAL LAWS ON SELF-DETERMINATION
The RIGHT to SELF-DETERMINATION which allows ‘PEOPLE’ to secede from a mother state if they so choose appears in various international conventions, including the founding document of the United Nations.
Following are some of the International Laws Dealing with Self-Determination and Territorial Integrity
*U.N. FOUNDING CHARTER (ARTICLE 1) — 1945*
• One purpose of the United Nations is “to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of ‘PEOPLES’, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace.”
*U.N. RESOLUTION 2625 — 1970*
• “Every State has the duty to refrain from any FORCIBLE ACTION which deprives ‘PEOPLES’ referred to in the elaboration of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of their right to SELF-DETERMINATION and FREEDOM and INDEPENDENCE.”
• “Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs shall be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember, or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent states CONDUCTING THEMSELVES IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUAL RIGHTS AND SELF-DETERMINATION OF PEOPLES AND THUS POSSESSED OF A GOVERNMENT REPRESENTING THE WHOLE PEOPLE BELONGING TO THE TERRITORY WITHOUT DISTINCTION TO RACE, CREED OR COLOUR.” - Zambia's position appears to fall short here because their CONDUCT towards Barotseland so far lets them DOWN because they have 'FORCEFULLY' deprived Barotseland of her right to self-determination withing Zambia borders, constituting a MATERIAL breach of the Principle of Equal Rights and Self-determination. Zambia abrogated the Barotseland agreemnt 1964 which gave the Barotse some form of self-determination UNILATERALLY and without the consent of the Barotse.
*AFRICAN CHARTER ON HUMAN AND PEOPLES’ RIGHTS (ARTICLE 20) — 1981*
• “All ‘PEOPLES’ shall have . . . the unquestionable and INALIENABLE right to SELF-DETERMINATION. They shall freely determine their political status and shall pursue their economic development according to the policy they have freely chosen.”
*CONFERENCE ON SECURITY AND CO-OPERATION IN EUROPE’S CHARTER OF PARIS FOR A NEW EUROPE — 1990*
• “We affirm that the ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious identity of NATIONAL MINORITIES will be protected.”
• “We reaffirm the equal rights of PEOPLES and their right to SELF-DETERMINATION in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations and with the relevant norms of international law, including those related to territorial integrity of states.”
*VIENNA DECLARATION AND PROGRAM OF ACTION ADOPTED BY WORLD CONFERENCE OF HUMAN RIGHTS — 1993*
• The conference recognizes “the right of peoples to take ANY LEGITIMATE action, in accordance with the Charter of the U.N., to realize their INALIENABLE RIGHT OF SELF-DETERMINATION.”
Zambia as a SIGNATORY to all these LAWS is BOUND to PERFORM them. We know ALREADY that Zambia's record at keeping AGREEMENTS is POOR but on this ONE they will be MADE to ACCOUNT one way or the other.
By Sibeta Mundia
IMPLEMENTATION AND CONSOLIDATION OF BAROTSE CHANGE PROGRAMME – by Lindunda Wamunyima
So far we have established and seen from various preceding publications in our national communication media that change management process in our country Barotseland is a process and not an event, designed to move our state and nation from its former state, current state to the desired future state, as an independent sovereign and democratic monarch. That the process accepted that there would be a transitional stage consisting of conditions and activities that our emerging nation and state must go through in a sequential manner in order to attain our future aspired glory and change agenda. Therefore, the apparent delay must be seen as a process AND NOT all delay per se. This article attempts to show our dear readers some four basic principles of change and the ten universal keys to successful change management, both applicable to us, so that you and I understand, appreciate and identify with our change effort fully.
BASIC PRINCIPLES OF CHANGE
Perhaps it is worth stating here that the ten universal keys to successful change management are grounded in four basic principles. This is due to the fact that for every planned change to be successful it must be rooted in sound and clear principles; otherwise, it results in uncontrollable chaos and frustration. These principles happen to be the foundation upon which the planned change method is grounded and violation of any one or more of them will mean that the prospects of successful change will be seriously compromised. These principles include the following:
1. GLOBALITY: refers to the all encompassing nature of organizational change. That is our change agenda must be seen to be acting holistically and geographically on both the physical components (land, people, strategy, structure, systems, etc.) of our nation and state as well as its psychological aspects (vision, values, culture, climate, style, etc.). In other words, the change needs to embrace both the body and soul of Barotseland to be more effective now and then.
