• 03
  • Sep

This article debunks the myth of Barotseland’s so-called economic un-viability and contends that, to the contrary, Barotseland’s underdevelopment was diabolically engendered by the post-colonial government of Kenneth Kaunda and the United National Independence Party (UNIP). This situation has unfortunately made some Barotse nationals to harbour unfounded fears that once Barotseland is liberated from the yoke of Zambian tyranny, then they will live in perpetual poverty. Moreover, the Barotse people have been living in poverty since 1964, so they have nothing to lose apart from their shackles and chains. Regardless, they cling on to the bleary hopes of a failed state – Zambia. Barotseland’s economic potential is boundless: natural gas, agriculture, petroleum, fisheries, tourism, mining, etc. It will only require a vanguard of courageous, committed, visionary and clear sighted men and women of the soil to turn Barotseland into a prosperous, viable, functioning, modern and democratic nation-state.

The naysayers have derided our fatherland as “full of sand” and some Barotse nationals have even believed such fallacies. Also, Barotseland is blessed with indigenous forms of governance which even astounded Europeans when they stumbled upon this civilization. Undoubtedly, governance should not be taken for granted because different political administrations in post-colonial Zambia have consistently failed to grasp and execute this quintessential human endeavour. Part of the reason is that some of those who governed and those who were governed had no concept of governance, because historically and culturally their societies, in the pre-colonial era did not have such a system (with citizens the obvious question is how to be responsible citizens and be governed). Therefore, in certain cultures disorder and chaos were the norm before colonial rule. When the colonialist occupied the area now called Zambia, they had to enforce governance where it had not existed before. Just because Zambia attained independence and the colonialists left, it does not mean that such cultures can now simply understand what governance entails.

This aforementioned underdevelopment is not original as it was deviously crafted by Kenneth Kaunda’s UNIP government and then reinforced by successive Zambian governments, as the citation below clearly shows:

According to a senior member of the government, the cabinet had already decided that the Lozi were to be punished, not placated, for their imprudence in electing “former Johannesburg waiters” to replace “some of the best brains in President Kaunda’s cabinet”. The intention was virtually to cut Barotseland off from all public funds and all development projects, to show it in no uncertain terms that, in the President’s words, “it pays to belong to UNIP” (Caplan, 1970:218).

The foregoing transpired after many of the UNIP members of parliament had lost their seats in Barotseland after the 1968 elections. Nonetheless, the British government was also complicit to the impoverishment of Barotseland, through the Northern Rhodesian Government and cannot be exonerated as can be discerned from Phyllis Deane’s assertions in the light of the Review of the Ten-year Development Plan for Northern Rhodesia of 1948:

The proposed developments leave Barotseland still very much a backwater. The Province has always been starved of agricultural officers. This is unfortunate, for the area of the Barotse flood plain is probably the richest in resources and variety of resources in the whole territory. Even now there is flourishing internal trade and the Lozi are well known to be keen and lively traders. It would seem well worthwhile conducting a special investigation into the potentialities of this area, which might prove a more effective starting-point for indigenous development than any other and would certainly offer an interesting site for an experimental rural Development Centre of the type suggested in the Plan (1953:70-71).

Thus, no tangible development took place in Barotseland during Chiluba’s rule. It was said that Chiluba made sure that this part of Zambia was “punished” for its drive for autonomy just as in the time of Kaunda. For example, the only road connecting Lusaka to this area was so pot-holed that travelling on it was not only a hazard, but it took more hours to get to Barotseland unlike when the road was in good condition.

According to the Central Statistical Office (CSO) (2012) the Living Conditions Monitoring Surveys conducted from 1991 to 2006 have shown that the incidence of poverty has reduced over the years in Zambia. But Barotseland consistently emerged as the poorest “province” in all the six surveys. In fact the incidence of poverty in Barotseland remained the same (84 per cent) in 1991 and 2006. Minahan (2002:1117) aptly notes: Formerly one of the wealthiest people’s in southern Africa, the Lozi are among the poorest.” What is clear is that once after the Barotse Native Treasury (BNT) was abolished and all its funds transferred to the Zambia ministry of finance - this is money which was accrued in the form of royalties from the Zambezi Sawmills, which logged timber in Sesheke and from the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association (WENLA), the South African labour recruiting agency, which recruited Barotse migrant labourers to work in the South African mines and royalties stemming from treaties with the British South Africa Company (BSAC) – Kaunda and his cohorts had successfully decoupled Barotseland’s economic base. In addition, the enactment of the Employment Act of 1966 (Act No. 9), which nullified the WENLA Arrangement crystallized Barotseland’s poverty status, which ironically was created after “independence”. This resulted in close to six thousand Barotse losing their jobs without the UNIP government firstly providing them with alternative employment or any compensation for that matter.

Sadly, the underdevelopment of Barotseland was successfully cemented because of treachery. Interestingly enough, it was the young educated UNIP Lozi nationalists who had given Kaunda enough ammunition to launch an assault on Barotseland, before and after he had consolidated his power after 1968. The two Wina brothers, Sikota and the late Arthur; the late Munukayumbwa Sipalo and Dr. Kabaleka Konoso had forfeited their history, heritage and posterity for Kaunda, and UNIP. Sikota Wina was Minister of Local Government, Arthur Wina was Minister of Finance and Kabeleke Konoso was the Minister of Justice when all the changes which had denuded the legal status of Barotseland were instituted. Ironically, these Lozis’ parents were also part of the traditional ruling elites of Barotseland. Sikota Wina, then Minister of Local Government, had defended the desecration of Barotseland in Parliament as follows:

It is only in this manner that the population of our people in Barotse Province shall move into fresher waters. I hold the belief that whether a man be Lozi, Tonga, Bemba or Ngoni, his primary concern is for food to fill his stomach, clinics to heal his wounds, schools to educate his children, development to generate employment so that his wife can dress as well as the wives of Honourable Members of this House… [it is] only a small and dying section of the traditional elements of the nineteenth century. The Barotse, Mr. Speaker, are no longer interested in being regarded as museum specimens, or to be regarded as a pure preservation of old happy Africa through the eyes of Stanley… (Gertzel, 1984:231).

After Kaunda had used Lozis such as the Wina brothers and Konoso, he effectively discarded them. It is again important not to lose sight of the British factor here, as the British Government seemed to have had a love-hate relationship with the Lozis, thus its betrayal of Barotseland at the eleventh hour. When all has been said and done, the tragic irony in respect to Barotseland, is that a once cultured, proud, orderly and dignified people, with a highly advanced pre-colonial state, have been reduced to paupers in Zambia. Their nation, now known as the Western Province of Zambia, exhibits high incidences of HIV/AIDS, high numbers of teenage pregnancies, high infant and maternal mortality rates and has consistently been the poorest region in the country since “independence”.

References

  • Caplan, G.L. (1970) The Elites of Barotseland, 1878-1969 - A Political History of Zambia’s Western Province. Berkley, CA: University of California Press.
  • Central Statistical Office (CSO), (2012). Living Conditions: Poverty in Zambia – 1991-2006. http://www.zamstats.gov.zm/lcm.php, [Accessed 12 June 2012].
  • Deanne, P. (1953) Colonial Social Accounting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Gertzel, C. (1984) Western Province: traditional, economic and political deprivation. In Gertzel, C., Baylies, C. and Szeftel, M. (eds.). The dynamics of the one-party state in Zambia. Manchester: Manchester University Press. pp206-236.
  • Minahan, J. (2002) Encyclopedia of the stateless nations – Ethnic and national groups around the world, Volume III, L-R. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.


Adapted from: Noyoo, N., (2013 forthcoming). Social welfare in Zambia: The search for a transformative agenda. London: Adonis and Abbey.

Zambia Inspector General of police, Stella Libongani, tours Barotseland on an ox-drawn cart during Zambia's 2015 elections
Zambia Inspector General of police, Stella Libongani, tours Barotseland on an ox-drawn cart during Zambia's 2015 elections
  • 03
  • Sep

1). The territory of Barotseland defined as, "a territory that on 23rd October, 1964, was comprised in the former Barotseland protectorate" where as Zambia is the territory that on 23rd October, 1964 was comprised in Northern Rhodesia British colony.

2). The citizens of Barotseland are Lozis while citizens of Zambia are Zambians, indeed two nations apart.

3). There are 38 tribes or ethnic dialectic groups in Barotseland while Zambia has 35. The tribes or ethnic dialectic groups of two nations combined are 73.

4). Lozis are generally honest, hard working and law abiding while their neighbors, Zambians are generally lazy, untrustworthy and lawless.

5). The physical country of Lozi nationals is a monarchy of Barotseland while the country of Zambian nationals is a republic of Zambia.

6). Barotseland believes in law that says that ANYTHING DONE CONTRAST TO LAW IS DEEMED NOT TO HAVE BEEN DONE AT ALL whereas Zambia practices that says ANYTHING DONE CONTRAST TO LAW IS DEEMED PERFECT AS LONG AS IT SERVES OUR INTEREST.

In light of aforementioned, there is a principle of law that says; NEMO EST SUPRA LEGIS. A Latin phrase for NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW. Hence, the law will catch the perpetrators of injustice against the people of Barotseland.

7). Barotseland monarchy has a defined lingua franca Si Lozi, a Bantu language of the Niger–Congo language family within the Sotho languages branch of Zone S (S.30), where as Zambian has no lingua franca as it is made of scattered tribal groupings headed by chiefs.

