Following the unfolding events of Zambian 's presidential bye-election campaigns and visitation of Barotseland territory by one of Zambia's aspiring presidential candidate Hakainde Hichilema that has raised the dust among the citizens of Barotseland can not go without comment. If the reports reaching us are true concerning the stand taken by BRE "endorsing" Hakainde Hichilema a foreigner of Zambian territory as their preferred candidate and adopted as their own "SON" to stage his Zambian presidential campaigns in Barotseland is not only shocking but a revolt against the will of the Barotseland people. This is serious and danger to the peace and respect the people of Barotseland has for the monarch.
It is really difficult to understand what has gone wrong with the present BRE or our monarchical system of today! Poverty should not rob us of our integrity, our independence struggle should be above monetary gains . What signal are we sending to the international community if our very monarch is dining and feasting with our (oppressor) enemy? No matter what, the Leopard will never change its color, the scheme that led to the abrogation of the BA64 is inherent in the Zambian blood. The BRE should live to the fact that nothing will change Zambia's treacherous altitude towards the autonomy of Barotseland, that is the reason Zambia is not willing to vacate Barotseland honorary or to settle the issue at international court of justice (ICJ). It will be prudent for the Indunas close to Litunga to exercise high level of reasoning when dealing with issues bordering the territorial integrity of Barotseland, than exhibiting their thirsty of monetary gains. They should have known by now that whoever become the Zambian president can never go against the principle laid by the first Zambian Republican president Kenneth Kaunda concerning the BA64 and autonomous of Barotseland.
It is a well known truth that there was no agreement called ‘Western Province’. Any zambian politician or political party call Barotseland by such name, automatic becomes an enemy of Barotseland and as much as I do not tend to diminish the BRE, I see no logic for them to get excited with the visitation of UPND leader or any Zambian political party leader whose party call our country by western province name. The tagging of Barotseland as ‘Western Province’ was an autocratic imposition of the Northern Rhodesia government to alter the margins of Barotseland.
Not even the United Party for National Development ( UPND)'s stance on Barotseland; that of the creation of structures being similar to a federal system of government, where provinces have semi-autonomous powers , addresses the BA 64 question. In July 2014, the UPND deputy spokesperson had this to say in response to defend Hakainde 's visitation of Barotseland's for Mangango parliamentary bye-election campaign, "that the people of Western province should be left to solve their own problems" and he further said, "that at no time has Hakainde Hichilema ever promised to restore the BA64." This is UPND's ideology over the BA64, let us be careful least we will be dubbed as in the past. UPND is in agreement with Zambia's abrogation of the union treaty (BA64). It is time for the BRE to recourse the institution not to be used as a doormat into Zambia's State house by Zambian politicians.
For how long will it take the Zambian government to acknowledge and respect the human, political and economic rights of the people of Barotseland expressed by the 2012 BNC resolutions? Were they not the same rights the people of Barotseland had enjoyed for centuries as a nation before the union with Northern Rhodesia (Zambia) in 1964? Certainly, it is only denialist, misguided and selfish if BRE think supporting the independence resolve of Barotseland of 2012 BNC declaration of which the BRE was part and organiser of the congress whose resolutions were endorsed by BRE for implementation, can be tantamount to treason! The BRE has to be in forefront in this matter as is the very institution that was a signatory to the BA64 and in the absence of this agreement , secession does not arise, only self-assertion becomes the issue. The territorial assertion should first start with ourselves, the BRE and every Mulozi should cease to call the territory as western province from now onwards. whosoever shall call barotseland western province is committing an offence and must be disowned.
Tukongote Litunga Ni lyetu.
By Saleya Kwalombota
The purpose of this article is both to evaluate from an international legal and a political perspective of Barotseland 's assertion of statehood and to consider the prospects for a new literal state in southern Africa as a 55th African State.