2. DISLOCATION: referring to the destabilizing effects of change and the necessity of maintaining a state of positive destabilization throughout the change process. Once the initial dislocation has taken place,(Transitional) change can only take place if a reasonable degree of positive instability is maintained. This means giving no room to resistance to change syndrome in us. As soon as the process of change ceases (at our full independence) the situation must re-stabilize. This means that as long as Barotse citizens are not willing to be displaced from their comfort zones that will remain an impediment to the accelerated timely achievement of our change goal for Barotseland. We must be ready to resonate with the change cycle; unfreeze, move and finally refreeze (stabilize) upon achievement of our espoused change core business.
3. UNIVERSALITY: the principle that demands that all Barotse citizens be involved in the change process, in one way or another, and that we make suggestions, take decisions and assume responsibility for our actions in accordance with our citizenship statuses within our motherland.
4. INTER-DETERMINACY: referring to the fact that while change is not altogether uncontrollable, it is by no means controllable either. Managing change is just a matter of guiding, directing and steering the process, while leaving enough space for responsiveness and flexibility, also ad hoc improvement as need be along the way to goal realization. This is what the interim government has been endeavouring to do in implementing and now consolidating the Barotse Change programme.
We have seen this happen so far in our land, against all odds! Credit is due indeed to all of you the stakeholders of our dear change. Our change agenda is not as easy as changing cloths but rather an intricate interplay amongst the four principles of effective change management.
THE TEN KEYS TO SUCCESSFUL BAROTSE CHANGE MANAGEMENT
The ten keys to successful change management are simply a description of the skills, activities and competencies that are requisite for the successful change management, especially so in Barotseland now, as we near the conclusion of the first phase of our change programme – TOTAL(POLITICAL) FREEDOM to embark on the second phase of Barotseland DEVELOPMENT (ECONOMIC FREEDOM); our CORE BUSINESS.
1. DEFINING THE VISION: our initial vision as a nation and state prompts and justifies the change and acts as a reference point and landmark to define the domain of the change programme and broadly identify the major issues and highlight possible difficulties. This vision needs to be formalized and publicized and be found in every government office and department now in waiting and then, to serve as a constant reminder. It is the duty of every Mulozi to know the national vision, mission, values and objectives thereof without waiting for tomorrow.
2. MOBILIZING: this creates the dynamics for change to take place. Its objectives are to sensitize the citizens to the requirements for our imminent change phase, to reinforce the critical issues identified in key 1, to select the appropriate change initiatives and to overcome the initial inertia and maintain the necessary momentum hereafter and thereafter.
3. CATALYZING: catalyzing aims at fighting resistance, overcome inertia, create support and reorganize the validity of the proposed changes as laid down in the Interim Government’s Manifesto and other related goal imperatives. This may require the involvement of a number of key groups within and without Barotseland, in implementing and consolidating our change agenda.
4. STEERING: this key focuses on the system that guides the process and keep it on track, forecasting and avoiding problems and resistance as well as using our resources effectively. Some activities to do here include monitoring receptivity to change of key officers to ensure unity of purpose and avoid dissidence, identifying and providing key resources, ensuring appropriate application of the entire change effort and initiating and following up on relevant training.
5. DELIVERING: this key aims at effecting the vision and actual transition from the current situation to our planned state. Among other activities it involves putting in place the systems that ensure that our change is lasting, putting together a comprehensive analysis of the status quo and identifying all of the change opportunities thus identified, and so on.
6. OBTAINING PARTICIPATION: this is the active involvement of all citizens as an essential element to the success of the change process. This will enable Barotseland to exploit the full diversity of citizen expertise and experience and help to overcome resistance to change by directly involving worker citizens, expatriates and investors and making the change enduring, for unity of diversity is power not weakness.
7. HANDLING THE EMOTIONAL DIMENSION: the full diversity of Barotzish citizens is reflected in their typical reactions to change exhibited so far! These have varied from outright rejection on one hand to partial rejection, partial acceptance and through to full-acceptance on the other hand, of our change agenda. Generally, these reactions are logical from individual viewpoints, and can hinder the change process or even totally obstruct it as it has been observed in some of our experiences to date. Some of the priorities in handling the emotional dimensions include identifying the emotional factors that have a bearing on the change (emotional intelligent leadership), evaluating the dysfunction created by resistance and psychological barriers during the implementation phase we are in and also effectively treating these emotional dimensions. Apparently, there is need for reconciliation and healing mechanisms to cure the emotional injuries emanating from the change process and ideological differences so far encountered.
