Political Editor, Barotseland Post
Litunga Lubosi Mawaniketwa (Lewanika I) the son of Litia Mulambwa had 44 children. Of course not from one wife!!
Below is the list of all his 22 male children and some grandchildren who have reigned.
The list is in order of their seniority by birth, and in relation to their female siblings below. Those who have reigned are in ( )
1. (Litia-Yeta III) His Son (Ilute Yeta Iv) Ruled
13. (Imwiko-I) His Son (Lubosi Imwiko Ii) Is Ruling
18. (Mwanawina III)
40. (Mbikusita –Lewanika II)
LIST OF KING LEWANIKA THE FIRSTS’-DAUGHTERS
The list is in order of seniority by birth and in relation to their male siblings above.
41. Lundambuyu-Mulena Mukwae Mboo Wa Njikana
The royal palaces of Libonda and Muoyo/Nalolo are traditionally ruled by females.
Tactically, this was to avoid reigning Litungas from being overthrown by their ambitious male siblings.
Research and compilation by Bulozi London. Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Bulozii
AND ALL THE PEOPLE SHALL SAY, 'AMEN.' - Namakando Nalikando Sinyama
ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY
Scripture teaches that possessions and property may be acquired, for example, under certain conditions by way of reward. Thus even the ox is to remain un-muzzled as it tramps out the grain (Deut. 25:4) and mortals are similarly entitled to appropriate rewards for their labors (1 Cor. 9:9–11). Moreover, all deliberate withholding of wages that are due workers are roundly condemned (Lev. 19:13), because fairness and justice demands the proper pay for honest labor. On the other hand, any gains made through dishonesty must not be given any place in a believer’s life (Eph. 4:28; Prov. 11:1; 21:6; Hos. 12:7; Mic. 6:10–11). That is exactly how stealing is defined.
Possessions and property may also be acquired through inheritance (Deut. 21:16; Prov. 19:14), but even here there is a warning against discrimination (Deut. 21:16). Later on in Israel, only the eldest son received a double portion according to the Mosaic legislation, but this seems to be roughly equivalent to our laws that allow for the executor of the will (in addition to being an heir) to receive a larger portion than the other heirs who are required to pay the executor for the work of distributing the contents of the parents’ will.
Finally, possessions or property could be gained by industriousness (Prov. 10:4; 13:4; 14:23), wisdom (Prov. 3:16; 24:3), or by the development of insight (Prov. 14:15). The book of Proverbs, in particular, stressed the merits of doing a job with pride, satisfaction, and excellence (Prov. 12:24).
THEFT OF POSSESSIONS AND PROPERTY
Theft is both a shortcut to obtaining possessions and property by means of avoiding any work to gain such, as well as by an outright denial of God’s law. Wealth, if it comes to a person, will come either as a result of labor, inheritance, or a gift, but it is easy for either the rich or the poor to violate God’s law, because humans are sinners as well.
The eighth commandment, while one of the two shortest in the Decalogue (Ex. 20:15; Deut. 5:19), taught that stealing was not only taking another person’s property, but it also included all forms of coercion, fraud, or taking another person’s possessions or property without consent, along with all forms of cheating or harming property by destroying its value in one way or another. Thus theft involved the following: robbing victims directly; using indirect and legal means of gaining benefits not deserved; or by being part of a corporate group that steals, even though you are not a knowing party of all that is going on.
Some have tried to argue on the basis of Proverbs 6:30–31 that thievery in times of necessity is not morally wrong. That, however, is to misunderstand this text in Proverbs, for while it compares the sin of adultery over against that of thievery, it argues that the sin of stealing to satisfy one’s hunger brings less dishonor and public shame than one who commits adultery receives—even though both are violations of the law of God. The thief in this case is to be pitied, but the adulterer earns scorn and contempt; his acts of disgrace violate both the law of God and his own marriage vows.
Private property is both a gift and a certain type of power God has entrusted to humanity as stewards. It was God’s intention that mortals should be equipped with this gift and power and that under God they should exercise dominion over the earth. An attack on the rights to private property in recent centuries has denied God’s law and design by weakening those same property rights. Some people, known as “robber barons,” used their power as corporate bosses to trample the law of God underfoot and appealed instead to evolution with its “struggle for the survival of the fittest,” in what became known as “the law of competition.” Oftentimes, the theory of evolution became an excuse for justifying massive theft in all too many instances where the weak or the poor were the victims. Sensing that property was a form of power, the totalitarian state sought to gain more and more power over private property to be able to subjugate the people. Therefore, private property understood as a gift, given to mortals by God to be used for his honor and glory, was often confiscated in increasing portions to ensure the power of the state or of the corporation. This, too, received criticism and judgment from heaven because God did not intend for his gift to be abused in this manner. This can be seen especially in what the state calls “the right of eminent domain.”
IN THE YEAR OF JUBILEE
And you shall consecrate the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants. It shall be a jubilee for you, when each of you shall return to his property and each of you shall return to his clan.
Post courtesy of Namakando Nalikando Sinyama: Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/namakando.sinyama
By Kenny Sibalwa
The stubbornness of the Zambia government as regards its insistence on illegally occupying Barotseland and oppressing its people is similar to the stubbornness of the Pharaoh of Egypt during the time of Mosses which is recorded in the Holy Bible. In summary the Holy Bible records that Moses was chosen by God to lead the Israelites out of Egypt where they were in bondage and slavery to the Promised Land in Israel. The Egyptian Pharaoh refused to heed to Moses’ advice to set the Israelites free, but instead the pharaoh multiplied his cruelty against the Israelites using his mighty army. This story is similar to what is going on between the Zambian Government and the people of Barotseland. The Zambian Government leadership since 1964 has been increasing its cruelty against the people of Barotseland using its police force each time the people petitioned it to seize its illegal occupation and oppression of their country. The Zambian government has denied the people of Barotseland the right to assemble, right of expression, even the right of opinion. In this century which other people on earth are being treated likes this?