Barotseland is a country in the Southern Africa encompassing an area of Total 368,823 km2 or 142,403 sq mi with the Population estimated at 5,153,405 in 2012. Legally, Barotseland ceased to be part of Zambia when the union treaty Barotseland Agreement 1964 was repudiated by Zambia in 1969. On 27th March 2012, Barotseland accepted the repudiation of BA64 and ultimately extracted itself from a degenerate Zambia by declaring statehood and has been so far recognized by the international organizations, such as FFSA (Federation of Free States of Africa) and UNPO. Being a member to UNPO ( Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization ) , means Barotseland can attend United Nations deliberations as observer nation and the other important point is that the ground for recognition by UN member countries has been leveled. Barotseland's independence declaration has so far not being refuted by a single member of international community and since 27th March
, 2012, Barotseland State exists in what I may refer to as a " diplomatic no- man's land."
ARGUMENTS FOR /AGAINST BAROTSELAND STATEHOOD
a) CRITERIA FOR STATEHOOD
Under the generally regarded international Law definition of State, an entity seeking statehood must be prepared to demonstrate that it possesses:
1. a permanent population
2. a defined territory
3. government; and
4. the capacity to enter into international relations with other states.
The requirements of a permanent population and defined territory provide the physical bases for the existence of the state, while the government and international relations requirements evidence the legal order necessary for the state to function within international community. Seemingly, a straight forward factional inquiry, these relatively subjective criteria of statehood can be somewhat problematical to apply. For instance, how many people constitute a population? What is meant by a defined territory? Even though Israel 's boundaries have yet to be decisively delineated, Israel unquestionably exists as a state. Likewise, to what extent ( both territorial and political) must be requisite government be able to govern? Croatia was accepted as a state even through at the time of its acceptance large parts of its territory were controlled by non- governmental forces. As to the criterion of the capacity to enter into international relations, debate have ensured over whether this criterion requires not just the capacity, but the corresponding ability to conduct international relations.
International legal scholars such as Ian Brownlie maintain that the international relations criterion is best understood as a proxy for the criterion of independence. By independence Brownlie is referring to that fact that non other sovereign exists. Thus, the actual ability to carry out an effective international relations regime is secondary to the absence of a competing sovereign with the right to maintain international relations on behalf of the prospective state.
b) RECOGNITION BY OTHER STATES IN THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY ---HAS BEEN A KEY FACTOR IN ATTRIBUTING STATEHOOD.
In addition to the inherent subjectivity issues, other political factors have influenced the statehood test. Although article 16 of the Montevideo convention declares that " the political existence of the state is independent of recognition by other states" , recognition by other states in international community - the " largesse of the doctrine of recognition"- has been a key factor in attributing statehood. Taiwan as one example arguably meets the statehood criteria under the Montevideo convention, but, because of the political situation with China, most states have been unwilling to recognize it as such. Thus, without recognition by the rest of the international community, most usually demonstrated by acceptance into the United Nations as a member state, prospective state will find it difficult to achieve the status of statehood.
Barotseland as a prospective state, should not exercise self- determination through universal suffrage usually impacts the recognition process and may, for practical purposes, be considered an additional political factor in the statehood calculus. Moreover, Barotseland bears all the trappings, so to speak, of a statehood which it lacked for centuries such as national flag, coat of arms and national anthem. In addition, the Royal Barotseland civil government that was inaugurated a year ago proposed a national currency (MUPU), stamps, passports, national registration card ( NRC ) and many more. From a purely international legal standpoint, Barotseland could, indeed pass the statehood test. It is acknowledged that Zambia ceded Barotseland territory from being part of Zambia by the unilateral termination of Barotseland Agreement 1964 union treaty. Yet to date, the continental body African Union has never given seriousness attention to Barotseland impasse, it is this political factor - " the largesse of the doctrine of recognition" - that holds Barotseland 's total independence. What, then, is Barotseland's prospects for eventual recognition? In short, Barotseland is at the crossroads of the legal and philosophical struggles between territorial integrity : Self - determination and unresolved issues regarding what to do with Zambia if diplomatic approach fails.
Tukongote Litunga Ni lyetu.
By Saleya Kwalombota
The UN general assembly recognized Palestine in 2012 as a non-member observer state, paving the way to a wider official recognition from European states.
British MPs have started debating a symbolic motion on whether to recognize the Palestinian state. Britain’s current policy towards the issue is that it "reserves the right to recognize a Palestinian state bilaterally at the moment of their choosing, and when it can best help bring about peace."
In his opening remarks, Labour MP Grahame Morris, who tabled the backbench Commons motion, said Palestinian statehood recognition "is not an Israeli bargaining chip, it is a Palestinian right". The Labour MP told his peers they have a "historic opportunity to take a small but symbolically important step" by voting in favour of the motion.