8. HANDLING POWER ISSUES: it is a well known fact that change frequently upsets the balance of power within any organization. Typically, every organization will consist of an official power structure like our Interim Government headed by Linyungandambo and, in addition, several power coalitions that exist in parallel with the official structure. Our change programme has been no exception to this phenomenon. Change usually tends to make these coalition structures feel threatened. The objective of this key is to ensure that balance of power evolves consistently with the vision of the change, in this case, the March 2012 BNC resolution and ensuing official power structure. Usually there are three stages that need to be addressed and these are: recognizing the power issues, dealing with the power issues effectively, and then modifying the balance of power in line with our change objectives. We are pleased with what is happening so far to this end though room for improvements is still available.
9. TRAINING AND COACHING: all change programmes mostly require of all organization members to acquire not only new skills but also new ways of thinking and behaving. A crucial part of the change process then, is the training, mentoring and coaching issues. Activities we can do or keep doing may include
• Carrying out training needs analysis to establish training and coaching needs in Barotseland now not tomorrow at the dawn of free motherland.
• Identifying and presenting training for the acquisition of technical job skills and responsibilities and interpersonal and change support skills.
• Mentoring and coaching and instruction in such techniques.
• Self-improvement methods and techniques to support the change initiative and driving from it maximum benefit for Barotseland’s sake.
This is time for our key leaders to grapple every opportunity for personal development by taking up short enrichment courses while in the formative or brooding phase to skill or re-skill for public and national duty. We have a lot of opportunities at Bethel University and Barotseland universities in Mongu, Victoria University in Livingstone and even in Zambia. Tomorrow will be a very busy day for you to study effectively.
10. COMMUNICATING ACTIVELY: the last but not the least key to effective and efficient implementation and consolidation of Barotse Change agenda is effective communication, throughout the change process and is essential to our ultimate and full success. This entails informing our people about the progress of change initiative to keep them motivated and reassured, as well as facilitating the proliferation of ideas needed to enhance and accelerate the change process. We salute the Acting AG Dr. Matengu Situmbeko for national updates and Legal Team accordingly. The various roles, methods and responsibilities for communication must be defined not only to facilitate the change process but also to put a lid on possible negative influences. At least so far so good.
Aluta Continua! TUKONGOTE WA MWANAA NONGOLO! LITUNGA NI LYETU! Far spent is our night of servitude to Zambia and imminent is our day of freedom and sovereignty.
Nelson Mandela affirmed: “I DETEST RACIALISM, BECAUSE I REGARD IT AS A BARBARIC THING, WHETHER IT COMES FROM A BLACK MAN OR A WHITE MAN.”
Mandela was convicted and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. While serving his sentence he was charged, in the Rivonia Trial, with sabotage.
Mandela’s statements in court during these trials are classics in the history of the resistance to apartheid, and they would be a great inspiration to the people of Barotseland too, who are in independence struggle against black-on-black colonization to bring to an end Zambia's subjugation and illegal annexation of Barotseland.
Mandela's statement from the dock in the Rivonia Trial ends with these words: “I HAVE FOUGHT AGAINST WHITE DOMINATION, AND I HAVE FOUGHT AGAINST BLACK DOMINATION. I HAVE CHERISHED THE IDEAL OF A DEMOCRATIC AND FREE SOCIETY IN WHICH ALL PERSONS LIVE TOGETHER IN HARMONY AND WITH EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES. IT IS AN IDEAL WHICH I HOPE TO LIVE FOR AND TO ACHIEVE. BUT IF NEEDS BE, IT IS AN IDEAL FOR WHICH I AM PREPARED TO DIE.”
Let us underline the last sentence, "BUT IF NEEDS BE, IT IS AN IDEAL FOR WHICH I AM PREPARED TO DIE." This is the kind of spirit our leaders incarcerated by Zambia at Mwembeshi state prison uttered recently in reference to the developed partnership between the sitting Zambian president, Edgar Lungu and former president Rupiya Banda. Given the legacy of Rupiya Banda's policy towards the people of Barotseland in his three years rule that climaxed in the 2011 Mungu massacre, where 19 souls were lost, the quartet vowed to remain in prison. The quartet have further rejected the jurisdiction of Zambia over them as they are not citizens of Zambia and worse still, the trumped-up charge happened in Barotseland! The quartet is prepared to remain in incarceration until the illegal authority that arrested them on 5th December, 2014, release them on principle of justice.
