• 02
  • Apr

(CNN) The Palestinian Authority officially became the 123rd member of the International Criminal Court on Wednesday, a step that gives the court jurisdiction over alleged crimes in Palestinian territories.

The formal accession was marked with a ceremony at The Hague, in the Netherlands, where the court is based.

The Palestinians signed the ICC's founding Rome Statute in January, when they also accepted its jurisdiction over alleged crimes committed "in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, since June 13, 2014."

Later that month, the ICC opened a preliminary examination into the situation in Palestinian territories, paving the way for possible war crimes investigations against Israelis. As members of the court, Palestinians may be subject to counter-charges as well.

The war between Israel and Hamas militants in Gaza last summer left more than 2,000 people dead, the vast majority of them Palestinians.

Israel, which is not an ICC member, has opposed the Palestinians' efforts to join the body.

"The Israeli position -- like the position of the U.S., Canada and others -- is that the Palestinians are not eligible to join the ICC and the court does not have jurisdiction in this instance, first and foremost, because there is no Palestinian State in international law," Israel's Foreign Ministry said in a statement Wednesday.

"The decision of the Palestinians to join the ICC as an attempt to move 'processes' against Israel is political, cynical and hypocritical."

The Palestinian Authority, which is allied to the "murderous" militant group Hamas, "is the last one that can threaten to present a case to the ICC in the Hague," the ministry added, saying that the Palestinians' membership violated the founding principles of the ICC and risked politicizing the body.

But Palestinian Foreign Minister Riad al-Malki, speaking at Wednesday's ceremony, said joining the ICC was a move toward greater justice.

"As Palestine formally becomes a State Party to the Rome Statute today, the world is also a step closer to ending a long era of impunity and injustice," he said, according to an ICC news release. "Indeed, today brings us closer to our shared goals of justice and peace."

Rights group welcomes Palestinian decision

Judge Kuniko Ozaki, a vice president of the ICC, said acceding to the treaty was just the first step for the Palestinians.

"As the Rome Statute today enters into force for the State of Palestine, Palestine acquires all the rights as well as responsibilities that come with being a State Party to the Statute. These are substantive commitments, which cannot be taken lightly," she said.

Rights group Human Rights Watch welcomed the development.

"Governments seeking to penalize Palestine for joining the ICC should immediately end their pressure, and countries that support universal acceptance of the court's treaty should speak out to welcome its membership," said Balkees Jarrah, international justice counsel for the group.

"What's objectionable is the attempts to undermine international justice, not Palestine's decision to join a treaty to which over 100 countries around the world are members."

U.S.: We will oppose actions against Israel at the ICC

In January, when the preliminary ICC examination was opened, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described it as an outrage, saying the court was overstepping its boundaries.

The United States also said it "strongly" disagreed with the court's decision.

"As we have said repeatedly, we do not believe that Palestine is a state and therefore we do not believe that it is eligible to join the ICC," the State Department said in a statement.

It urged the warring sides to resolve their differences through direct negotiations. "We will continue to oppose actions against Israel at the ICC as counterproductive to the cause of peace," it said.

But the ICC begs to differ with the definition of a state for its purposes and refers to the territories as "Palestine."

While a preliminary examination is not a formal investigation, it allows the court to review evidence and determine whether to investigate suspects on both sides. Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda said her office would "conduct its analysis in full independence and impartiality."

The inquiry will include alleged war crimes committed since June.

The International Criminal Court was set up in 2002 to prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

  • 07
  • Mar

THE AFRICAN UNION, IS IT COMPETENT IN CONFLICT RESOLUTIONS ON THE CONTINENT, BAROTSELAND QUESTION IN PARTICULAR?

The African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights’ 56th Ordinary Session is bound to take place from 21st April – 7th May 2015. The commission will, among other things, look at issues that affect and conflicts peoples' human rights. In view of the commission's role as a commission within the African union, AU, I am compelled to express my opinion of what is expected of the commission, having in mind the serious human rights violations reportedly perpetuated by AU member countries with impunity. I am not going to dwell on the objectives or roles of the African Union where the commission attributes its mandate, but on the legal rights of Barotseland, as in person under international public law. Is the African Union a serious platform to handle political conflicts, which are on the increase, across the continent or is it just a platform for sharing tips on how to rig elections in order to cling to power for the longest period by various African leaders?