There are three types of societies manifesting three forms of power, comprise three general social structures of expectations. My special concern is with such societies in the form of states. A state is a formal group that is sovereign over its members and occupies a well defined territory. It is the formal apparatus of authoritative roles and law norms through which that sovereignty is exercised.
There are three methods by which states are classified and these are;
1. Monolithic state
2. Unitary state
3. Federal state
The definitions are as follows;
1. MONOLITHIC STATE
These are which are formed out of single entities which are not linked to some other segments. Examples are, Angola, Ecuador, Zimbabwe, Yemen, Romanian, France, Haiti, etc.
One common feature of these states is that they are indivisible because they are unbreakable.
2. UNITARY STATE
These are States which are formed by more than one segment which could be two, three or more which come about due to negotiations which seek to unify their different countries. In a unitary state the local governments (if there are any) have been set up under statute law, and are in effect delegated to run certain services on behalf of a central government. Examples are; The United Arab Emirate, The United Kingdom, Tanzania, etc.
One fascinating prodigy about these States is that they are breaking and divisible if the conditions that brought them up are not followed.
3. FEDERAL STATE
These States are formed out of the desire of the people to amalgamate their States and these could be two, three or more. In a federal state there is a constitutional right for local governments to act in specified areas, such as legislation. Examples are, Nigeria, United States of America, etc.
Like the Unitary States, they are also subject to disintegration if the conditions which brought them into being are not observed.
Zambia's draft constitution has this to say under part II, sovereignty ;
"(3) The Republic is a unitary, indivisible, multiethnic, multi-racial, multi-religious, multi-cultural and multiparty democratic State.
(4) The Republic shall not be ceded, in whole or in part.
(5) The Republic may enter into a union or other form of inter-state organisation, which action shall not be construed as ceding the Republic." end of quote.
The above quotes defines why Barotseland is not part of Zambia, if Zambia was a unitary state it would have not mentioned that it is indivisible only monolithic states fits such statement as elaborated under monolithic state in this article. The draft constitution further mentions of the Republic not to be ceded in part or a whole, what a contradiction?
Zambia can not claim to be a unitary state when on the other hand claims to be indivisible, how can it be? This clearly elaborates Zambia's fascism and lack of understanding of international law and politics. How can unitary exist, when it is monolithic state in nature since the abrogation of union treaty (BA64) in 1969, the act that ceded Barotseland from Zambia? There draft constitution even failed to define the extent boundaries of the territory of Zambia! This and other conflicting clauses reflects the high level of intellectual fabric degradation in the Zambian political players and law makers. If their aim was targeted at completely wiping Barotseland's autonomy, it is too late and we are miles ahead of them.
We will not succumb to fake unitary claims, Zambia and Barotseland are different sister countries. Barotseland has moved from just being an instinct nation to a state and is constructing social systems that will bring fortune, power and territorial supremacy -a geo-economic phenomenon.
Tukongote Litunga Ni lyetu. Barotseland ki Naha.
By Saleya Kwalombota
Let no one think or even imagine that the Barotseland struggle will die a natural death or that the Barotse people will be deceived by piecemeal construction of substandard infrastructure, which is being misrepresented as development by the Zambian regime and people who don ’ t know what development is. In their wishful thinking , it is designed to blindfold people from seeing and demanding the actualization of Barotseland statehood following the Zambian government ’ s unilateral abrogation of the Barotseland Agreement 1964 (BA ’ 64) and the peoples of Barotseland acceptance thereof and subsequent declaration of self - rule . The Barotse self - government can n either be suppressed by intimidation nor threats of terminologies like "treason" , for it is an ideal whose time has come.