Mandela was sentenced to life imprisonment and started his prison years in the notorious Robben Island Prison, a maximum security prison on a small island 7km off the coast near Cape Town. In April 1984 he was transferred to Pollsmoor Prison in Cape Town and in December 1988 he was moved to Victor Verster Prison near Paarl from where he was eventually released. While in prison, Mandela flatly rejected offers made by his jailers for remission of sentence in exchange for accepting the Bantustan policy by recognizing the independence of the Transkei and agreeing to settle there. The same happened to the four incarcerated Barotseland transitional government leaders who were offered to accept the "legality" of Zambia's occupation of Barotseland and to denounce the 2012 BNC independence resolutions in exchange for their release (freedom) but thank God, they emphatically rejected the floated offer and cursed the deal. The quartet borrowed Mandela's words in the
eighties when again Mandela rejected an offer of release on condition that he renounced violence. "PRISONERS CANNOT ENTER INTO CONTRACTS. ONLY FREE MEN CAN NEGOTIATE".
Mandela was released on 11 February 1990, he plunged wholeheartedly into his life’s work, striving to attain the goals he and others had set out almost four decades earlier. In 1991, at the first national conference of the ANC held inside South Africa after its decades-long banning was lifted, Nelson Mandela was elected president of the ANC while his lifelong friend and colleague, Oliver Tambo, became the organization’s national chairperson.
Nelson Mandela never wavered in his devotion to democracy, equality and learning. Despite terrible provocation, he never answered racism with racism. His life has been an inspiration, in South Africa and throughout the world, to all who are oppressed and deprived, in a life that symbolizes the triumph of the human spirit over man’s inhumanity to man. Nelson Mandela accepted the 1993 Nobel Peace Prize not to himself but on behalf of all South Africans who suffered and sacrificed so much to bring peace.
Thus is the spirit exhibited so far by former Ngambela, despite having been once arrested over the chairing of the 2012 BNC that unanimously reverted Barotseland back to its pre-independence status and move forward to an independent state, has never logged-off. The same true heroism has been exhibited by Hon. Mulasikwanda, still holding on despite too having saved a six months jail sentence over the tearing of Zambian draft constitution in protest against illegal Zambia legislation in Barotseland, and further demanded for the political freedom of Barotseland. True leaders are never shaken even in the face of death.
To the families of those arrested; the Barotseland National Youth League Leaders and the Barotseland transitional government leaders, let the political struggle of late Nelson Mandela be an exemplary inspiration and a source of strength to all. Freedom comes not on a silver plate but with great sacrifice. It is our desire as the people in struggle to continue demanding for the release of all the arrested, the convicted, and above all, the independence of Barotseland. The greatest achievement in life is to detest all forms of oppression and deprivation of human rights.
Allow me as I conclude to borrow the words of the 2012 BNC's key speech note by former Ngambela Hon. C. W. Sinyinda, "AND I WISH TO ADD THAT CHANGE IS A NECESSITY WHEN EVERY OTHER WAY BECOMES IMPOSSIBLE. IN OUR PURSUIT TO RESOLVE THIS MATTER, WE PASSED THROUGH TURBULENT TIMES. .... WE PAID WITH OUR BLOOD FOR SIMPLY REQUESTING TO CONSOLIDATE OUR INTEGRATION WITH ZAMBIA".
Let us understand that as the people of Barotseland living today, we are the generation appointed to accomplish the liberation and bring about the long awaited freedom to reality and it is indeed coming soon.
Compilation and comments by Saleya Kwalombota
REFERENCE: ANC http://www.anc.org.za
“The people should not be deceived, Barotseland has a transitional government already in place and people should not be misled by acolytes and political hangers in the name of 'alliance'. Barotseland is not in a state of political turmoil to have an alliance, the true alliance PIZO (BNC) already gave a policy direction of putting in place a government that has to take over running of Barotseland as a constitutional Monarchy. It is the same self- exhorted politicians at the political root becoming a problem that threatens the peace of even the Barotse Monarch.”