It would be naive to believe that the African union is not able to solve conflicts happening in most parts of the African continent, as long as the administration of the African union is seemingly shifting in attitude towards the human rights abuses reports before her committed by member countries against the minorities calling for political freedom to self-determination. In short, if AU upholds the human rights as enshrined in UN charter, it will not fail in its duties of maintaining peace in the continent which needs urgent attention. The African Union, I believe does not oppose the right to self-determination of peoples, like in the case of Barotseland. The AU should come open to the idea and demand for an independent Barotseland, as evidenced by the legal and historical facts that Barotseland was never traded to a new country of Zambia by the Barotseland Agreement of 1964.

There have been, however, some indications that the African union may not be decidedly more biased in favor of new independent territories in the continent than they are to territorial integrity. Undoubtedly, by referring to international legality, the case of Barotseland is among a few considered African prospective states as born out of legality, and requires the justice of law to bring it to conclusion not the barrel of a Gun. Unfortunately, most of armed conflicts in Africa resulted due to inefficiency by the African union to handle disputes that boarder on sovereignty integrity in good faith including the option of independence.

What is certain is that the African union leaders and members, just as countries in the world, are torn between continuing to support a traditional ally and setting a new course that would contradict the interests of that ally. Now, that the African union has a new chairman, president Robert Mugabe known as a critic of Britain's occupation of huge land in Zimbabwe , should work in supporting the efforts of the United Nations peace process that seeks for peaceful resolution to disputes that exist within member countries. It will be another assault on fundamental principles of international law if bipartisan stance takes center stage by the African union in handling the Barotseland question in favor of Zambia's abrogation of the Barotseland Agreement of 1964, and human rights abuses against unarmed people of Barotseland. Should such step be taken by the AU it will go on record as having endorsed Zambia's illegal annexation of Barotseland and human rights abuses including the right to self determination which is an unalienable Right.

In the meantime, the violations of human rights in occupied Barotseland have in fact amplified despite their denunciations by respectable human rights organizations, such as the USA 2013 reports on human rights violations in Zambia or Human Rights Watch. The Barotseland Activists are subjected to inhuman treatment such as illegal arrests, long detentions, suppressed freedom of expression and freedom of association, deaths with some killed buried secretly, etc. In 2011, about 19 Barotse people who were among those that wanted to discuss the abrogated BA’64 were shot dead by the Zambian police or simply went missing to date.

In 2013, about 150 Barotse people were arrested by simply celebrating at the news that the Barotseland government is put in place, a case which was discontinued by Zambia after six months of detention without trial. The case of the Barotseland Youth Activists is also another example, who wrote a letter in 2014 of protests against Zambian's government sponsoring division amongst liberation leaders by luring some to disrespect others, led to the arrest of three youth leaders Muziba, Nayoto and Sikwibele who were later sentenced and are currently serving a three year imprisonment with hard labor.

Furthermore, the Barotseland self-determination quest is not bound to be solved by holding a referendum. The people of Barotseland have already objected to the idea of referendum in spite of calls by some Zambian political opposition parties and some civil rights societies to subject the issue to a referendum. The rejection is out of the fact that nothing gives Zambia the right to offer referendum to Barotseland, as in the absence of the Barotseland Agreement of 1964, the two territories of Barotseland and Zambia are not bound to each other, and it is utter ambiguity and assault to the Law of treaties.

Even though the issue very rarely makes the headlines, the Barotseland conflict has a significant impact on the development of SADC region. Indeed, the lack of regional integration is a serious consequence: economic exchange between southern member states will lead to economic hardship of the region.

I, therefore, expect the African Union to handle the Barotseland impasse with seriousness it deserves as it borders on the very principle of international law, than military capabilities.

Barotseland must be let free.

Litunga Ni lyetu.

  • 20
  • Feb

Zambia's PF government vice-president Inonge Wina is expected to travel to Barotseland to meet the Litunga and his indunas, the Zambia Watchdog reveals.

Mrs Wina’s main mission is to plead and if pleading fails to bribe the Barotse Royal Establishment (BRE) to allow her or her president Edgar Lungu to officiate at this year’s Kuomboka Ceremony.

With Barotse Freedom fighters detained in Mumbwa and other jails, there are indicators that the people of Barotseland do not wish to have officials from Lusaka to president over the only event that brings joy to the Kingdom.