8). Zambia believes in an ACT OF PARLIAMENT for acquiescence of Barotseland territory. It is quite evidenced in Zambia's draft constitution where the physical boundary has not been outlaid as per international standards using latitudes and longitudes. Under sovereignty, I quote clause (2) “The Republic consists of the territory defined in an Act of Parliament…” Remember that it was through Zambia's act of parliament of 1969 that Barotseland Agreement 1964 was abrogated.

On the other hand, Barotseland believes in the law of nations. This is the international law which teaches the rights subsisting between nations or states, and the obligations correspondent to those rights; in order to decide all disputes, and to insure the observance of good faith and justice.

NOTE:

International law is generally divided into two branches;

1. The natural law of nations, consisting of the rules of justice applicable to the conduct of states.

2. The positive law of nations, which consist of;

a. The voluntary law of nations, derived from the presumed consent of nations, arising out of their general usage.

b. The conventional law of nations, derived from the express consent of nations, as evidenced in treaties and other international compacts.

c. The customary law of nations, derived from the express consent of nations, as evidenced in treaties and other international compacts between themselves.

9) Zambian courts and police deal with politics, and not with law, against the people of Barotseland to arrest, detain and prosecute them.

Therefore, Zambia being a complainant was not supposed to adjudicate in court cases against Lozis, because there is a principle in law which says, “WOR NEMO JUDEX IN PARTE SUA” Latin meaning “no one can adjudicate a case within which they are an interested party.”

SUMMARY

Barotseland is a state and as such cannot be an integral part of Zambia in the absence of the Barotseland Agreement 1964. Quoting Hon. Joann Vamieson Burnside who made stunning remarks when he told the Northern Rhodesia parliament, in 1963, that:-

“The Lozi are a people. They are a nation; they are not one of the many small groups that one reads in the appendices to government reports which involve tribes."

Indeed we are a nation; therefore, I would like to implore all citizens of Barotseland who seem to exhibit the philosophical statement of a COWARD HYENA LIVES LONGER, to read the story of Esther in the Bible.

Bulozi ki bwa Luna

By Saleya Kwalombota

File: Barotse Plains

  • 01
  • Sep

Barotseland existed as a monarch for centuries and practice democracy in every sphere of monarch authority dealings with the people before the word could even be known as the language of today's modern governance.

Governance in Barotseland's system has been known as being democratic. Democracy does not simply mean that the views of a majority must always prevail: a balance of the fair and proper treatment of governance issues must be achieved to avoid any abuse of dominant position. Thus, the Litungaship has been protected from public ridicule through enactment of system that is able to deal with areas of conflicting interests.

However, the most problematic aspect of Barotseland governance in our fifty years cohabitation with Zambia is unprotected views of the commoners at a time when majority decision become more diverse. Notably, the 2012 Barotse National Council independence resolutions which were unanimously voted for by the three tiers of BNC structure. Any personal decision will breed dispute conflicting the majority wishes flows from the 2012 BNC resolutions. Barotseland governance system has in place measures that protect the interest of the commoners by giving them acquiescence in decisions through the Barotseland National council (BNC) which is the highest decision making policy body.

Therefore, the integrity of the Litungaship will be a degree of measure to which it is consistent with the values that people espouse. To be trusted by his own people, Lubosi Imwiko II must live to the challenges of majority decisions by being reliable, trustworthy, and able to harmonize his personal interest with the majority wishes.

Our next main course of action now is to seek audience with the new SADC chair Ian Khama. On the other hand, we have a duty to protect our long founded monarch by available order of system in place at the moment by petitioning the Namuso Kuta to clarify the position of Lubosi Imwiko II on the independence resolve of the people.

Tukongote Litunga ni lyetu

  • 01
  • Sep

By Lindunda Wamunyima

Of late there has been a lot of speculations and grapevine telegraphy regarding the Barotse Agreement 2015, a purported Zambian Government Modified Option (GMO) for the defunct Barotseland Agreement 1964, BA’64. I find it to be pure Zambian fantasy and fairy tale if at all true and in the brewing. In the following lines, I try to pen down ten reasons why the Zambian GMOs are fallacy, hogwash and unacceptable.

1.    With Barotseland and Zambia being two different states and nations Zambia has no powers to propose an international treaty of that enormity (BA’ 2015) between the two countries, assuming the role of the very international institutions she is defying and deriding by her repugnant attitude towards the international laws regarding the same issue. We are not fools to think that the power that abrogated the international treaty BA’64 will have the morality and audacity to honour its own law and treaty in the name of BA’2015. That will be hoping against hope! Once beaten twice shy.

2.    Barotseland has never been and will never be a tenant to Zambia to be treated like Zambia is our landlady and, we do not owe Zambia anything. Ironically, it is Zambia who owes Barotseland colossal amounts of monies, restitution for human rights violation and restoration of the dignity of our land. The two have remained separate lands and nations despite the political and economic distortion of the Zambian history especially prior to 1964. For example, Lewanika politically existed before Kaunda and yet he is not even suggested as the founding father of Zambia. The young ‘man’ KK is preferred instead! It is surprising to note how seriously Lewanika is recognised for the role he played in the history of Southern Africa by the surrounding nations and yet Lewanika’s role was ignored even during the 50 years Golden Jubilee Celebrations of Zambia!

3.    We have all the legal and historic facts in our favour. Both the international and Zambian laws give testimony to the fact that the course of action we have decided to pursue in response to Zambia’s abrogation and repudiation of the BA’64 is very rational and credible to get us to the legitimate resolve of this political epic.

4.    There is no legal basis now for Barotseland to continue cohabiting with Northern Rhodesia without seriously subjecting herself to further subjugation, human rights violation and other atrocities by the illegal occupying forces of Zambia. We live in a dispensation of human rights awareness where  human relationships are based on and regulated by appropriate international and national laws. What more a nation like Barotseland!

5.    The only legitimate BNC was held in 2012 on 26 - 27th March. The next BNC cannot be called for or insinuated by any foreign government like Zambia and still qualify to be our BNC; not in our system of governance, in as far as I know. We look forward to the next BNC dully called for in the new Barotseland nation to chart the way forward in our reclaimed gloryland.

6.    We have made so much progress such that no amount of bribing, betrayals, torturing and the like will help reverse the situation other than expatiating and expediting our struggle for the ultimate-our Total Independence from Zambia. The year 1964 is not 2012 and the political awareness and correctness then and now are quite different and a ‘golden jubilee’ apart! Zambia had all the opportunity in her Golden Jubilee period to cooperate with Barotseland in her frantic efforts with governments of the day then for the restoration of BA’64. Why it should make sense now after the 2012 BNC and UDI mandate one wonders; worse that Zambia is offering the GMOs and not the real original pact!

7.    Succumbing to any other pressures without and within, contrary to the BNC 2012 mandate will be conceding to be under the Zambian yoke perpetually, fatefully and face the full wrath of Zambia’s ignominy. Zambia has no room for Barotseland now and then, judging by their schemes of work to obliterate us and promote Bemba and Nyanja only. People who watch news will bear witness to this sad fact; One Zambia One Nation is a deceptive slogan. One wonders why national broadcasters do not run each advert in all the seven “official Languages” like they do for news in local languages or English if really all are equal before the law? Otherwise, it is One Zambia One Nation, and One Nation, One Language! It will not be long before Zambians confess though it will be too late to redeem the situation.

8.    Barotseland is a virgin land very rich and economically viable contrary to Zambia and her ally’s value proposition of and/or against us. Paradoxically, it is our unexploited wealth that Zambia is eyeing to loot further, under pretext that the land is bare. Fortunately, one indisputable fact is that the bare or desert countries of the world have produced some of the wealthiest nations and states known in the world. Hence Zambia’s clinging onto the long broke political marriage between us with the hope of deceitfully gaining access to our resources via the BRA.

9.    People who bemoan the fate of their intermarriages do not present a strong case against the independence agenda of Barotseland because the issue is not unique to us but all our neighbours and all over the world. It is just fear of the unknown and when the full independence date will be past they will still maintain their filial ties forever. Zambia herself is full of both low and high profile figures with dual or triune citizenship or descent! The point is that you will still have the power of choice regarding your citizenry status.

10.    If at all Zambia feels she has a case to put against Barotseland’s independence agenda she should have found it easy and opportune to avail herself to international arbitrators. I find it quite treachery and malevolent of Zambia to avoid appearing in courts of Law to defend her cause. To the contrary, she has been quick to litigate us, in her local courts for what is lawfully and rightfully ours! A case of this magnitude cannot now be resolved outside of the international legal framework or else Barotseland will suffer serious political and economic anathemas. If I had the power to form languages and define terms I would define this behaviour so far as really seditious and treasonous of (Zambia) Northern Rhodesia against Barotseland in Zambia, unlike the other way round currently potrayed, after faithfully appending signatures to launch the BA’64?

The bonus reason for not entertaining the Zambian GMOs  is found in the book of Acts 17:24 which states as follows: “And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation…”  Zambia being a Christian nation well understands this verse. Truly we still hold them as brothers and sisters because in God’s eyes our blood is biologically one colour and is neither black, brown, pink, Zambian nor Barotzish. However, Barotseland was determined beforehand (even before there was Zambia and Northern Rhodesia) to be the bounds of our habitation without any regrets!  Failure to recognise this fact is to sell our birthright like did Esau to Jacob for fleshly craves. What more is better than this Biblical fact and consolation?