A Barotse is arrested or killed for holding an opinion about his country, a Barotse is arrested or killed for reading or telling the history of his country, a Barotse is arrested or killed for possessing books and articles that talk about his history and culture, further a Barotse is arrested or killed for wanting to assemble with his fellow national in order to talk about their collective problems. What security risk does an armless Barotse national sitting in Mongu, Lukulu, Sisheke, Kaoma, Senanga, Kalabo etc pose to the ‘almighty’ Zambian government and its people who are several kilometers away?
Zambian Watchdog Reports
The PF government has ordered filling stations in Western province not to sell fuel so that people do not travel to a controversial rally scheduled for today, Friday October 2, 2015, in Mongu. Filling stations stopped selling fuel yesterday afternoon but are lying to motorists that they have run out of the commodity.
The PF government fears that the rally is aimed at dethroning the traditional leader of Barotseland, Litunga Edwin Lubosi Imwiko II, who is said to be working with the PF government against his own people.
And the PF government has put Barotseland under siege. The provincial capital Mongu has been surrounded by heavily armed regular police officers and intelligence personnel. The Watchdog has been told that soldiers have also been put on alert and are camped in strategic places within the province.
The Litunga is currently ‘exiled’ to Lusaka where he is living under 24 hour police protection after he entered into a pact with president Edgar Lungu to stop his people’s demands for the restoration of the Barotseland 1964. The Litunga’ son has already been appointed as a diplomat at the Zambian embassy in Brazil. The Litunga, one of the richest people in Zambia, also promised and did purport to withdraw a case in which the traditional prime minister of Barotseland (Clement Sinyinda at the time) sued the Zambian government at the African Union court based in Gambia. The Litunga fired Sinyinda and he was later arrested but freed unconditionally.
But this has angered the people pushing for the independence of Barotseland. Some activists including the self-declared Administrator General of Barotseland Afumba Mombotwa are detained in Kabwe.
However, Dr Situmbeko Matengu, acting Administrator General of Barotseland says the people of Barotseland will withdraw their recognition of the Litunga.
‘If, however, a Litunga decides to separate himself and go against the aspirations of his people and declines to take responsibility as King and Head state of Barotseland, but prefers to be a mere salaried chief in Zambia, we in the transitional government will have no choice but to withdraw our support for such a Litunga.
'Fortunately for Barotseland, our rich governance, strict norms and culture already have procedures to handle such betrayal if ever displayed by any Litunga. This will always be our guiding principle to make our transitions harmonious at any given time’ Dr Situmbeko said.
Yesterday, the PF government cancelled the rally and savagely beat up the organisers before arresting - ZambiaWatchdog
Daily Nation Reports in the "Sunday Nation" newspaper of the 27/9/2015 on page 4.
By Nation Reporter.
THE Cheke-Cha Mbunda Cultural and Writers Association have distanced itself from the current squabbles among ethnic groupings and they have since engaged the police to deal with people masquerading as representatives of the Mbunda thus fanning confusion in Barotseland.
Association chairman Ndandula Libingi said he was shocked that some people were masquerading as representatives of the Mbundas when they had no mandate as the tribal structure did not provide for such representation.
He said it was unacceptable that a particular group of people wanted to tarnish the tribe, saying even the dethroned Chief Chiengele mr josias nyumbu, who was at the centre of misunderstanding did not represent all the Mbundas.
'These people who are regrouping are not representing the Mbundas but are supporting their agenda best known to themselves and therefore should not appear to be representing the opinions of the Mbundas people.' he said.
Mr. Libingi explained that no one had authority to speak on behalf of the Mbundas without the authority from all the chiefs in the districts, saying those who would be found wanting would have themselves to blame.
By Uyoya Nawa.
The developments that have unfolded can be termed as the last kicks of the dying horse. The Litunga’s withdrawal of the case at Banjul and President Lungu’s plan to announce the restoration of BA 1964 is nothing but mere desperate attempts to try and take the wind out of our sails in the Barotseland issue.
If the withdrawal is to be taken serious it must first answer a lot of questions. First in our tradition at no time is the Litunga our mouth piece. If he appends a signature to a document it must be in agreement with what the people have resolved. At no time did the people of Barotseland resolve that the case be withdrawn. He is acting on behalf of himself. Unlike Sir Mwanawina Lewanika the third, K.B.E., Litunga of Barotseland who acted on behalf of himself, his heirs and successors, his council and the chiefs and the people of Barotseland. Lubosi is acting on his own behalf and what he has done is not valid. The BNC 2012 resolutions were the final nails in the Zambian coffin. The developments, sad as they are, should not cause all well meaning Barotse to lose their sleep and appetite. The withdrawal is just an eye opener and has erased all the benefit of the doubts that were being given to the Litunga. We now know where he stands.
It is true that much has been said and we have heard much but now we know that the Litunga has betrayed his own people. The case at Banjul has been concluded and according to what we hear it is waiting for the next sitting of the heads of states so that judgment can be announced. Is it possible to withdraw a case at this late stage? We seek scholars of the law to educate us on this one. But to the common man it appears it is not possible. The manner also at which the withdrawal is being implemented does not follow procedure. The case was ‘The Ngambela and Others v. Government of Zambia.’ Is it in order for the person who is not mentioned in the case to withdraw it? In my opinion the Ngambela is in the right position to do so. Currently we don’t have a Ngambela, therefore this means the case still stands.