Last year, the Kuomboka ceremony could not be held due (official reason given) to the death of the Litunga (King)’s wife Queen Moyo Imwambo. But the real reason was that the local people refused to have late president Michael Sata lead the ceremony.

Mrs Wina will also meet local people in her first visit from the time she was appointed vice president. Wina had expected joy and excitement from the people of Barotseland on her appointment but instead the people could not care less. The ululations and praises for her being first woman vice-president in a poverty stricken country came from others parts of the country not Barotseland who saw her appointment as personal achievement.

The PF will thus pay people to line up the streets of Mongu to welcome Mrs Wina and give the impression that the whole Barotseland is happy - ZambianWatchdog.com

  • 16
  • Feb

Our grand fathers will have huge jubilation if our Might Freedom comes, while, we will set the future of our children's children straight, than what we have seen in 50 years of slavery under Zambia's rule.

We appreciate donor funded projects underway by the colonial master such as the water transport between Angola and Barotseland. However, let these not be maliciously mistaken or used to divert from the reality of our struggle to bring back our sovereignty.

We believe in “Right is might” while Zambia is chasing the blowing wind in the “Might is Right” view point.

We want our sovereignty to develop our country because we can't rely on a Foreign Government to develop our country, on mare slogans like “one Zambia one Nation.”

Why should some click reduce a territory to a province? Who is selfish here, and what's that behavior?

Surely should we be labeled selfish just because we are claiming what belongs to us after being disrespected, mismanaged, antagonized, arrested, tortured, maimed, killed and name it, for voicing out that something is wrong by not respecting us legally or our inalienable Right???

We should find a better word to describe Zambia's action on Barotseland, as ‘selfish’ isn't enough.

Enough is enough or should we add ‘enougher’ as there isn't such a word!

May Zambia come to the realization that the people of Barotseland want Nothing but INDEPENDENCE as BNC March 26-28, 2012 Resolutions implemented to exercise their Political, Social and Economical Right in accordance with the African Charter on Human and People's Right.

It doesn't make any sense for a step father to tell me to identify myself with him when my father has existed before him.

Barotseland has existed before Zambia therefore her nationals (Barotse) don't need to identify by a mare and Illegal referendum by a step father.

Mwangala, a Barotse National

  • 14
  • Feb

The high spirited incarcerated Barotseland Administrator General Afumba Mombotwa has praised and sent his love, and that of his co-prisoners of conscience, to the Barotse people for their continued outpouring of love and support.

Speaking exclusively from Zambia’s Mwembeshi state prison where he has been detained since December 5th 2014 on trumped up treason related charges, Hon Mumbotwa sent his heartfelt and warm greetings to His Royal Majesty the Litunga, all the Lord Princes and Princesses in Barotseland, The Barotse Royal Authority (former BRE), The Royal Barotseland government, now in the able leadership of Dr. Matengu Situmbeko in acting capacity, and all the kutas and people’s representatives at every level including all the liberation movements of Barotseland.

He wished all to know that he and all his other co-accused are well, and that he is further encouraged to know that Barotseland and well wishers are constantly praying for them.

He has, however, expressed worry that Zambia seemed determined to keep them in illegal detention for a very long time. He expressed optimism, though, that with the continued support of all the people of Barotseland this nightmare will be over sooner than later, for all Barotseland.

“I wish to further ask the nation of Barotseland, now more than ever before, to unite and reject Zambian occupation of Barotseland once and for all by supporting the efforts of our international team of lawyers as they launch the suit against Zambian at the International court of Justice at The Hague in Netherlands

“Your financial and other contribution so far has enabled them and the Royal Barotseland government to come this far. Therefore, your continued support will see this process to its logical and desired conclusion

“Please, continue to finance this process through your big and small donations to the Barotseland Government Trust Account

“In this regard, therefore, allow me to express my unreserved appreciation and recognition of the sacrifices and enormous contributions of all Malozi so far shown to my team and I in the interim government, and the operations of the Acting Administrator General, the Attorney General of the Kingdom and our team of International Legal experts. Particularly the support from the Lord Princes and Princesses in Barotseland, not forgetting the Royal Authority of Barotseland, and indeed the entire Kingdom of Barotseland.”