The Zambia n government may ignore the Barotseland issue at their own peril , because it is like ignoring a virus wasting your body, thinking that it will one day change its mind and go to sleep or retire . The issue of Barotseland statehood precedes the existence of both Zambia in 1964 and Northern Rhodesia in 1911 . If anything, it has only been gaining momentum over the recent past . The remainder of Zambia (or whatever they will call themselves) should not think that the peoples of Barotseland and the international community went to sleep over the Zambian government ’ s unilateral abrogation of the BA ’ 64, which set in motion the separation of the two territories comprised in Zambia that was only delayed by Barotseland ’ s futile attempts to restore the Agreement for the past 47 years . The process to actualize Barotseland state hood continue to unfold and soon, may be sooner than we expect, it will be realized
No one ever thought that the Great Titanic could sink, but it did. Martin Luther King Jr, conquered the Great United States of America after he was assassinated. The white colonialists thought i t was impossible for blacks in South Africa to free themselves. Nelson Mandela conquered apartheid in South Africa while in Jail . When fire started in Benghazi, Libya , might President Muammar Gaddafi thought it was a click of rats and cockroaches , not realizing that one day the rats and cockroaches would reorganize themselves and turn up into formidable militia that could eat him, until he was captured and swallowed alive. Where is Gaddafi today? The results were seen and the world has its own story , which deserves no elaboration. Barotseland shall free herself from the black oppression of W est Nyasa (remainder of Zambia or remainder of Northern Rhodesia or North Eastern Rhodesia)
Our call for self - determination is a human and democratic right enshrined in the United Nations Charter and legally binding since the contract between Zambia and Barotseland was long terminated by the Zambian regime itself . Barotseland ’ s human and democratic right s have been stifled for a long time and this is now coming to an end. W e shall exercise our God given right and will power to redeem our selves. We call on the international community to recognize Barotseland's inherent right to self - determination and self - rule , which is long over - due as Barotseland sets to re - organize its governance institutions. We warn the Zambian regime to stay clear from this process as they will be made to account for their actions before international courts .
courtesy of BNFA.INFO
The Gospel according to Saint Matthew Chapter 25 verses 41 to 45 record s Jesus Christ’s teaching as follows :
“ For I was hungry, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungry, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, In as much as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. ” ( KJV)
Does this sound as one of those Sabbath or Sunday sermons in one of our local churches? Nay, this a preamble to a response to the recent calls from three mother church bodies in the failed unitary state of Zambia comprised of the Council of Churches of Zambia (CCZ), Evangelical Fellowship of Zambia (EFZ) and the Episcopal Conference of Zambia (ZEC) for dialogue over the now defunct Barotseland Agreement 1964 (BA ’ 64) (Daily Nation, Wednesday, 29th October 2014). These are calls from hypocrites , misrepresenting the name of Jesus and the church. The bear facts are hereunder :
The BA ’ 64 unilaterally abrogated by the Kaunda regime was an international treaty that allowed Barotseland and the rest of Northern Rhodesia to proceed to independence as one country called Zambia. In 1969, the Kaunda regime annulled the unity treaty, which action led to arrests of several people of Barotseland who protested against his actions . Since then the people of Barotseland tried in vain to restore the BA ’ 64 . The least successive Zambian governments could do was to kill, mutilate and send more than 500 Barotseland nationals to prison over tramped up crimes.
We are telling representatives from the so called three mother churches bodies from the failed unitary state of Zambia once and for a ll that in as far the people s of Barotseland are concerned, they represent the oppressive state of Zambia and the matter of the BA ’ 64 was shunted to the back yard on 27th March 2012. In other words, it is a dead issue. On the 27th of March the people of Barotseland resolved as follows :
“ The people of Barotseland shall exercise their right to revert to its original status as a sovereign nation, so that the people of Barotseland shall determine their political, cultural, social and economic development. ”
T his resolution was cemented by a letter dated 12th May 2012 to the late President of the failed unitary state of Zambia Michael Sata from the Ngambela of Barotseland (Prime Minister) under the subject: RECOGNITION AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE REPUDIATION OF THE BAROTSELAND AGREEMENT 1964 BY THE ZAMBIAN GOVERNMENT.