TUKONGOTE WA MWANAA NONGOLO. LITUNGA NI LYETU.

  • 31
  • Aug

THE LIE ABOUT THE SO CALLED ONE ZAMBIA ONE NATION MOTTO

The national motto of 'One Zambia One Nation' is one of the many things that many people do not know how it came about, and what it really means. Zambia's history has been distorted and reconstructed since 1964 to hide certain truths and diminish certain people.

Today most Zambians have a false belief that the slogan of 'One Zambia One nation' was coined by Kaunda, and that it stands for the unity of the 73 ethnic groupings (note not tribes but ethnic groupings) found in Zambia. Well, you can’t really blame them as this is what they have been taught. However, this is but one of the deliberate and deep rooted lies that were formulated by the Kaunda regime to hide the truth about the relationship between Barotseland and Zambia.

The truth is that this slogan that most Zambians like parroting each time they are confronted with the issue of Barotseland was in fact made popular by late Honourable Arthur Wina, and that it was lifted from the Barotseland Agreement of 1964, the very document that they despise by calling it tribal, since to them 'One Zambia One nation' means the unity of the diverse tribes found in Zambia.

“Whereas it its proposed that Northern Rhodesia shall become an independent Sovereign Republic to be known as the Republic of Zambia;

“And whereas it is the wish of the Government of Northern Rhodesia and of the Litunga (Head of State) of Barotseland, his Council, and the chiefs and people of Barotseland that Northern Rhodesia (and Barotseland) should proceed to independence as ONE Country (Zambia) and that all its people should be ONE nation.” (Barotseland Agreement)

After all Barotseland, according to most Zambians, was like any other province of Zambia. Many people are either ignorant or deliberately choose to ignore the fact Zambia was created by uniting two SEPARATE territories of Northern Rhodesia and Barotseland. No wonder when President Sata was handed the Rodger Chongwe Commission of inquiry report, he said he was reluctant to accept the recommendations as this would open a Pandora ’s Box, for other chiefs like Mpezeni and Chiti Mukulu would demand for the same.

This statement sounded normal to many Zambians but it was shocking to those who know the matter because there was no agreement signed between provinces as doing so would be tantamount to a country signing a treaty with itself.

What a lot of Zambians don’t want to accept is that Barotseland was a country which signed a treaty with Northern Rhodesia as equal parties (separate countries), but instead they want to reduce it to a province as taught according to Kaunda’s syllabus.

When a lie is told repeatedly people tend to believe it.

The fact is that whereas Zambia was born in 1964, Barotseland was born long before that. It was a country with a national anthem, composed in 1918, the national symbol being the mighty elephant, and Silozi as the lingua franca that united all the over 32 ethnic groups found in Barotseland.

The Zambia Independence Order (hidden from the public by the Kaunda regime) is very clear in its definition of the constituent territories that form Zambia.

“On 24th October, in this Act referred to as the appointed day, the territory which, immediately before the appointed day are comprised in Northern Rhodesia shall cease to be a protectorate and shall together become an independent republic under the name of Zambia and on and after that, Her Majesty shall have no jurisdiction over those territories.”

“The Zambia Independence Order 1964 further explains the foregoing stating that “ In this constitution, unless the context otherwise requires;

“Barotseland means, the territory that on 23 rd October was comprised in the former Barotseland Protectorate;

“The former Protectorate of Northern Rhodesia means, the territory that on 23rd October was comprised in the Protectorate of Northern Rhodesia.”

This is plain for any person of average schooling that this was not referring to provinces but territories hence Barotseland could not be lowered to the level of Zambian provinces as it was an agreement signed between two Separate territories.

There are three formations out of which states are formed and these are; Monolithic states, unitary states and Federal state.

A unitary state is formed by more than one territories or countries through negotiations and signing of a treaty like the Barotseland Agreement of 1964.

These kinds of states are divisible if the terms that brought them together are violated by one of the parties.

One example of such states include the United Republic of Tanzania formed by the constituent territories of Tanganyika and Zanzibar, the other ones include the United Arab emirates and in Europe we have the United Kingdom comprised of Northern Ireland, England, Wales and Scotland. For instance Scotland recently held a referendum to separate itself from the rest of the UK.

When the agreed terms are violated like in the case of Northern Rhodesia and Barotseland, the innocent party is set free by enforcement of articles 60 and 70 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties which state as follows:

(a) “A material breach of a bilateral treaty by one of the parties entitles the other to invoke the breach as a ground for terminating the treaty or suspending its operation in whole or in part;

(b) A material breach of a bilateral treaty, for the purpose of this Article, consists;
=Violation of a provision essential to the accomplishment of the object or purpose of the treaty.

ARTICLE 70 - CONSEQUENCES OF TERMINATION OF A TREATY

Unless the treaty, otherwise, provides or the parties agree, the termination of a treaty under its provisions or in accordance with the present Convention;

(a) Releases the parties from any obligation to, further, perform the treaty.”

The foregoing is just but some of the justifications that Barotseland is armed with in its struggle for freedom."

Source: ANTONIO MOURINHO MWANZA facebook profile.

Antonio Mourinho Mwanza is Zambia’s Forum for Democratic Development, FDD, National spokesperson
Antonio Mourinho Mwanza is Zambia’s Forum for Democratic Development, FDD, National spokesperson
  • 29
  • Aug

The most trending subject over the past week has been the alleged anti-independence Maneuvers of the BRE and the Litungaship who are accused of meeting Zambian government officials clandestinely. Another is the Afumba Mombotwa treason trial and related matters. Here below are some of the most topical comments on the subject.

SAMUEL KALIMUKWA....

“While we are impatient and frustrated by the apparent lukewarm involvement of our parents in the struggle it would be prudent on our part to be cautious and avoid outright offensive language. It is culturally taboo and unheard of for a Lozi person to insult his parents, not even any person older than you.

Much has not been heard about the position of the BRE on the infamous Mombotwa trial by the occupying evil power but it would be wrong to conclude that the BRE acquiesce in the madness of the occupying evil force. The benefit of the doubt is essential. Firstly, let us propose that the BRE issues their position on the trial. Secondly, the BRE should tell the nation whether the three evil men from the east really visited the palace or not. Thirdly, if they did, what transpired and what was the palace's response? Lastly, the BRE should keep the nation well informed on all the developments. This will certainly clear all grey areas. For now, please, let us avoid vulgar tongue lashing. KOZO.” SAMUEL KALIMUKWA

CONCERNED CITIZEN OF BAROTSELAND.

“To imagine that all the time Malozi will use respect even when their lives are in danger just to please those in BRE and holding the position of Litunga is unimaginable. Bo Samuel Kalimukwa if I am not mistaken you were arrested over this issue and BRE was quiet. The question you must answer now is for how long are we going to wait. Since 2012 this is 2015 they are quiet. For me, I believe we have been patient enough bo Samuel. I mean, why keep quiet and hide if I am doing something good for you? You need to know and appreciate what I’m doing for you.

The Litunga and those in BRE must know that they are not more Barotzish than anyone else; rather they are just stake holders in this issue. All of them can be removed and other people put in those offices. It pains me when people are being arrested and killed when the meeting (BNC-2012) was called by them which resolved that Barotseland is now independent; today they express ignorance over this issue. I, for one, am not calling for much but for BRE to be open enough on what they do, be transparent and accountable, fill the office of Ngambela and have briefings on what they are doing among others. In fact, Bo Samuel, the best you can do is to advise BRE and the Litunga on what people want or else these insults might be upgraded into beatings. Kozo sha.” CONCERNED CITIZEN OF BAROTSELAND

SAMUEL KALIMUKWA

“CONCERNED CITIZEN OF BAROTSELAND, I was arrested, humiliated and detained over the issue. The BRE said nothing but I saw no point in insulting them because I felt I was playing my part. Each one of us should do their part without insulting one another. Much has already been accomplished. We cannot afford battles on two fronts. Let us tell the BRE what they are supposed to do without insulting them.” SAMUEL KALIMUKWA

ANONYMOUS

“Bo Samuel Kalimukwa, with due respect, the BRE and the Litunga already know and were told what they are supposed to do through the 2012 BNC which mandated them to implement the BNC resolution. For God's sake, if they are or were facing any challenges they should have come to us, the people who gave them the mandate and told us these challenges. You, Bo Samuel, I believe you could have paid them an ear. Even if they said they wanted one more Induna, I don't think you were going to refuse to take up that challenge, shangwe. We the people of Barotseland are not asking for miracles from them but rather we expect them to tell us what they are doing.

The only meeting with Zambians which was approved by BNC was to work out transitional arrangement (Kukauhana) and I don't think that is what they are doing or discussing in their current dark corner meetings. Lungu's wife and Zambia's vice president have been meeting them on what? You say much has been achieved, the question is by whom? Many countries bo Samuel have done away with monarchs because of their rigidity to move with the people. In Barotseland the people rule, the King listens and follows. In 1962-4 the then King refused to join Zambia but the people at that time wanted to join Zambia. At last the King had no option but to follow.

We are the same people who are telling the Litunga we want independence, and he must follow without hesitation. It’s not him, you or me but the people of Barotseland and their voice must be respected. Sorry, I am not fighting you, but we the young people are suffering while they enjoy swimming in money using Bulozi. I am just debating. Thanks.” ANONYMOUS

BAROTSELAND WATCHDOG

DON'T THREATEN US, WE DON'T WANT ANY WAR WITH YOU, DON'T START THAT WHICH YOU CANNOT FINISH – BRE WARNED.