Hon. Mombotwa concluded by saying that it is the Barotse solidarity and his dream to see a truly free and liberated Barotseland that has kept him and his team in jail in high spirit.

ROYAL BAROTSELAND GOVERNMENT BANK ACCOUNT HELD IN TRUST IN THE REPUBLIC OF BOTSWANA.

We wish to advise the general public to make deposits using the details given below:

Name of the Account:     MADANDUME ATTORNEYS
Name of Bank:                FIRST NATIONAL BANK (FNB) OF BOTSWANA,
Swift code:                    FIRNBWGX
Account Number:           62284744747.
Bank Branch:                 FRANCISTOWN BOTSWANA

PURPOSE OF THE ACCOUNT

The Royal Barotseland Government has started operating as a well-functioning government that serves and protects the interests of its citizens. This Barotseland Trust Account will actualize this dream, and the account is destined to be the establishment of the Central Bank of Barotseland. So people are encouraged to participate in the deposition into the account, because Barotseland Nation is our nation and so let’s help it grow.

MAKING A DEPOSIT INTO THE TRUST ACCOUNT

You can possibly make any payment at any FNB branch in any country by keying the above details, and after a successful deposit or payment, then scan the deposit slip and email it to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. and This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. for accountability purposes, to the attention of Rt. Hon. Lubinda Kunangela, National Information and Investment Analyst.

For others holding small monies may collect the monies to one person who may then deposit it and email the deposit slip to the above emails.

ONLINE DONATIONS:

And those that may wish to donate online can do so by following this link: http://www.barotseland.com/Donation.htm

Rt. Hon. Lubinda Kunangela
National Information & Investment Analyst
Royal Barotseland Government

  • 14
  • Feb

The new Ambassador of Netherlands to Botswana, H.E. Ms Marisa Gerards says Botswana and her country have similar views with regard to the importance of the role played by the International Criminal Court (ICC). She said this in an interview after presenting credentials to President Lt Gen. Seretse Khama Ian Khama yesterday (photo). “ICC is a very important organisation and many African countries are state party to it,” she said.

Ms Gerards further said Netherlands and Botswana have close cooperation on issues of peace, justice and human rights. She said the two countries share similar views on fighting impunity as a deterrent to justice and have a close cooperation in that field.

The Netherlands Ambassador said she has had “excellent” discussion with President Khama on political and international issues with regard to peace and justice.

Ms Gerards said she would further explore other areas of cooperation on economic field as well as tri-lateral cooperation between Netherlands, Botswana and other countries in the African region - Source, Botswana Government

  • 09
  • Feb

05/02/2015

MR. EDGAR C. LUNGU
PRESIDENT OF ZAMBIA
STATE HOUSE
LUSAKA, ZAMBIA

Sir,

Re: DIALOGUE OVER BA’64 A MOCKERY AND NOT WELCOME

Reference is here made to the statement captioned above that indeed if you want to continue mocking people (Zambians), by promising or giving them false hope that there can be a form of dialogue over the defunct Barotseland Agreement 1964, we, the Barotseland National Youth League (BNYL), as an organization representing the voices and views of the youth all over Barotseland and also those in the Diaspora, and the people of Barotseland, do wish to caution you that you are not welcome in Royal Barotseland with such a mission and several reasons can be attributed to our stance.

1.    Royal Barotseland Kingdom signed this agreement and went into partnership with Northern Rhodesia in good faith but your side had evil intentions of reaping us of our resources. But before the signing took place, The Barotseland National Council was called upon to decide whether to go ahead into this partnership or not. And the people voted to join into a unitary state of Zambia not as a province but as a state. This means Zambia was made by and out of two states namely Barotseland and Northern Rhodesia

2.    The BA’64 is no longer a document of any form of interest, neither is it a document that exists in our language as Barotzish. This document was not observed by you Zambians or should we refer to you as Northern Rhodesia. A few months after the agreement was signed, your part embarked on a series of activities that the beginning of breaches, repudiation and finally the abrogation in 1969.

3.    This agreement was abrogated by one part without consulting the other parties which took part in the signing of this agreement or treaty. This means that, one felt uncomfortable to continue being in this agreement and ultimately, they wanted out. Your government in the Kaunda regime decided to opt out by breaking the law of contracts and also the international law, out of which your constitution is born.