Just like the liberation movements of Angola which failed to unite the coalition of forces to govern when the Portuguese pulled out of the territory, largely for selfish reasons, the pro-independence movements remain weakened divided on which group to govern. The People's Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA) which managed to reach Luanda first claimed to have inaugurated the government, the idea that Savimbi of the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA) group refused to accept and took years of guerrilla warfare. We do not like such situation to take place in Barotseland should Zambia decides to withdraw today! Divisions and suspicions amongst liberation groups just do not help in anyway but derail any chances even for the minimum collaboration to move forward.
Accordingly, in the absence of collaboration, the political costs will continue to accumulate and everyday misunderstandings of ideologies will only exacerbate human life standards in our territory. The benefits for pulling political and material resources, collective mobilization and a broad based movement against the weakened state of Zambia, far outweighs any possibility of any failure in actualizing our independence. Other than laying a strong foundation for a more monopoly, broad based movements than providing irrefutable capacity for building a critical mass, ready for action to defend the people‘s will against any possible military machinations from occupying force.
Acolytes and political hangers who by default find themselves in some privileged positions in the liberation groups have escalated the political costs of the independence struggle that has been derailed by pitching against unity within the territory. However, leadership should be exercised to bear fruit in convincing these and other sectors whose loyal sacrifice will keep the struggle on course at certain critical points. Indeed the success that Barotseland would benefit from combined efforts by nurturing resilient democratic impulses should be enough to convince true participation to commit all the territory to liberation cooperation if not unity. True national leaders should detest the ‘faction leader tag’. It is a matter of fact of our history that Barotseland was conquered by the Makololos at the time of succession wrangles. Therefore, the leaders and followers of the BNFA ( which are in minority) should learn to work with progressive liberation groups, albeit ideology syndrome of " BA64 restoration" under MOREBA and demanding for a transitional government formation which is already in place is unprecedented anywhere in the world. People are very much aware of the transitional government's existence under the capable leadership of His Excellence Rt. Hon. Afumba Mombotwa, the sworn-in Administrator General who the government of the occupying force has incarcerated to this day at Zambia’s Mwembeshi maximum state prison.
The purported negotiation between Zambian president E.C. Lungu with BNFA cannot go without a comment; no substitute for alternative strategizing yet viable or political alternatives can provide solid reinforcement negotiations for all forms with Zambia without the involvement of Barotseland transitional government leader Rt. Hon. Afumba Mombotwa. People should not ignore the past acts of bravado publicly paraded by BNFA actors when Linyungandambo formed and announced the inauguration of Barotseland transitional government in 2013. There was clear uncertainty and anxiety within that group as evidenced by their inconsistencies in their political ideology by rushing to the media of our oppressors (Zambia) to issue a derogatory press release against the launching of the Sicaba's government (Barotseland Transitional Government). The people should not be deceived, Barotseland has a transitional government already in place and people should not be misled by acolytes and political hangers in the name of "alliance". Barotseland is not in a state of political turmoil to have an alliance, the true alliance PIZO (BNC) already gave a policy direction of putting in place a government that has to take over running of Barotseland as a constitutional Monarchy. It is the same self- exhorted politicians at the political root becoming a problem that threatens the peace of even the Barotse Monarch.
Tukongote Litunga ni lyetu
By Saleya Kwalombota
Matters of Self Determination and wishes of the people should be of urgent considerations. The monarchy should show policy direction in matters of such nature of inalienable rights, no neutrality or cowardice should be exhibited. It's good to point out the weaknesses than shielding them; this will help in bringing sanity in the struggle. It is in the public domain that the people, the BRE and LITUNGA, all opted for independent Barotseland as per 2012 BNC resolutions and to work toward actualization of independence and I quote, "We the people of Barotseland declare that Barotseland is now free to pursue its own self-determination and destiny", end quote. Furthermore, special attention to BNC resolution number 6, “The people of Barotseland shall exercise their right to revert Barotseland to its original status as a sovereign nation, so that the people of Barotseland shall determine their political, cultural, social and economic development."
All the liberation groups hold key aspects of the definition of the vector of independence struggle in Barotseland, however, the BRE Kuta set up and the impunity with which the Indunas enrich themselves through underhand methods from the Zambia government to destabilize our independence resolve, underline the score for sicaba's government, other than the ancient Kuta system. It will be prudence to draw key boundaries and distinctions between the monarch and the government especially in a constitutional monarch set- up Barotseland has opted to adopt.