Chief Editor

It is disappointing to hear Induna Katema (Mr. Moowa Zambwe) threatening the Social Media which is providing checks and balances to the Self-Determination struggle of Barotseland. The Editorial Body of Barotseland Watchdog wishes to sound this warning to Mr. Moowa Zambwe not to start a war which he cannot finish. We hope you were misquoted. Barotseland Broadcasting Network, Barotseland Post, Barotseland Watchdog and indeed other social media are there to provide checks and balances. Who in this world would expect that BRE or Litunga would come forward willingly to tell the people that we have been bribed? It is the duty of the social media to provide checks and balances, just as it is your duty to come forward from time to time to address the people of Barotseland on the issue of Barotseland Agreement and the subsequent BNC Resolutions of 2012.

It is now 3 years without meaningful direction and implementation of 2012 BNC Resolutions. The BNC Resolutions of 2012 have not been respected and carried out. Instead BRE is going round in circles without a clear vision of what the road map should be. We in the social media are prepared to stand by you if you are acting in line with the BNC Resolutions of 2012. Our mission is not to insult the Highest Authority in Barotseland. Our allegiance is to the people of Barotseland. If you want war with the Social media, declare it and you will force us to disclose all the dealings of each BRE Induna. This is not the direction we wish to take. Our role is informing the people of Barotseland on the unfolding events with regard to Barotseland's self Determination. We advise you to focus the energy of the Barotse Imilema in the struggle, not in fighting!

We are happy to learn that BRE is following the social media updates on Barotseland Post, Barotseland Broadcasting Network and Barotseland Watchdog. If you are indeed following, you will learn to listen to the voice of the people. We will continue to put pressure on you.

BULOZI LONDON

As a preamble please note that Bulozi London is not a representative of the BRE or of any grouping inside or outside Bulozi.

We write as we see things and also believe that our audience has the right to make informed decisions about our choice of topics or even better leave our page if they feel so strongly about some of our opinions.

We are also prone to making mistakes, correcting them and moving on like we previously joined in the insults of the Litunga until we became wise to the ploy to weaken our most priceless possession which is the ‘Monarchy.’

We shall again call upon the BRE as we’ve done before to install a Ngambela who then can disseminate policy matters to the people otherwise we shall all be quenched by rumors as the people are not being fed needful information and thus will resort to consuming news peddled by doomsayers, some of which may have some element of truth in it. Kozo.

Every monarchical succession in Barotseland, including other kingdoms, has its own challenges due to the wide range of potential successors preferred by different senior members of the royal family, the Kuta, and the priest-guardians for various reasons.

For instance, in March 1916, the British government representative had to put his foot down for Lubosi’s first born son and chosen heir Litia Yeta II, (CBE) to ascend to the throne.

This was after other candidates were considered including Mwanang’ono Imwiko I, who was educated at Bethany House School, Goudhurst, Kent and was top of his class in the UK.

It is not right to say the current Litunga was not chosen correctly due to pressure from the Zambian government.

Pressure will always be there from a sitting government when installing a vibrant monarchy but tradition always prevails...

There is even some antagonism that the Litunga is being invited to go to Botswana. Is this the first time a sitting king has to travel abroad even as far as the UK?

In 1890, Prince Litia accompanied Adolph Jallah to Bechuanaland where he was impressed with Khama and on return was baptized as a Christian before being sent to setup the royal establishment in Sesheke.

Monarchies worldwide survive either on government grants or the goodwill of the people. If Mrs Lungu leaves a parcel in Limulunga, really is that cause for consternation?

King Ilute Yeta IV was even a member of the UNIP central committee and was on government payroll paid monthly with travelling allowances.

We have so many challenges mwa Bulozi which require our concerted effort like lack of meaningful employment, lack of basic education, water and sanitation, poor health facilities and rising crime rates due to rapid urbanization.

Successive Zambian governments save for the Mwanawasa era have made attempts to further impoverish us by denying us these basic human needs and it is these governments we should target our anger at and not the Litunga whose powers were usurped after our people through the Katengo forced Mwanawina to sign the Barotseland agreement of 1964. Mwanawina had flatly refused to sign this document as he foresaw the troubles ahead.

During the run-up to the Zambian independence in the 1950-60 Sir Mwanawina III KBE (The first and last African in central Africa to be so honoured by the British Monarchy) was made very unpopular to the large majority of his people by the Lozi nationalists who formed BASMO (Barotse anti-secession movement) headed by Arthur and Sikota Wina primarily to ensure that Barotseland joined Zambia as one into Northern Rhodesian independence.

On learning of Mwanawina’s attempts not to join Northern Rhodesia in their quest for independence, Sikota Wina, then UNIP’s publicity chief declared ‘If Mwanawina breaks away he will be doing so illegally and we will be justified in overthrowing him.’

Seriously, Sata points at a piece of Land and names it a stadium or university and some people are happy with that!!

A nation without a culture is like a body without a head. BULOZI LONDON

  • 24
  • Aug

Born with his left hand gripped on his right wrist

A mystical pointer to a successful future

Lubosi lwa Mawaniketwa Nakandambo

A herdsman elevated to Kingship

Like King David of the Bible,

False start, was his initial rule

When the Barotse turned against each other

His fate was defined by his adversaries

Fusilladely, guns were fired

Mushondwa - the shamed one, they called him

Like a cat of many lives, survived

To redefine his destiny

And that of his nation, Barotseland

In exile, the lionized one rose from the ashes

Like the mystic phoenix,

To re-write the history of his nation

Liwanika-la-Mafuci-the visionary unifier of nations

Admired by many, respected by all and feared by foes

Never feared to face the unknown, and

That became the dominate feature of his character,

When he encountered Maputukisi (the Portuguese) from the West

Majelemani (the Germans) from the South West and

Matebele from the South East,

He pitted the British against their own kind-the Europeans

A demonstration of his intellectual faculty, and

A deep wisdom, rarely associated With African Kings and worlds yonder

His unique military and economic exploits

Supported by men with military ingenuity, men

Idolized and renowned in raids

For their devastating scale of attacks, unearthed in him

Uncommon bravery and heroic deeds

Lubosi lwa Nyambe recognized the importance of the Almighty God

And saved his people from perpetual darkness

Unknown to all, he fore saw

The knowledge and wealth hidden in books,

Posterity benefitted from his legacy

A legacy worth defending

O'Nanikelako, blessed you are

Bestowed with the honor of holding his remains

For ever and ever

Source BNFA.INFO

 

King Lewanika Lubosi  I, Born 1842 – 1916; 1st Regime (1878 - 1884 ) , 2nd Regime (1885 - 1916)

  • 23
  • Aug

Please our Bishop, receive our warm greetings to you and the entire community in Barotseland, and indeed the rest of the country and the world at large.
Today marks a sad day and indeed a day that can be used to reflect on the life of our brother Bishop Paul Duff who passed away in 2011.

Since his coming in the country in 1984 he served the people of Barotseland in many spheres of life that include education, heath, agriculture, peace and unity among others. He was never afraid of saying the truth even if it would not go well with the government of the day. For example, what happened in 2010 when Zambia’s ruling MMD party supporters almost traveled from Lusaka to Mongu to go and do what they termed "sorting him out" for speaking on behalf of his people in the territory. He took time to meet with his people to make sure that he got first hand information from his people.

Bishop Paul Duff encountered many challenges both at a personal level and those that came as a result of his work as the servant of the people that were unique to him and his time, but he faced these challenges squarely, and solutions were found. We also believe that many of challenges he may not have shared them with anyone for various reasons.

We believe you too are not special not to face those challenges unique to your time as well. For example, this region still continues to be recorded as having the highest level of poverty in the Zambia, at least according to the 2010 Central Statistical Offices (CSO) data, and also the 2015 statistics placing the province still having a very high number of people living with HIV/AIDS, with Mongu district alone having more than 10,000 people on ARVs. This number is too high for a district like Mongu. Early marriages, lack of employment, and lack of unity among our various leaders in the territory among others.

We do not to wish to push too much pressure on you Bishop Chinyemba. However, we only wish to appeal to you that-

1. As a Church you engage with other stake holders to find measures of reducing the high levels of HIV/AIDS in Mongu district and the province as a whole.

2. You ensure that the Church continues with its various pastoral works aimed at reducing poverty among the people.

3. That you call a meeting between His Majesty Litunga Lubosi Imwiko II and other various stake holders to iron out the perceived misunderstandings, for unity and peace to continue prevailing among the people in the nation.

We wish you all the best in your work of the Lord.

Your humble brothers and sisters.

FOR BISHOP DUFFY, JUSTICE AND TRUTH WAS MORE IMPORTANT THAN ANYTHING ELSE, HE FOUGHT FOR THE PEOPLE OF BAROTSELAND.
FLASH BACK:

Oblate Bishop of Mongu Diocese of Zambia Paul Duffy, OMI has been threatened to be beaten up by a section of the ruling party in Zambia, the Movement for Multi-Party Democracy (MMD). “The Post” Newspaper an independent tabloid reports in today’s issue of Wednesday September 15, 2010, that, a Mr. Chiko Chibale who is the MMD Copperbelt information secretary, has threatened to beat up Bishop Duffy. He said that he will mobilize the party’s crack squad to travel to Mongu to manhandle Bishop Paul Duffy if he continues to issue derogatory remarks against MMD and the President Rupiah Banda. The threat to manhandle Bishop Duffy comes in the wake of a statement he made that the people of Western Province think it is time for change.