4.    In international law, there is an act which is referred to as the Vienna Convention of 1969, article 27 which talks about how internal laws must not interfere or infringe on the international treaties. It states, “that a party may not invoke the provision of the internal law to justify its failure to perform a treaty.” Therefore, Zambia did just exactly what this principle is against few months after signing it.  This is evident enough of how Zambia totally disregard principles of law

5.    In all fairness and also by the Law of contracts, if one part breaches the contract, agreement or treaty, then both parties will revert to their original status. In this case, Barotseland made several attempts to try and resolve this issue but Zambia chose to either arrest, intimidate and kill who ever came forward. We wish, therefore,  to tell you that finally, Barotseland has taken the right path of law, to accept the abrogation of the agreement. This is evident in the Barotseland National Council of 26 – 27 March, 2012. Just like we alluded to earlier on that it was by BNC that we accepted to sign the agreement, so it has happened that by the same BNC, we have accepted the abrogation of the agreement by your side, and reverted back to our original status. Each one for himself and God for us all.

6.    It does not make sense for anyone to talk about the defunct BA’64 now instead of talking about the peaceful disengagement. In your own words, when you were in Ethiopia, made mention that you will give the people of Barotseland a referendum. But, sir, who told you that we need a referendum to actualize our independence? We never went into Zambia by a referendum and will certainly come out of it without one.

7.    We are made to believe that you being a lawyer by profession, you do understand that it is not the oppressor who imposes a referendum but the oppressed, if they so chose to.

8.    Fortunately, we don’t claim tribes but we claim a territory; in this case, as you sited the Nkoyas or should we rightly say 'some' Nkoyas, or indeed anyone else, who feel they can’t stay in Barotseland are at liberty to pack up and go to a country of their own choice. Barotseland will still remain Barotseland. Barotseland has existed ever since the 1300s with diverse ethnic groupings which lived in harmony under the governance of the Monarch, and she shall continue to do so with or without those few opposed to her independence.

9.    The resolutions of popular 2012 BNC did give overall authority and powers to the Government of Barotseland to actualize the peaceful disengagement with Zambia, not BRE or some few individuals. But the will of the people is for the Transitional government to take up the mantle and deliver on their aspirations. Therefore, be advised and warned at the same time that there is no any other institution, organisation or individual who can speak on behalf of the people of Barotseland except those in the Barotseland government.

10.    We are very much well informed that you made a call to one Clement W. Sinyinda for him to come over to Lusaka and a few others so that you can chart a way forward. Not just that but you also invited two Indunas to come to state house for the same cause and these Indunas are:

  • Kufuna Siisi – Induna Kalonga and Acting Ngambela
  • Lubasi Nalishua – Induna Katema

11.    Even though their trip was done discretely, everything was brought to our attention. We wish to tell you that, you are just wasting your time, energy and national resources because none of these you invited can change the resolution made by the supreme law making organ of our land. If Zambians were accountable enough, they will question over their resources.

12.    We wish to also advise you to release all the people arrested over this issue. These are His Excellence Rt. Hon. Afumba Mombotwa, Administrator General of the Royal Barotseland Government and the other four members of His cabinet namely; Likando Pelekelo, Silvester Kalima, Mubita Waluka and Masiye Masiyaleti. The Executive members of BNYL namely; Muziba Borris, Nayoto Mwenda and Sikwibele Wasilota. These gallant men have committed no crime at all but you have kept mute from your inauguration to date. We hope you are not going to follow what your predecessor did because you are a Lawyer by profession, and we expect you to respect the rule of law in totality.

13.    Finally be aware that if there is anything you want to do with regard to Barotseland, remember to go through our lawyers. We are aware that you have received a letter from them, which is a notice of intent to sue, and that the case is being taken to the ICJ for further seeking of natural justice. We expect you to follow, as they advised you to, on any matters pertaining to Barotseland.