On the basis of the BNC resolution s , the people of Barotseland took noble and civilized steps to put the Barotse impasse to rest. These include:
1. Affiliating to the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples organization (UNPO) ;
2. Petitioning the Banjul based Africa Commission on Human and Peoples Rights (ACHPR) ; and
3. Inviting the then President of Zambia (Sata) to sign a Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) submission agreement
Unfortunately, these initiatives were treated like child play whereby today some people under sheep skin are making noise about dialogue over the Barotseland impasse . What kind of misguided thinking and foolishness is this? What is even more frustrating is that calls for dialogues are coming from agents of the oppressive regime . Surely, how does one, expect the people of Barotseland to take serious, a person who stole a motor vehicle at a tender age – and asks for forgiveness for stealing the motor vehicle while taking possession of the stolen motor vehicle and that he be allowed to be in charge of running your affairs . Come on guys we are not jokers. You have pushed us too far
‘Do not throw stones if you live in a glass house, ’ so goes an old adage. It is clear from your persistent loud crying that you are simply acting your ‘ master’s voice. ’ Let it be known by you and your sponsors that the matter of Barotseland ’ s self - determination is real and will not die away like you and me. If you are truly peace - makers (bayahi ba kozo) that you claim to be, why don ’ t you assist the Patriotic Front (PF) and the rest of Zambia to resolve their succession wrangles — is it because you cannot see them even where it is clear to blind person? What hypocrisy?
I question the three mother bodies in regard to the now defunct BA ’ 64 as follows :
1. What did you say to Kaunda, when he , in 1969 before and beyond embarked on a destructive path to destroy the very foundation of the so called unitary state of Zambia?
2. Did you not hear the people of Barotseland seek the matter of the BA ’ 64 respected since 196 5 ?
3. Where were you when in January 2012 Zambia n government unleashed armed police , killed , injured and arrest ed Barotse nationals ?
4. Where were you when Barotse people were suffering in Zambia prisons over the past 50 years? “ in prison, and ye visited me not
5. What advice did you render to the late Sata when his government lamentably failed to submit counter evidence to the Barotse forensic evidence contained in the Petition before ACHPR for close to two years now?
6. Why did you not prevail over the late Sata and his government to take advantage of the Barotse initiated PCA process to resolve the Barotse impasse ?
7. Why did you remain mute when Sata and Kabimba (the latter then as PF Secretary General) threw unwarranted scone on Dr. Rodger Chongwe and his team of Commissioners for the report on the so called Mongu riots of 14th January 2012 o r the release of the Rodger Chongwe Commission Inquiry Report?
8. Where were you when Sata transgressed on the Ten Commandments?
9. Where were you when Zambia acquired fighter Jets and intimidated the Barotse peoples ?
10. Why were you silent when the Post Newspaper insulted the leaders of the New Apostolic Church in Barotseland for building a show piece church in Malengwa ?
The answer to all the above question s is summed up by the teaching of Lord Jesus when he addressed the Jews, in John Chapter 8 verses 39 – 44:
“ They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself , but he sent me. Why d o ye not understand my speech? Even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. ” (KJV)
Again, this article is far from being a Sabbath or Sunday sermon but simply an attempt to bring to the fore the behaviour of hypocrites who claim to say or do things in the name of the Christ Jesus or the Church. Th e hypocrisy in them is so deep that they lamentably fail to see ‘ wood for trees. ’
In addition, let the people at the Daily Nation know that I do not agree with them when they said in their paper’s editorial of 29th October 2014 that dialogue over the BA’64 is vital; thus categorically agreeing with calls of the three mother church bodies. I don ’ t agree because the people of Barotseland put the matter of the Agreement behind them way back in M arch 2012. As has been said already, the BA’64 is a dead issue. Moreover, Barotseland has since taken her case to the international level thereby rendering domestic engagements redundant and irrelevant. I am consoled that we all pray to the same God – the same one who referring to the children of Israel when in Egypt said: “ I have surely seen the affliction of my people which are in Egypt, and have heard their cry by reason of their taskmasters; for I know their sorrows; And I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land unto a good land and a large, unto a land flowing with milk and honey ............” Exodus 3: 7 - 8 (KJV)
My plea to the people of Barotseland is not to waste time with these jokers. You cannot afford to fall over each other when you are fighting to free your country. YES, Bulozi ki NAHA and KINAKO. I urge all the people of Barotseland through the Barotse Government (not Barotse Royal Establishment — a term erroneously introduced by Kaunda) and the Barotse National Freedom Alliance not to relent in actualizing Barotseland statehood . I challenge the three mother church bodies, as a matter of priority , request whoever will succeed Late President Sata to sign the PCA submission agreement and vacate Barotseland within one week of his/he r inauguration. This is so because the matter of the Total Emancipation of Barotseland is IMMINENT.