The statement made by Bishop Duffy has unsettled the ruling party which has accused the Bishop of inciting anarchy in the Country. MMD spokesperson, Dora Siliya who is also the minister of education was quick to dismiss Bishop Paul’s assertion. Bishop Duffy defended his statement saying that he based his statement on what he has experienced while interacting with the people at the grassroots. Bishop Duffy also questioned the governments’ motive of borrowing huge sums of money which does not visibly translate to development in the country and in particular the Western Province of Zambia. Bishop Duffy has refused calls to apologize saying that he does not owe anybody an apology over his statement that the people of Western Province want change because what he said is what the people on the ground are saying.

Bishop Duffy has ministered in the Western Province since he came to Zambia in 1984. He is among the first group of Missionary Oblates who pioneered the setting up of the Oblate presence in Zambia. The Missionary Oblates are mostly present in the poorest districts of Western Province, namely, Lukulu, Mongu, Kalabo and recently Shangombo district. Bishop Duffy has spent most of his life as a missionary in Lukulu, Kalabo and Mongu. As a priest he has been in the fore front of advocating for the poor. While serving as priest and Bishop of Mongu Diocese, he facilitated the setting up of Oblate Radio Liseli, Mongu Diocese Development Center, Home Based Care projects which reach out to the people living with HIV/AIDS and numerous other projects. He also administers three Catholic Schools, St. Johns and Holy Cross Secondary Schools in Mongu, and St. Columbus High School in Lukulu district (the only high school in the district), and a Teachers Training College, the only one in the Western Province. The diocese also manages Mangango hospital.

Bishop Evans Chinyemba - Diocese of Mongu
Bishop Evans Chinyemba - Diocese of Mongu
  • 22
  • Aug

Saturday, 22nd August, 2015

BAROTSELAND POST EDITORIAL: “Hands off Our Litunga!”

The Chinese say, “shame on the thief when he steals from you once, but shame on you if the thief steals from you a second time!”

This cannot be truer than in the case of Barotseland. The people of Barotseland will have only themselves to blame if they once again fall for the schemes of interlopers, who seek only to defraud them of their rights and resources once again!

While the people of Barotseland may be enviably among the meekest of the earth, their naivety and tameness, however, will not be so desirable. And while it may also be true that the meek inherit and posses their land, the gullible and cowardly, on the other hand, often lose theirs. Most Zambians know these concepts very well. It is no wonder many have corrupted a lofty si Bemba idiom “Ifintu ni bwangu”, which in its original context is a direct derivative of the English idiom ‘the early bird catches the worm’. In its current perverted popular application, it speaks of grand corruption that is almost grounding the entire nation of Zambia. Therefore, this means that, while the Barotse slide into docility, the Zambians seek to spring up swiftly and take that which rightfully belongs to the Barotse. Who ever imagined that an entire nation could be stolen while its citizenry watched helplessly? Such was the eternal fate of Barotseland until 27th March 2012 Barotse National Council!

That the Litungaship of Barotseland is today under siege is sadly no longer a secret. This, therefore, serves as clarion call on the Barotse to rise up and demand, in loud voices, “hands off our Litunga!” After all, is the Litungaship not of the people of Barotseland? Only they, the Barotse, ascribe unreserved honor and glory to it! In fact, does the Litunga’s very powers and authority not emanate from the people? Indeed, even the very operations of the Litungaship, are they not inscribed in the very ancient cultural norms and statutes of the Barotse? The Barotse must, therefore, reclaim their Litunga from the encroachment of interloping powers. They must, and as a matter of necessity, demand that the Litunga be left alone to decide to align freely with his people and Kingdom of Barotseland, without undue pressure from aliens.

Remember how nostalgic it felt to the Barotse when Kenneth Kaunda of Zambia once besieged the Litungaship, lowering his loftiness to a mere party card carrying member of UNIP’s governing Central  Committee, MCC? Did the Barotse not voice out in demand that their Litunga be let free from such mundane tasks?  As a mere card carrying member of the ruling UNIP, His Royal Majesty the Litunga became a mere political cadre, answerable only to a common Politian, Kenneth Kaunda. It also meant that the Litunga was no longer answerable to his people and nation, over which he was duly King and custodian. The Litungaship was indeed besieged! He was often made to trek between Limulunga and Lusaka at the mere call of Kenneth Kaunda. Those were indeed dark days of Kenneth Kaunda’s regime, which ruled under a perpetual state of emergency. However, were the patriotic voices of many Barotse loyalists not stirred to fearlessly demand that the Litunga be released to exist above politics, partisan or otherwise? The Barotse in unison demanded “Hands off our Litunga” until His Majesty Ilute Yeta IV’s MCC appointment was revoked.

Similarly today, we are told in loud and clear tones that some ‘three evil men,’ interlopers from the east have invaded Barotseland in the cover of the night and are purported to have penetrated as far as the innermost dwellings of our Ngocana, King. We are further told that they went as far as His Majesty’s Kashandi to allegedly strike some dirty deals aimed at once again besieging the Litungaship of Barotseland. Their singular wish, we are also told, is to reduce the eminent Litungaship of Barotseland to a mundane monthly financial subsistence allowance equal to that of a vice president back in their impoverished and crumbling state. This they wish to offer in exchange for Barotseland’s rich natural resource deposits. Now, will the Barotse allow the same interlopers to put their Litunga under siege once again? They did it once before. Shame on them! Should they do it again, shame on the Barotse!

As Ngocana, the Litunga of Barotseland is likened to a ‘sacred calf’, while as Kaongolo ka Nyambe, he is as a ‘tiny insect of God’, both symbolisms indicating how vulnerable Litungaship is without the protection of his people, the Barotse. It was precisely why the Barotse stood in defense of their Litunga when FTJ Chiluba, as president of the same ‘eastern’ regime in 1996, commanded his forces to arrest His Majesty, Litunga Ilute Yeta IV. Did we not see then how many Barotse travelled from far and wide to Lealui mundi wa alume, that great village of real men, to offer themselves as human shields, just to protect their beloved Litunga? Did we not hear how the ancient Barotse war drums were unequivocally sounded in declaration of war? Was it not what made Chiluba retract his dangerous orders?

The Litungaship is an endearing institution of Barotseland. Who occupies it is not as much an issue as the sacredness of that throne. The issue at hand is that the Litungaship is currently under the siege of interlopers from the far alienated east, and urgently needs the Barotse Royal Establishment (BRE) and the rest of Bulozi nation to redeem it.

Will the Barotse, therefore, rise and demand in unison, “Hands off our Litunga” so that he can attend fully to the biding of his people, for to them alone is he answerable. He exists to perform the wishes and the will of his people alone. Never does he act in his own accord. We wish to say to Zambia, let him go to serve his people’s bidding. He already knows what his people decided on 27th March 2012. The people want total independence, and no amount of intimidation and threats on the Litunga will change the people of Barotseland’s resolve.

Tukongete! Litunga Ni Lyetu!

File: HRM Lubosi Imwiko II, Litunga of Barotseland conferring with his distinguished guest
File: HRM Lubosi Imwiko II, Litunga of Barotseland conferring with his distinguished guest
  • 19
  • Aug

BY: AUSTIN MOONGA MBOZI
TO: The UN Secretary General Mr. Ban Ki Moon on his visit to Zambia.
Re: Zambian Peace; Assisting the Zambian government to honour the 1964, BA for the protection of territorial minority rights.

SELF INTRODUCTION.

Your Excellence, I thank you for taking time to visit Zambia. Although I am a University Lecturer and have used the University’s address, I am writing this letter not on behalf of the University or expressing University position, but in my own capacity as a Zambian citizen. Ethnically, I neither belong to the affected Barotse ethnic grouping nor am I writing as their “Official spokesman”. I am writing as an individual concerned with issues of international justice, fairness and protection of minority rights. I thought this is the best opportunity to present this problem to you because the Barotse minority activists claim to have sent several petitions to the UN and got no intervention from your predecessors.

THE SPECIFIC REQUESTS TO YOU.

I write to you to take time to:

(a)    Put pressure, or assist in mediation or funding if it cooperates, the Zambian Government to honour the 1964 Barotseland Agreement. This is an international Agreement which was signed by three Nations; Northern Rhodesia, Barotseland and Britain. The Agreement United Barotseland and Northern Rhodesia which were both British Protectorates to form Zambia. The Agreement gave semi-autonomous self-governing rights to Barotseland but the Zambian Government has violated the agreement, causing a series of ethnically-related violent acts.

BRIEF HISTORY.

During the colonial era, the two territories of Northern Rhodesia and Barotseland were separate protectorates under the British Imperial Government. During the struggle for independence, the two territories decided to proceed to independence as one Unitary state to be called Zambia. Thus on 24th May, 1964, the two territories signed the Barotseland Agreement which United them together with provisions that the Barotseland province which has about 9% of Zambia’s population, would enjoy some autonomous self-governing rights. The Agreement was signed by Kenneth David Kaunda- the Prime Minister of Northern Rhodesia, King Mwanawina-the King of Barotseland and Duncan Sundays –the minister of state for colonies. On 24th October 1964, Zambia got its independence from Britain. But ever since, the Zambian Government violated all the provisions of the Agreement and this has been a source of territorial grievance ever since.

THE KENNETH KAUNDA UNIP PARTY REGIME- 1964-1991.

This regime signed but soon violated the agreement and repressed all freedom of expression and arrested advocates of the Agreement.