Sincerely yours,

Signed:

BAROTSELAND NATIONAL YOUTH LEAGUE EXECUTIVE

Cc: His Majesty King Lubosi Imwiko II
Cc: Office of the Administrator General
Cc: United Nations
Cc: Common Wealth
Cc: African Union
Cc: SADC
Cc: UNPO
Cc: All Embassies Accredited to Zambia
Cc: FFSA
Cc: UNFS

  • 05
  • Feb

His Majesty King Ilute Yeta III, took the Matter of Barotseland Agreement 1964 to the High Court of Zambia in 1991 - Interpretation of the BA 1964 in Zambian High Court in 1991 - By Sikopo Mataa

In an efforts to solve the Barotseland issue within the legal framework the Republic of Zambia, His Majesty King Ilute Yeta III, took the matter to the High Court of Zambia, in which he sought for an interpretation of Article 4 and 8 of the Barotseland Agreement. On behalf of the Republic of Zambia, the Attorney General then Mwelwa Chibesakunda in the High Court, it was clearly stated that the Barotseland Agreement was abrogated and terminated and the judgment attached hereto: http://barotsepost.com/images/important_barotse_documents/1991_judgement_between_barotseland_vs_zambia_in_high_court.pdf shows vividly how they violated and rendered the Barotseland Agreement null and void.

This means clearly that there is no relationship between the two nations and there is nothing people can do to mend the broken relationship between Zambia and Barotseland, because the High Court had clearly stated that the Barotseland Agreement was terminated by introducing amendments to the laws.

What remains now is an aspect of illegal occupation; they have terminated an agreement and yet continue to enjoy the privileges and rights contained in the Barotseland Agreement. Simple question arises: where does Zambia finds its authority to administer the territory of Barotseland without any agreement with the owners?

Zambia must not take people of Barotseland for granted, because there will be a time when people will not speak anymore, but force may now be option. The world will condemn Zambia to the lowest point for failing to reason and for stealing people’s territory and its people.

We therefore, hereby, to support the move by the Royal Barotseland Government to take Zambia to the ICJ as soon as possible, because we have valid grounds, and we know that we would never lose the case even if we had no lawyer.

The ruling published here for public records only:

 

1991/MP/1721

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR ZAMBIA

HELD AT LUSAKA

 

In the matter of

The Barotseland Agreement 1964

And in the INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLES 4 & 8

Of the said Agreement

Between:

THE LITUNGA OF THE WESTERN PROVINCE                  PLAINTIFF

And

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE REPUBLIC

OF ZAMBIA                                            DEFENDANT

 

                       EXHIBITS

 

These are the documents marked, “M.C.1”, “M.C.2”, “M.C.3”, “M.C.4”, M.C.5”, “M.C.6”, “M.C.7, “M.C.8”, “M.C.9”, “M.C.10”, “M.C.11” and “M.C.12”, referred to in the affidavit of Mwelwa Chibesakunda sworn before me on the 4th day of December, 1991.

 

                   _________________________

                   COMMISSIONER FOR OATH

 

 

1991/MP/1721

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ZAMBIA

HELD AT LUSAKA

 

In the matter of

THE BAROTSELAND AGREEMENT 1964

And in the matter of

THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLES 4 & 8

OF THE SAID AGREEMENT

Between:

THE LITUNGA OF THE WESTERN PROVINCE                  PLAINTIFF

And

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE REPUBLIC

OF ZAMBIA                                            DEFENDANT

 

AFFIDAVIT IN OPPOSITION OF ORIGINATING SUMMONS

 

I, Mwelwa Chibesakunda of Lusaka in the Republic of Zambia being duly sworn do hereby make oath and say as follows:

  1. That, my full names are as above appears.
  2. That I am a Zambian resident at No. 4 Ngwezi Road, Roma, Lusaka.
  3. That I am the State Advocate seized with the conduct of this matter on behalf of the defendant and I am duly authorized to swear this my Affidavit from facts and information personally known to me which came to me by virtue of such conduct.
  4. That on the 18th May, 1964, the former president of the Republic of Zambia Kenneth David Kaunda on behalf of the Government of the Republic of Zambia, Sir Mwanawina Lewanika III Litunga of then Barotseland acting on his own behalf, his heirs and successors, his council and the chiefs and people of Barotseland and Duncan Sandys M.P., Principal Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the colonies on behalf of her Majesty the Queen of England signed an Agreement otherwise known as the Barotseland Agreement 1964.
  5. That the said agreement’s purpose was to consolidate and perpetrate the existing treaties and agreements subsisting at the time between her Majesty and the Litunga of Barotseland.
  6. That the Northern Rhodesia becoming an independent state, and all the treaties and agreements terminating, the said Barotseland Agreement initially between her Majesty the Queen and the Litunga of Barotseland subsist and continue in effect.
  7. That under Article 4 of the agreement, the Litunga and his council were accorded extensive governing power, over Barotseland.
  8. That consequently such jurisdiction over the Western Province then Barotseland was curtailed by Act No. 47 of 1970 Western Province (land and miscellaneous provisions), which by virtue of its enactment abrogated the Barotseland Agreement in its entirety. The document now produced and shown to me marked “M.C.1” is a copy of the said act.
  9. That Article 4 (3) which empowered the Litunga and his Council to make laws for Barotseland was thus abrogated by the following amendments to laws:

