Accordingly, Mr Sinyinda wondered whether the BRE had indeed been bribed by the Zambian government, as widely speculated, for them to insist on going against the collective wishes of the people of Barotseland.
He wondered why the BRE would be so hell-bent on disregarding the longstanding norms of the Kingdom of Barotseland which place the wishes of the people above all, especially decisions unanimously passed at a regularly convened Barotse National Council and sanctioned by the King of Barotseland.
The Limulunga BRE’s current stubborn behaviour, he said, only validates the speculations that they must have accepted bribes from the Lusaka administration to betray the resolutions of the 2012 Barotse National Council which was regularly convened by His Majesty, the Litunga, King of Barotseland.
Mr Sinyinda stated that the issue of Barotseland’s declared independence is now a matter of international public knowledge and, therefore, it would be better for this generation to keep it that way for the future generations to pursue further, if we can’t achieve it now, rather than for the BRE to reverse all the gains attained so far in exchange for their selfish and personal benefit through bribes.
Mr Sinyinda further wondered why the BRE would want to engage in dialogue with the Zambian government over the restoration of the defunct 1964 agreement when the Barotse people already accepted the abrogation of the 1964 Barotseland Agreement in March 2012, preferring political independence from Zambia instead.
Restoring the defunct agreement entails that the Barotseland will continue to exist in Zambia as a mere province and at the political pleasure of the Lusaka Zambian government, while the 2012 BNC unanimously declared that the people of Barotseland were no longer interested in being a part of Zambia but would pursue a peaceful disengagement of the Kingdom from the colonizing Republic of Zambia.
Meanwhile, Sinyinda’s delegation, which included Mr Mumbisho Mulele— a senior citizen popularly known as Mwana' Mucembele, Mr Charles Nyambe (BNFA secretary), Mwana' Mulena Lubasi Mubukwanu and Ngenda, accused the BRE of often using such so-called dialogue meetings only to set up police traps for those actively pushing for the independence of Barotseland so they can later be arrested by the Zambian Police as instigators of seditious or treasonous activities.
Ngenda, a Barotse youth activist, even told the Ngambela and his Kuta that some Induna, who he could name and point at within the Kuta, had previously gotten him arrested for treason and were even willing to testify against him in Zambian courts of law and now wondered whether this was the BRE’s intention even today.
The delegation further wondered why the BRE would want to dialogue with the Zambian government when some other Barotseland independence leaders, Afumba Mombotwa, Inambao Kalima and Likando Pelekelo were still serving 15-years jail sentences each with hard labour over the same matters, proof that as far as the Zambian government was concerned, matters related to the defuncted Barotseland Agreement 1964 were still criminalized in Zambia.
Mr Mumbisho Mulele (Mwana' Mucembele) expressed shock and disappointment particularly at Induna Imandi, Mr Namushi Nyambe, wondering what had happened for him to have abandoned his Barotse Freedom Movement (BFM) ideals to now push an agenda that seeks to perpetuate the continued subjugation of the people of Barotseland under Zambia.
He wondered why the collective will of the people of Barotseland was now no longer paramount to him, noting that BFM, under his leadership at the time, was one of the main architects of the 2012 Barotse National Council that concluded the landmark independence resolutions, alongside their Linyungandambo counterparts.
And Ngambela Mukela Manyando, with his Limulunga Kuta and Iñete’s Kuta, have insisted that they would go ahead and engage the Zambian government with or without the Barotse political activists.
In response, however, the former Ngambela warned that any dialogue that would not involve important stakeholders such as the Barotse political activists and civil society would be doomed to failure.
He wondered how the Zambian State would be trusted to honour any agreement signed with the BRE alone when it could not honour the more serious 1964 Barotseland Agreement which it previously co-signed with Her Majesty’s British Government as well as the Commonwealth.
He further warned that if the Zambian President went ahead with such a dialogue that excluded other key stakeholders, he would simply be repeating the Rhodesian (now Zimbabwean) history of Ian Smith who once decided to engage the Canaan Banana faction alone at a critical time in history, while arrogantly excluding the Robert Mugabe and Joshua Nkomo factions and the result was there for all to see.
Some key stakeholders, that were invited to attend the Zambian Government planned and funded dialogue, such as Afumba Mombotwa’s Linyungandambo, Barotseland National Youth League (BNYL) and the Sinyinda led Barotse National Freedom Alliance (BNFA) have boycotted the proposed Barotse Dialogue Council (BDC) accusing it of being a vehicle only created to betray the unanimous wishes of the people of Barotseland as collectively agreed at the historic 2012 Barotse National Council for Barotseland's political independence from Zambia.
They have, however, declared their willingness to attend any dialogue with the Zambian State as long as it is based on the March 2012 BNC resolutions, and in the presence of international observers, instead of the currently proposed Barotse Dialogue Council centred on the 'restoration' of the defunct Barotseland Agreement 1964.