THE FREDRERICK CHILUBA MMD PARTY REGIME (1991-2001).

This regime appointed a commission of inquiry over demands for the fulfillment of the Agreement which had increased at the time, but after that this government made no further progress until it left office.

THE PATRICK MWANAWASA MMD PARTY REGIME (2001-2008)

For some reason, agitations for the restoration of the agreement were not very strong during this period.

THE RUPIAH BANDA MMD PARTY REGIME (2008-2011).

The people were killed by the police after the advocates of the agreement resorted to declaring independence after the government failed to honor the agreement. More than Thirty (30) suspected activists were detained and a few more died after their release. During this period, the current ruling Patriotic front president Michael Sata at the time in opposition, promised to honor the Barotseland agreement within Ninety (90) days of assuming office.

THE MICHAEL SATA PF PARTY REGIME (2011 TO DATE)

The current president Michael Sata immediately released all the activists detained by the previous regime. But tensions are growing again because they are now declaring a self-governing territory and appointed a Prime- Minister because they feel cheated by the current president because the 90 day fulfillment promise he made during campaigns has passed and no tangible progress is being made.

THEIR GRIEVANCES ARE;

A)    Refusal to compensate Barotse victims: The current president has refused to compensate those detained by the previous regime whom he has released on grounds that they had no case to answer.

B)    Inappropriate inquiry: The current President appointed a commission to inquire why the previous regime shot at them instead of how to proceed in fulfilling the agreement. Many Barotse submitted for the fulfillment of the agreement, but up to now the commission report is not made public.

C)    Recognition of the Nkoya ethnic minority: The current president is telling them that he would listen to the ‘Nkoya grievances’. But the mainstream Barotse are against this. The ‘Nkoya’ are a minority within Barotseland who would be part of Zambia and not Barotseland in an event that the Barotseland agreement is fulfilled. This problem is likely to be a problem within a problem, while my view is that listening to ‘Nkoya’ concerns is vital (via an only -Nkoya referendum). The mainstream Barotse feel the president’s current position will delay or hold the implementation of the agreement because he did not promise anything about Nkoya rights during his 90 day promise campaigns.

D)    Lack of a written road map/ implementation plan: While the president is assuring that the ‘doors are open for dialogue’, he has not put up any proposals or road map for the Barotse activists to consider. They feel cheated because dialogue means that once they show the Barotseland agreement to him as the document they want fulfilled, he must give a written alternative, so that they bargain and reach some agreement.

E)    Threats of police brutality: The president is threatening them with police brutality. When the Barotse activists appointed by the Prime- Minister, the President publicly called their Prime; Minister ‘fake’ and publicly rebuked the Zambia police chief, Dr. Martin Malama to ‘stop smiling’ while an ‘illegal’ government is being formed. Dr. Malama has since been dismissed.

F)    Kenneth Kaunda/ President Sata’s contradictory historical positions on minority rights: Former president Kaunda has of late been delegated as President Sata’s special envoy to international missions (Angola, China, Gabon). This has brought mistrust. Firstly, Dr. Kaunda is the one who violated the agreement. It is not clear how the current president would favour the agreement violated by his own now special envoy. Secondly, if indeed Dr. Kaunda is a special envoy it is curious why the president should ask him to settle foreign diplomatic matters and not delegate him to solve the Barotseland agreement which he abrogated. Thirdly, during his reign, Dr. Kaunda just after violating the local Barotseland agreement, went on to recognize the BIAFRA Republic which had declared independence from Nigeria on 30th May 1967 in the name of protecting 130 minority rights (against the O.A.U position). Fourthly, Dr. Kaunda, when campaigning for a return to power in 1996, promised to fulfill the same Barotseland agreement which he had violated. Fifth, President Sata in the 1990s as a minister under the MMD had vehemently opposed the implementation of Barotseland agreement. This is not the kind of history that assured a negotiating process based on principle and trust.

G)    Accusations of nepotism: The current president has been accused of practicing unprecedented nepotism and tribalism by virtually all opposition parties, the Catholic church etc by appointing a  disappropriate number of persons to government positions from his region, creating a new province in his home region to increase funding there while in other regions he is demarcating them and attacking them under the rule of the regions dominated by his party and recently transferring a minister Miles Sampa, to the province which is protesting that he insulted their ethnic grouping. Ethnic grievances are the most difficult issues for the U.N.

INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS ON MINORITY RIGHTS.

I draw your Excellency’s attention to the following international instruments, which you may invariably, in part or in full, draw your mandate to pressurize Zambia to honor the Barotseland agreement.

a; U.N declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples (1960).

b; U.N international covenant on civil and the peoples’ right (ICCPR, 1966).

c; The right to self- determination, implementation of the U.N resolution (1980).

d; African Charter of Human rights and peoples’ rights (ACHPR, 1982).

e; ILO convention concerning indigenous and tribal peoples in independent countries (1989).

f; U.N declaration on the rights of persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities (1992).

g; U.N draft declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples (1993).

h; Council of European framework convention for the protection of national minorities (1994).

NEED FOR U.N POLICY CLARIFICATION TOWARDS MINORITY RIGHTS.

Above all, the U.N is called upon to reexamine and redesign its approach to minority rights demands. As the situation stands, the U.N to have no clear criterion which it uses to guarantee self- governing rights to some groups and deny the same rights others. As a result, the U.N tends to wait until a group’s activism threatens world or regional peace before intervening. Two (2) categories of groups are listed below;
Category 1. Countries allowed Seceding by U.N.

In 1947 Pakistan seceded from India. In 1974, Bangladesh Seceded from Pakistan. In 1989 Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania seceded from the Soviet Union. In 1992 Azabajan, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova and Tajikistan also seceded from the Soviet Union. Later, Slovenia and the Czech republic seceded from Czechoslovakia. In 1992, Slovenia, Macedonia, Bosnia, Herzegovina and Croatia seceded from Yugoslavia. In 1993, East Timor seceded from Indonesia while Eritrea also seceded from from Ethiopia. In 2011, South Sudan seceded from Sudan yet this is against the background that your grand predecessor as U.N Secretary General that had warned that the U.N does not condone secession! When addressing a press conference in Accra, Ghana in the 70s he said: As the question of secession of a particular section of a state is concerned, the United Nations’ attitude is unequivocal. As an international organization, the U.N has never accepted and does not accept the principle and do not believe it will ever accept the principles of secession of a part of its member states. So what is the position regarding Barotseland secessionist faction?

Category 2.  Countries refused secession or not given clear position by U.N.

When it declared independence on 11th July 1960, Katanga was refused secession from Congo by the U.N. while the Biafra Republic was denied secession from Nigeria in 1967. In 1967 the Comorian Island was denied secession from the Comoro Arch Pelago. As at now, Chechnya is denied secession from the Russian federation, Abkhazia from Georgia, Kurdistan from Iraq and Turkey, Cuebec from Canada AND Gibraltar from UK and Spain (which are quarrelling over the territory). The Aokland Islands are not aided by the U.N in the bid to secede from Finland to join the Swedish kingdom, etc.

CONCLUSSION

With these cases and arguments in mind, one may see the task of the U.N to assist the Zambian government to implement the Barotseland agreement is easier now since they are not pressing for secession. Should the UN wait, it may find that the Barotse out of frustration, begin to demand for the right to secede, which will be a more complicated task. I hope the UN shall live by the mandate of its origins, right from the League of Nations to the UN formation, to prevent international conflict in a bid to guarantee world peace. The term “prevent” is emphasized here because the UN, as seen in ethnically war-torn countries like Nigeria, Kenya, Rwanda, Burundi or Congo, it has tended to try to ‘resolve’ already existing wars, rather than preventing them from occurring. We pray that your office should assist Zambia to resolve this conflict since the country is at the brink of ethnically-based violence. Attached are;

a.) Copy of the Barotseland agreement

b.) Copy of one of my published works on world’s ethnic grievances.

Yours Faithfully,

Austin Mbozi.
University of Zambia.
Cc. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Cc. The Zambian Media
Cc. Southern Africa Center for the Constructive Resolution of Disputes. (SACCORD).

United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon
United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon
  • 16
  • Aug

(Letter reproduced for public records only. Emphasis added)

Litunga
Barotse Royal Establishment
Lealui-Limulunga.

Mr. Fredrick T. J. Chiluba
President of the Republic of Zambia,
State house,
Lusaka.

Dear Mr. President

CHIEFS: MUTONDO AND KAHARE - KAOMA.

I refer to your letter dated 20th September, 1993. I regret the delay in responding but this was due to customary and traditional need for me to consult the Kuta and, indeed the Barotse Royal establishment as a whole before a reply is made.