There are no hassles or obstacles that cannot be corrected; true patriotism requires perseverance up to the end. The impairment of consciousness of patriotism could be perceived as one of the contributing factors, primarily, that powerful Barotse individuals and once political players in the Zambian politics feel unwelcome to come out in open and stand with their people for fear of economic victimization of their hard earned wealth in Zambia. There are some people in other liberation groups, seem to stand for the liberation call for Barotseland but are a danger, and are untrustworthy due to their secret activities with Zambian intelligence wings. Furthermore, the other category of activists is political hijackers and abusers of political power whose aim is to create avenues for wealth creation with Zambian government for personal glorification.
The abuse of public roles and resources for private benefit, although in the minds of ordinary people terms like “public,” “private,” and “abuse” are matters of less considerations and may be taken as political dispute or language among the pressure groups against the monarch. However, corruption is happening in our established pressure groups, Namuso or across the palaces, spearheaded by Zambian mercenaries or wealthy individuals to buy or rent influence against our independence resolve.
Thinking and planning ahead to enhance progressive altitude that can yield positive struggle is good practice. Our enemy (Zambia) should not be given chance to destabilize our territory. Barotseland is far much older than Zambia and has past centuries of prosperous self governing against 50 years of Zambia's forced assimilation; therefore cowardice should not be the item on the agenda of Barotseland liberation. The fate of Zambia's illegal occupation has already been spelled by our 2012 BNC independence resolutions. Zambia's integrity is on a brink and no many years ahead, soon and very soon it will be listed among failed states with re-drawn physical boundaries. The onus is on us to speed up this and show Zambian authority exit out of Barotseland territory. Poverty should not override the principle of integrity and consistency; we are very much alive to the fact that some activists are not spared and face the same temptation of bribes, just like their counterparts at BRE, to play double standards to betray their very own people for personal fortunes. If people can disown the corrupt Kuta Indunas, what more the well known corrupt Activists?
Let us revisit the spirit of the 2012 BNC resolutions and identify areas of need that could have slowed the process of independence actualization and seal off lapses that may be, to avoid any further derailments. Where there is a clear WILL and a clear DEMAND of the people, independence is absolutely not difficult to actualize. The people have spoken and its final as we all believe that freedom, democracy and the right to decide own future are core values of humanity and nothing should deter our independence freedom, not even Zambian handouts.
By Saleya Kwalombota
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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!
POSITION STATEMENT BY LINYUNGANDAMBO ON THE CALL TO DISMISS THE ENTIRE BRE KUTA.
The recent happenings at the Barotse Royal Establishment (BRE) Kuta cannot go without comment. However, what has emerged out of these recent agitations to have the entire Kuta dismissed, although camouflaged as an attempt to purge the BRE system of some ‘corrupt’ indunas, is in reality an attempt by some desperate individuals who wish to impose on the kuta individuals who will implement their proposed structures of governance. A couple of months ago, the same individuals wished to force the Kuta to hold a Barotse National Council at which conference they wished to flout their retrogressive ideas which would endorse them and their clique’ at the whelm of leadership of our independence struggle, so that they would then steer its direction whichever way they desired, especially back to the restoration of the Barotseland Agreement of 1964 or Total Monarch type of government with little or no support of the common masses. Thankfully, the BRE Kuta saw into their conniving maneuvers and rejected their self conceited proposals.
It is, therefore, with great dismay to learn that a section of so called ‘Activists’ can actually behave in the manner that they have done. As such we, the National Executive Committee of Linyungandambo condemn in the strongest terms the behavior portrayed by one Mwanamuchembele, Hon. Wanga, their clique and hired activists of attempting to bring the Kuta into public disrepute. This confusion is highly unnecessary and is only succeeding at misdirecting our nation into unnecessary squabbles.
Attempting to dislodge the Kuta, on account that the Kuta has not accepted one’s proposal represents the highest level of desperation. The Kuta should not be forced to support any ideas, but rather must be convinced by the merit of any proposition. Dismissing the Kuta does not solve the problem, especially when the personalities involved in the process are of questionable motives. The Kuta was installed by the Litunga and it is His Majesty’s prerogative to use intelligence reports at his disposal to deal with allegations leveled against any of his Indunas.