 

  1. Lands and deeds registry ordinance Cap. 84 was amended by deleting section 5 subsection (2) paragraph (d). The document produced and now shown to me marked “M.C.2” is a copy of the said Cap. 84 and the amended Cap 287.
  2. The Forests Ordinance Cap 105 which defined “state land” as all lands in Zambia, except land vested in the Litunga of Barotseland, was amended to include all land in Zambia in Sections 5, 7, 14, and 15 were amended as evidenced in defendant Exhibit “M.C.1”. Produced and shown to me marked “M.C.3” are copies of Cap 105 and amended Cap 311.
  3. That plumage Birds Protection Ordinance Cap 117 was amended in section 3 by the deletion of subsection (4) produced and shown to me marked “M.C.4” are copies of Cap 117 and amended Cap 310.
  4. The Town and Country Planning Ordinance Cap 123 was amended in Section 3 by the deletion of subsection (5). Produced and shown to me marked “M.C.5” are copies of Cap 123 and amended Cap 475.
  5. The Liquor Licensing Ordinance Cap 197 was amended by repealing Section 75 produced and shown to me marked “M.C.6” are copies of Cap 197 and amended Cap 429.
  6. The Water Ordinance Cap 231 was amended in Section 3 by the deletion of paragraph (a), produced and shown to me marked “M.C.7” are copies of Cap 231 and amended Cap 312.
  7. The Natural Resources Ordinance Cap 239 was amended by repealing Section 59, produced and shown to me marked “M.C.8” are copies of Cap 239 and amended 315.
  8. The Fauna Conservation Ordinance Cap 241 was amended by repealing Section 47 and 43 as evidenced by “M.C.1 at page 639, produced and shown to me, marked “M.C.9” are copies of Cap 241.
  9. The Fish Conservation Ordinance Cap 263 was amended by repealing Section 25 and 26, produced and shown to me marked “M.C.10” are copies of Cap 263 and amended Cap 314.
  10. The Local Court Act No. 20 of 1966 was amended by repealing Section 56 (a), produced and shown to me marked “M.C.11” are copies of Act No. 20 of 1906 and amended Cap 54.
  11. The Zambia (state lands and reserves) Orders 1928 to 1984 was amended in Article 2 as evidenced by Exhibit “M.C.1” at page 639, 640 and 641, produced and shown to me marked “M.C.12” are copies of Zambia (state lands and reserves) orders 1928 to 1964 prior to amendment.
  12. That in the said Act No. 47 of 1970 in essence abrogated all the powers of the Litunga to govern Barotseland independently in relation to Article 4 and 5 as evinced in all the afore-mentioned laws amended accordingly.
  13. That the Zambia Independence Act 1964 and the Independence Order 1964 Appendix 1, accommodated the terms of the said Barotseland Agreement, but consequently to the amendments to the respective laws by virtue of Act No. 47 of 1970, the 1973 constitution repealed and revokes the 1964 constitution as they formed part of the laws.
  14. That Cap British Acts Extension laws of Zambia extends the British limitation Act of 1939 in Section 2 schedule to Zambia.
  15. That any civil action that arises and originates from the said agreement is by virtue of the limitation Act 1939 time barred, in accordance with section 3 of the said Act, which states that no cause be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.
  16. That the said agreement on the promise of the afore stated reasons was abrogated in 1910 upon amendment of the respective laws.
  17. That subsequently no cause of action can ensure after the stipulated six years stated in the limitation Act and therefore that action is misconceived.
  18. That the facts deposed to herein are true to the best of my knowledge, belief and information.

 

Sworn by the said       )

Mwelwa Chibesakunda at  )    _______________________

Lusaka aforesaid this   )    Despondent Signature

4th day of December,     )   

1991      Before Me     ):   _______________________

                             Commissioner for Oaths

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.