It is unfortunate that the letter under reference, with the threats it contains, should have come from the head of state because it was the first time in the history of this country that the Litunga has been subjected to threats, particularly so in a matter that relates to his own tradition and culture. The only time when the Litunga and his people were subjected to such threats and actually conquered, though temporarily, was in 1845 when the Makololo invaded and occupied this part of Zambia for a period of nineteen (19) years after which the people re-organized themselves and regained sovereignty. The Barotse Royal Establishment and I have had a good working relationship with and have also enjoyed the respect of the central government. This has been the case even during the period of the abrogation of the Barotseland agreement 1964 by the former president of Zambia. The approach of the Barotse people to such situations has always been one of dialogue rather than one of confrontation .This will help to explain to you why the former president offered to amicably resolve the issue of the Barotseland agreement 1964 in March 1991, long after the agreement has been breached by successive act of parliament. The communication and engagement in a dialogue with the former president and now with you should not, any way be construed as cowardice on the part of the Barotse people. The Barotse have, and will always have great respect for authority but are not afraid of the authority. LET NO ONE FROM ANY QUARTER WHATSOEVER TAKE THE BAROTSE FOR GRANTED.  THEY ARE NO DIFFERENT FROM ANY OTHER DETERMINED PEOPLE ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD WHO WOULD NEVER COMPROMISE THEIR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS. As a matter of fact, even their history which is the subject to the Barotseland Agreement 1964 and the struggle for the independence of Zambia in which their children played a leading role will reveal to you that THEY ARE NOT COWARDS. Notwithstanding their principles, however, they are nevertheless prepared TO RAISE THEIR HEADS ABOVE WATER if only to make their point known and to listen to other people’s points of view even if they may not like what they say.

My reason thereof, I wish to advice you, Mr. President that THREATS AND CONFRONTATIONAL STANCE ARE ALIEN TO OUR CULTURE. Therefore, we do not wish to CONDUCT OUR AFFAIR EITHER WITH YOU OR ANYBODY ELSE IN A MANNER FOREIGN TO OUR WAY OF LIFE we believe we are a PEACEFUL AND REASONABLE HUMAN BEINGS, WHO WOULD NOT FAIL TO SIT DOWN WITH SOMEONE TO RESOLVE ANYTHING AFFECTING OUR COUNTRY, and our people re-acted to the press reports, the press failed to give us adequate coverage.  You, yourself, Mr. President, did not approach us either directly or through other government channels to verify the reports of secession. We instructed our lawyer to write you to deny the allegation made against us but we are advised by the lawyer that he received no reply from you.

Firstly, the problem in Kaoma took root after the MMD government took the reins of power particularly after Mr. Leonard Subulwa was appointed deputy minister of our province. The case in point is your recognition of Edward Mbombola Moyo as Chief Mutondo of Kaoma. Mr. Moyo was recognized by you, Mr. President, as Chief Mutondo before we installed him as chief under our customary law and he would have been installed in February 1993 but Moyo refused to return to Lealui to complete the traditional rites which were begun in October, 1992 when he was presented to the Kuta. While at state house on 23rd march 1993, your minister without Portfolio Brigadier General Godfrey Miyanda wanted to know from the Ngambela and his delegation when Mwene Mutondo would be installed and the Minister was advised that until Moyo returned to Lealui to complete the ceremony, the question of his installation and recognition would not arise.

We were, however, surprised to note that on the 2nd April, 1993, you disregarded our tradition and custom and recognized Moyo as chief Mutondo of Kaoma. MR. PRESIDENT, THE GOVERNMENT DECISION TO RECOGNIZE MOYO WAS AN OUTRIGHT INTERFERENCE IN OUR TRADITION AND CUSTOM and we reserve our right to seek redress in the court of law if the situation is not reversed soon.

Secondly, the two Kaoma chiefs, namely Mutondo and late Kahare, had set themselves on a course to undermine the authority of senior chief Litia of kaoma and our authority as well apparently with the blessing of the government. The said chiefs called for the removal of senior Chief Litia from Kaoma and their calls were made publicly and carried by the government media.

On learning about their calls the Ngambela invited the chiefs to Lealui to discuss the matter with the Kuta and the council of all other chiefs, indunas and princes, but, they both refused to come. Not only did the duo refuse to come here in Lealui to discuss the matter but they also threatened to remove senior chief Litia by force, threatened violence on all Lozi people in Kaoma and threatened to cause bloodshed throughout Kaoma if Litia was not removed and notwithstanding the knowledge of these threats, your government, Mr. President, failed to arrest the agitators even to investigate the threats after complaints had been made to the police by our people. I enclose here with press cuttings from the Zambia Daily Mail and the Sunday Mail of the 15th, 21st, March and 5th April, 1993 in which allegations of bloodshed in Kaoma were made.

We did not react to the threats of violence and bloodshed until 17th July, 1993.  Now may I ask you, Mr. President who was heightening "ethnic tension" in Kaoma between those who were calling for our blood and us, the threatened victims of bloodshed?

What makes the government believe that Chiefs Mutondo and Kahare were more chiefs than Senior Chief Litia? Are we to abandon our culture and tradition? Are we to reasonably assume that the government stand - by while the authority of lawfully constituted senior chief Litia was being undermined?

Thirdly, not only did Chiefs Mutondo and Kahare and their subjects call for the removal of senior Chief Litia but they also called for the removal of Kaoma district from Barotseland to create a tenth (10th) province called Kafue comprising of Kaoma district itself, Lukulu, Mumbwa, Itezhitezhi and Kalomo.

I enclose here with cutting from the Sunday Mail of the 4th April and 20th June, 1993 in respect of the said demands. The demands by the said chiefs were clearly a secession of Kaoma district from our customary law. We have not heard any action taken against the agitators by the government and we have been left wondering whether the government was up to something to destroy our culture by using the two Kaoma chiefs as fronts.

How could we be blamed, accused and threatened by the government for lightening the tension in Kaoma for merely acting in our self defense to attacks by Kahare and Mwene Mutondo. Mr. President you will excuse me for being so frank and honest with you but this has been forced on us by your government.

Having said all that I had to say for a moment I request you to consider the following:

[1] Firstly, to urgently address the question of the restoration of the Barotseland agreement 1964 because it is the root cause of all this difference between you and ourselves.

We were disappointed by the outcome of the last meeting at state house on the 17th August, 1993 when your government refused to discuss the subject but only agreed to discuss such subjects like “land issues, grants and welfare of chiefs” politically.

MR. PRESIDENT, HOW COULD THE GOVERNMENT DIVORCE LAND FROM THE BAROTSELAND AGREEMENT 1964 AND DEAL WITH THE LAND AS A SEPARATE ISSUE WHEN THE AGREEMENT ITSELF WAS ABOUT LAND?

THE BAROTSELAND AGREEMENT 1964 WILL NOT DISAPPEAR BY MERELY IGNORING IT. The subject needs urgent attention now and to ignore the subject is like ignoring medical treatment when it ought to be taken in the early stages of the illness. The Barotseland agreement 1964 issue must be resolved by the present government as to do otherwise would be to SOW THE SEEDS OF DISASTER FOR THE FUTURE AND YOUR OWN GRAND CHILDREN WILL SOON HAVE NO KIND WORDS TO YOU FOR FAILING TO RESOLVE THE PROBLEM WHEN TIME WAS STILL THERE.

Secondly the government should avoid getting involved in our traditional matters and in this respect I request the government to reverse whatever has been done in respect of the new chief Kahare until all the installation rites have been completed. THE CHIEFS ACT DOES NOT EMPOWER YOU MR. PRESIDENT TO IMPOSE CHIEFS ON US EVEN WHEN SUCH CHIEFS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO BE CHIEFS UNDER OUR CUSTOM OR CONTINUE IN OFFICE EVEN IF THEY HAVE CEASED TO BE CHIEFS UNDER OUR CUSTOMARY LAW.

By reason of the matters mentioned above, therefore, we respectfully wish to advice you Mr. president that WE THE BAROTSE PEOPLE, ARE A PEOPLE WITH AN IDENTITY IN THIS COUNTRY, RECOGNIZABLE BY LAW SO THAT ANY LAW ABIDING CITIZENS SHOULD NOT FAIL TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF OUR LEGAL EXISTENCE EVEN IF THAT PERSON MAY NOT PERSONALLY LIKE OUR FACES AND CULTURE.

As regards the status of the so called Kaoma chiefs and their relationship to us the important thing to note is that BAROTSELAND IS A KINGDOM EVEN AS OF NOW and that should explain to you the CHIEFS ACT CAP 479 OF THE LAW OF ZAMBIA RECOGNIZED THE CUSTOMARY LAW JURISDICTION OF THE LITUNGA THOROUGH OUT BAROTSELAND NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT BAROTSELAND WHICH IS NOT STRICTLY LOZI.

IN A KINGDOM ONE CANNOT FIND A CHIEF WHO WAS INDEPENDENT AND SEPARATE FROM THE KING BECAUSE SUCH A SITUATION WAS UNTENABLE. The chiefs in Barotseland unlike elsewhere in Zambia are INSTALLED BY US AND THEY HOLD OFFICE BY STRICTLY FOLLOWING OUR TRADITION AND CUSTOM and then any given chief who ceases to respect our custom and tradition then such chief ceases to hold office under our customary law.

The current chief Mutondo and the late chief Kahare of Kaoma refused to adhere to the customary norms and practices as chiefs under our customary law.

Since the two chiefs waited to excise the Nkoya jurisdiction in a Barotse customary law jurisdiction under the Litunga of Barotseland then we decided to withdraw our customary law from them so that they may go elsewhere away from Barotseland where they would exercise their new found jurisdiction. WE CANNOT FORCE THE MWEENE MUTONDO AND MWEENE KAHARE TO BE CHIEFS UNDER OUR JURISDICTION then there is no way they could continue to claim chieftainship which they are disowned.

Mr. President this matter is simple and straight forward. It is like your own child refusing to use your surname. EQUALLY, IN OUR CULTURE ONE HAS NO RIGHT TO BENEFIT FROM THE CULTURE WHICH THEY HAVE REJECTED.