While we agree that our BRE structures may need ridding of ‘bad’ elements, the manner in which we do this will also determine our outcomes. For us in the Linyungandambo, we have always held the view that the BRE must be reformed to match the democratic aspirations of our people today. However, dismissing one set of indunas only to replace them with another will simply not do in this modern era, but rather a complete reform of the entire governance structure.
Yes! We, perhaps more than anyone else understand that some Indunas have a very questionable reputation towards the independence of Barotseland. We know and remember, for instance, that it was an Induna who tipped the Zambia police about the presence of Hon. Afumba at Mwandi Palace which led to his arrest and that of the other transitional government leaders! However, this is no passport for any individual to freely insult and use abusive language to the elderly statesmen respected in the Kingdom. The prerogative of dismissing the Indunas solely remains in the Litungaship. His Majesty the Litunga is at liberty to scrutinize proposals and allegations, but never should anyone seek to impose or suggest his course of action over his Kuta, especially never through civil discord! The activists’ actions should end at what has already been done; ie; petitioning respectfully, and then allow the Litungaship to take over the case to its logical conclusion.
Linyungandambo, therefore, is not involved in this illegal activity propagated by the enemy to be fulfilled by the so-called Malozi activists, just like what happened in 1964. We are strongly convinced that Zambia is, once again, at the centre of all this latest confusion in Barotseland, through the surrogacy of their partners in BNFA, so that they find reason to hold the Litunga to ransom. We also know that their real target is the Litunga. We, therefore, wish to call upon all our members in Linyungandambo and all well meaning Barotse nationals to stay away from engaging themselves in these demeaning activities, meant to derail us from achieving our real goal of self-governance.
We in the Linyungandambo have proposed already, and we know it is the wish of many of our people evidenced by the over 20000 signatures that endorsed the Barotseland emancipation order of 2012, that the new and independent Barotseland will be structured on the model of a DEMOCRATIC CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY, a system which is not only close to ours, but has also worked very well for many progressive countries of the world such as Great Britain, Canada, Japan, Netherlands and many others. We are already on course, and others such as the BNFA intend to only duplicate and pervert what has already been done. The BNFA refused to work with us on the basis that they would seek to liberate Barotseland differently. The question we may ask now is why they keep repeating what we have already done. If they are going to do the same thing that we have done, why then did they refuse to work with and be part of the already set up transitional government in the first place?
We love and cherish our monarchy and traditions, and we must promote and protect them at all times. We must not act like the Winas, when they flogged our parents on account that they, in their wisdom, refused to buy into the Winas’ fiendish idea of joining Barotseland to Northern Rhodesia. And the results are what Barotseland is currently grappling with! This is the same old story that is manifesting today. Mwanamuchembele is actually fighting against our efforts as a nation to achieve the dream of self-rule, and we doubt whether his boss Hon. Milupi has approved his actions, and we still suspect that he is being used by the enemy to delay and derail the process of our independence. The problem is not with the Indunas, but it is with the personality spearheading the move against them. They still believe that Barotseland cannot survive when it stands alone, when we have plenty of brains around! Why should the BNFA force the Indunas to buy into their proposal? And if anything, most of the Indunas were previously sympathizers of the BNFA, including late Induna Kalonga. We know how the same Kalonga blocked the lawyers currently representing the nation of Barotseland in the International Court of Justice where we are suing Zambia for illegal occupation. Although we knew that he personally inhibited our lawyers from doing their work in Barotseland, we however, did not advance the kind of character the BNFA are manifesting today.
If the BNFA have the strength to fight, why don’t they fight Zambia who is the real enemy? Zambia is arresting them, killing them, maiming and causing a lot of harm on their bodies, including us. Indunas, like everyone else in Barotseland, are also captives of Zambia. We must not fight each other, but must direct our efforts to fighting Zambia instead. Zambia is our real problem.
We are also still aware that, some so-called Barotseland Activists are benefiting and are making a lot of monies from the enemy, so that they cause confusion and stop the independence dream that everyone is pursuing and craving for.
We, therefore, wish to request the BNFA to revisit their ideas and strategies, and stop what they are intending to do. The Kuta is headed by our parents! A parent is a parent, whether rich, poor or foolish, they still remain as parents, and we must protect them, love them, understand them and value them as such.
Tokongote wa mwana nongolo!
Dr. Matengu Situmbeko,
Linyungandambo, National Executive Committee