KI NAKO. TUKONGOTE
Breaking the taboos in this regard is necessary in a debate that deals increasingly with the results of political liberation, analyses the concept of solidarity, and marks the end of the cultivation of “heroic narratives”.
The struggle for political liberty for our people in Barotseland is so great that the triumph over Zambia's fascism alone is worth the sacrifice of our lives, when we successfully hosted the historic Barotse National Council of 2012 against the authoritarian, undemocratic and uncivilized Zambian law. We are determined to work for our freedom today and not tomorrow by accelerating our independence actualization action plans in place.
PF got a winning streak of votes in Barotseland, thanks to the influence of Inonge Wina and Winter Kabimba who used the impasse of the Barotseland agreement in that time.
These Barotzish, who were born and bred by Barotse families, later abandoned the Barotse they used and winter even cast aside the Roger Chongwe report as rubbish and stupid!!!
Winter became so big headed, and we warned him and Inonge, plus Nathaniel Mubukwanu that one day, they will need Barotseland.
It is winter who refused to sign the petition of arbitration brought forward for attention. Winter is a snowball.
We are aware that now the three are scheming of how to use Barotse again, taking advantage that their GRZ still holds a grip on Barotseland.
NJA YA MWAHAE AINA BUTALI!!!!
These people will never get any votes in Barotseland. Though they are Barotse, we shall teach them a lesson should they try to use the youth here.
Winter, Inonge, Nathaniel…keep away.
Barotse activists must prepare a stern way to deal with Zambian politicians who will flood their blood money in Barotseland to win over weak minded souls.
Akinako yakutubeta JUDAS ye – Bulozi Nahayaluna
It would be insanity for the Zambian government to bring their presidential by election campaign to Barotseland as this would contravene the territorial boundaries between the two countries. Barotseland is not the western region of Zambia; this truth should be accepted by all who believe in truth. The western province name in reference to remnant parts of Barotseland is cosmetic and it has no legal support as there was no consensus from people in the territory.
There is a great pressure to try to launder the demised Zambian leader, Michael Sata’s name mainly because of the culture of most Zambian people. Like one Zambian singer, B1, bluntly put it a year ago in his song, “He was a good man.” However, truth be told Sata was just as brutal to Barotseland as his predecessors before him, if not more.
I am immediately drawn to the command Sata issued publicly to his military, and as commander in chief of his armed forces, in the presence of SADC heads of security forces when he said, “…go to Lukulu(Barotseland), and when you hear them (Lozis) say ‘eni sha’ just fire…when you hear them say ‘faa, faa’, just fire (at them)” as he expressly set a tone on how he wanted his army to deal with the people of Barotseland demanding their rights to self-determination. This was probably the lowest he had sunk to in as far as his hatred for Barotseland was concerned.
International law did not begin with the United Nations, but the Organization has played an important role in consolidating and vastly expanding it. International law consists of a body of treaties, customary laws, judicial decisions and other relevant sources that play a central role in promoting economic and social development, as well as international peace and security among the nations of the world. It quickly becomes obvious that conflicts that have dominated the agenda of United Nations are those of political freedom in nature.
This pauses a challenge for UN to position the challenges of conflict resolutions. Barotseland issue, though, not relatively small in scale compared to many others, have consistently failed to attract attention, and has had less coverage from both international and Zambian media houses. Issues concerning Barotseland's right to freedom can be found more on the online publications than the traditional mainstream media outlets, but even then it is not as easy to find the information as the Zambian government keep on blocking internet websites viewed as publishing such information.
The unfolding circumstance s in Zambia should be watched keenly, not that Barotseland is in any way interested in participating in the resultant elections or in who will lead Zambia following President Sata’s death but because we are dealing with people who are bent on keeping us within Zambia at all cost.
Despite having resolved to accept Zambia’s abrogation of the Barotseland Agreement 1964, Zambians have continued to act as if all was normal by imposing their administration and even conducting useless by-elections in Barotseland in the recent past.
With Zambia about to hold presidential elections within three months, a clear message must be communicated not only to the Zambian government but to all competing Zambian political parties that we do not need them to campaign in Barotseland as that is tantamount to campaigning in a foreign country.