As regards the ethnic tension in Kaoma, I regret to advice you that we have no hand in what is happening there. In fact the problem as we see it from our point of view is being fueled by the MMD government and some local politicians, who have something to gain from the current tension and our belief is based on the followings facts;

Under these circumstances we have been left wondering what it is that the Barotse Royal Establishment has done to you which you do not wish to settle with them by discussing. MR. PRESIDENT, WE ARE NOT ACCUSTOMED TO WHAT APPEARS TO US AS YOUR ‘NEW CULTURE’ OF DOING THINGS and we would respectfully request you to respect our culture as well because we too are a people with a long history and culture of our own which we shall not abandon merely because some people in your government may not like us.

AS YOU ARE AWARE, THE BAROTSE PEOPLE HAVE NEVER BEEN RULED BY OTHER PEOPLE AND FOR SEVERAL CENTURIES WE HAVE BEEN MANAGING OUR OWN AFFAIRS WITHOUT INTERFERENCE FROM ANYONE EXCEPT FOR A BRIEF PERIOD UNDER THE MAKALOLO.

The periods from 1900 to 1964 was the time we ruled ourselves with assistance of her Majesty’s government whom we called the “Babusisi” meaning THOSE HELPING US TO RULE OURSELVES.

The activities of her Majesty’s government in our country were regulated by agreements with us and the most notable of these agreement were those of 1900 and 1954 which as you are aware featured prominently in the subsequent orders in council and remained in force until the independence of Zambia in 1964 when the Barotseland agreement 1964 was to have taken effect.

I enclose here with a copy of CIRCULAR NO. 82 OF 1944 FROM SECRETARY TO CABINET DATED THE 18TH JULY 1964 TO ALL PERMANENT SECRETARIES WHICH SHOULD EXPLAIN TO YOU THE NATURE OF OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE GOVERNMENT IN LUSAKA (see paragraph 4 of the circular).

The objectives and effect of the Barotseland agreement 1964 WAS NOT  THAT WE WERE SURRENDERING OUR SOVEREIGNTY TO THE NEW STATE on the contrary, our understanding of the agreement was that it was MERELY AN AGREEMENT TO TRANSFER THE OBLIGATIONS WHICH HITHERTO WERE OBLIGATIONS OF HER MAJESTY’S GOVERNMENT OF NORTHERN RHODESIA TO THE STATE OF ZAMBIA AND THESE OBLIGATIONS RELATED TO AREA OF DEVELOPMENT, FINANCE AND THE EXTERNAL RELATIONS, OTHERWISE WE WERE WITHIN BAROTSELAND TO REMAIN FREE TO CONDUCT OUR OWN AFFAIRS AS WE DEEMED FIT.

I refer you to clause 4 and 5 of the Barotseland agreement 1964 and the Zambia independence order 1964, were repealed by section 3 of the President orders section 20 of the Zambia independence order of 1964 were preserved by sections 11 [2] and 12 of the constitution of Zambia 1973 and these rights and obligation were further confirmed by section 11 [2] and 12 of the constitution of Zambia act no. 1 of 1991 therefore of no effect because the CONSTITUTION STILL CONTINUED TO CONFIRM THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE PRESIDENT TO BAROTSELAND.

Even the abrogating acts were to be construed as amending that Zambia independence order 1964, it is our considered view that SUCH AMENDMENTS DISCRIMINATED AGAINST US IN A RELATION TO OTHER PEOPLE to whom the president had similar obligations arising from section 20 legislate against one’s own contractual obligations because that, in itself, is merely THE BREACH OF THE AGREEMENT WHICH DOES BRING THE AGREEMENT TO AN END.

Thirdly, the government should seriously consider all the best possible means of re-establishing the broken lines of communication between you and the Barotse Royal Establishment. Some of the MMD and government officials in the province only fuel and heighten tension not only in Kaoma district but other districts as well. The consequently broken lines of communication cannot be re-established with such people in the office.

The government needs our co-operation, as traditional leaders are close to the people, to effectively carry out development in Barotseland.

We were there before the advent of Europeans, UNIP and certainly before you took office and we shall continue to be more open even after your term of office has come to an end. Accordingly, you need our co-operation and we equally need your help as government to develop this part of the country.

Fourthly, THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD RECOGNIZE US AS EQUAL PARTNERS OF THE UNITARY NATURE OF OUR COUNTRY AND IN THIS RESPECT WE EXPECT THE GOVERNMENT TO END THIS APPARENT HOSTILITY AGAINST US ARISING FROM THE ANXIETY AND NEEDLESS FEAR OF SECESSION.

We are not seceding and we shall not secede from Zambia. HOWEVER, WE FEEL THAT GOVERNMENT SHOULD RESPECT AND HONOR THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS IN THE BAROTSELAND AGREEMENT 1964.

Fifthly, the government SHOULD AVOID THE PRACTICE OF ENCOURAGING PEOPLE IN THE PROVINCE TO BREAK UP INTO EVEN MORE ETHIC GROUPS. The twenty four tribes that occur in Barotseland is a number large enough. The unfortunate sermon about equality can have adverse effect if not put in proper perspective.

Sixthly, THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE AWARE OF OUR INTERPRETATION OF THE RIGHT TO SECEDE.

(The Barotse) RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REVERT TO THEIR ORIGINAL STATUS IF THE AGREEMENT UNDER WHICH THEY INTENDED TO ACHIEVE UNITY CAN NO LONGER WORK. THE REST OF ZAMBIA CANNOT HOLD US IN PERPETUAL ENSLAVEMENT ON ACCOUNT OF AN AGREEMENT WHICH WE ENTERED INTO VOLUNTARILY.

In other words, we cannot be EXPECTED TO ADHERE TO THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT WHICH THE OTHER PARTY TO THE AGREEMENT DOES NOT RECOGNIZE. THERE IS NO TREASON. Mr. President, anyone wishing to exercise his right over anything belonging to him, particularly so in a situation where another party to the contract is no longer prepared to respect that contract should have a right to decide.

If there is anything stated in this letter which need explanation Saa-Sikalo Kuta and our lawyer will only be too pleased to furnish you with more information.

As you will be aware, the chiefs, the kuta, Silalo indunas, village headmen and all the people are anxiously waiting to hear from you.

Yours sincerely,
ILUTE YETA.
LITUNGA.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Although no proof is available, and given the nature of his strained relationship with Lusaka, it is not uncommon for some Barotse to blame Litunga Ilute Yeta IV’s mysterious death on Chiluba’s regime. What is true, however, is that in 1996 FTJ Chiluba’s government plan to have Ilute Yeta IV arrested and cited for treason was only aborted by the sounding of the Barotse War drums in Limulunga Royal vilage which symbolized a declaration of war by Barotse loyalists as they were willing to protect their beloved Litunga to the death!

L-R: His Royal Majesty Ilute Yeta IV (1977 - 2000) , son His Royal Highness Inyambo Yeta
L-R: His Royal Majesty Ilute Yeta IV (1977 - 2000) , son His Royal Highness Inyambo Yeta
  • 15
  • Aug

By Saleya Kwalombota

The information of Litunga Lubosi Imwiko's dealings, if not refuted by the BRE through the office of Ngambela, will be disappointing. However, it is too late, lest the Litunga risks sending the monarch into oblivion. Let God open the current Litunga's eyes and see beyond today's enticement and should not use his position to impoverish his people. How can a person entrusted with the honour of Litungaship betray the people who put him on the throne? People are already hurt with the BRE's behavior and such action is likely to ignite revolution and that may be the end of monarch in Barotseland. Who knows, that could be one of the tactics Zambia’s president Lungu was advised by his Ugandan counterpart to wipe out the monarch authority in Barotseland? No one is bigger than the wishes of the people or bigger than Barotseland.

Furthermore, if what is reaching us is true that Zambian government have decided to restore the defunct BA64 after being advised of the consequences that Zambia would face, should independence of Barotseland succeed, then we must totally reject their latest move as gesture of snare. This has seen high profile Zambian government delegation frequenting the Litunga's palace with the latest being that of the first lady and her entourage.

In other development, the current head of SADC has advised president Lungu of Zambia to cautiously handle the Barotseland issue tactfully, least Zambia's territorial integrity will be questionable.

It is not a secret that Britain recognizes the Kingship of Litunga and monarch of Barotseland. It is worth noting how Britain that connived with the first Zambian president dance to Barotseland tune of self determination. Both Zambia and Britain are very much alive to the sufferings and impoverishment Barotseland has been subjected to! How great Barotseland Kingdom and how great and mighty to be so feared to day after it has tabled it's case at continental and international bodies? The Litunga has become dizzy with flattering presents from the occupying force enticing him into the renegotiation of the new Barotseland Agreement terms to be fully implemented. Britain and Zambia know the potential of Barotseland both economically and humanitarian. God knows that Barotseland shall be free soon and become the oasis of peace in the world. God's timing is the best no matter the twists!

Finally, our immediate action should be to make an urgent appointment with the incoming SADC chair, Gen. Ian Khama. He may properly understand what led his father to make Botswana a republic. We have suffered a lot and we can no longer be held at ransom. Let us please act in that practical direction. Let us forget about Lubosi's alleged personal deals and move forward.

Barotseland's independence is imminent!

The Barotseland Post, also known as The Barotsepost, is an online media platform, for now, that is dedicated to reporting stories and news around Barotseland and beyond, giving exclusive coverage and access to the people and the nation of Barotseland to fully express themselves in their aspirations for self- determination.