• 04
  • Aug


Hon. Afumba Mombotwa and his three co-accused, currently incarcerated at Zambia’s Mukobeko state prison for the condemned, cannot be tried in Zambian courts unless there is express agreement between the country of his nationality (Barotseland) and Zambia, that empowers the latter to undertake such a trial, over some issue not criminal in country of origin Barotseland. Therefore, for Zambia to have set a trial date for the people of another nation is criminal, and against international laws and norms.

There are laws that govern international extraditions, in addition to having procedural requirements. There is no way the nation of Barotseland could stoop so low as to extradite their own nationals for an act of instituting a civil government as per 2012 March Barotse National Council, BNC, independence resolutions; which action is not even a political crime, and does not conflict with international law.

The Extradition requires that a person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, be delivered up to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

First, the state which claims jurisdiction over the underlying crime makes a request for the alleged extradition and issues a warrant for the arrest of the person. Though international law trumps that states may have their own laws affecting extradition, as long as those laws do not conflict with international law.

In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more extreme acts against one's sovereign or nation. Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as;

"...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]."

In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aiding or involved by such an endeavor.

In the case of Barotseland transitional leaders, however, Zambia has to establish:-

I. First, nationality of the accused and jurisdiction of trial of people of different nationality.

II. The territory where the offense was committed and which government they conspired to overthrow.

III. Zambia has to establish her legal authority over the people of Barotseland.

A person is not guilty of treason in exercising his inalienable right to self determination in the territory declared independent by her citizen.

It is my view, therefore, that if this trial goes ahead; Zambia will have been allowed to rape the law of Nations and universal human rights which are God given. Zambia is taking hold of her privilege against the wishes of the people of Barotseland. It is wicked; a wicked government of the day and the people that prey on the defenseless persons with no crime committed.

I, therefore, can have no sympathy for the Zambian government, whatsoever, should the international community act by imposing economic sanctions against Zambia.

In conclusion, by proceeding with the High Court trial over Barotseland transitional government leaders on charges of treason felony, it means Zambia is confirming to the international community its annexation of Barotseland territory.

This is a clear violation of international law because annexation is illegal and cannot be condoned.

Should Zambia proceed, we will have the right to act by any means, because the action will be a demonstration that Zambia is not in any way going to respect legal settlement of the Barotseland impasse.

This treason trial, should it proceed, will just be a deliberately calculated move to strike terror into hesitant minds; and impress upon the entire nation of Barotseland the determination of the governing occupying force of Zambia to stifle the right to self determination of the people of Barotseland, facing one of the most serious charges in any legal system.

Tukongote Litunga Ni lyetu

By Saleya Kwalombota

  • 31
  • Jul

By Saleya Kwalombota


From the facts on the ground, many of us are aware of the importance of the 27th March of 2012. There is no way we could miss how important the date is to us the citizens of the great territory of Barotseland. But while they are some still in the valley of indecision and don’t fully grasp the concept of Independence declaration. We have to understand the importance of the Declaration of Independence Barotseland issued in 2012 and the important role each and everyone has to play for the patriotism of our country. In simplicity , it is to understand the Declaration of Independence and what it actually stand for in our lifetime, for our children and children's children. It is important to understand the significance of the Act of Declaration of Independence in the political sense in order to value the sacrifice of Men and women who took that serious decision in 2012 at Barotseland National Congress.

One thing that many people don’t realize is that the Declaration of Independence is important in the Barotseland situation just like it was to the United States. Our founding father Liwanika preserved the territory for the future generations, it's time appointed for our generation to bravery implement the resolutions and save ourselves from the York of Zambian slavery, similar to what the America suffered from with England and King George III. In fact shortly after America gained her independence France revolted against King Louis XVI to gain their independence in a sense too. Why I dwell much on American Independence Declaration is because America was the first to bring such ideology.


The Declaration of Independence has great significance because it is what led to America's independence from King George III. The Declaration of Independence justified America right to revolt against a government that no longer guaranteed her people their natural rights. And it also helped America to get increased foreign assistance from France in her fight to become free from King George III of England. The Declaration of Independence stated certain ideals that the colonists believed were important for man to have, such as liberty and equality.


Not only did the Declaration of Independence give America the right to go to war against England to obtain her freedom, but the Declaration of Independence also listed what the colonists thought was wrong of England to do. It gave a voice to their list of grievances. Prior to the American Revolution, England had passed a series of Acts known in history as the Intolerable Acts. These acts were in part a major cause of the American Revolution because they were written and passed to give England complete control over the thirteen colonies. Some of the acts that were passed included the Tea Tax, the Stamp Act, the Quartering Act, as well as many others. England even required that revenue be returned to England that was made in the colonies, thus trying to prevent the colonies from being self-sufficient. Because England was trying to control everything, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, the Sons of Liberty, and a few others tried to convince the colonists that
England was being a tyrant and the colonists did not have to put up with it.



So the Declaration of Independence was a way of telling the colonists that they were entitled to certain things and that the actions England was taking was proof enough that England did not believe everybody was created equal or that they have the right to be happy.


It is worthy to note of the words in the American declaration of independence document framed that women today are treated the same as men and that all races are treated equally. Without the words of the America's Declaration of independence, some of the civil rights that have been passed might never have come to light.


America was not free from Britain immediately after issued and signed the Declaration, not until it was involved in a long and bloody war that lasted another 7 years. Freedom does not come on a silver plate, our people of Barotseland should be prepared for any eventualities, it is not an easy walk to freedom. There were many times that America came close to losing but persevered Fighting up to 1781 when fighting ended, leading to international recognition that was independent country after the Treaty of Paris was signed in 1783. What Barotseland needs is to face reality of freedom and with courage implement, and do away with Zambian laws and pass her own laws. A constitution conceal another constitution, similarly, a law conceal another law, furthermore, a government conceal another government. Barotseland should put a government in place; Barotseland should be ready to defend the declaration by any method the occupying force may think to use.

Finally, Barotseland must with authority emancipating from the right of her SelfDetermination declare the end to Zambia's legislation in the territory.

Barotseland freedom is coming!

  • 31
  • Jul

By Saleya Kwalombota

1. The Declaration of Independence wasn’t signed on July 4, 1776.

The Second Continental Congress met in Philadelphia on July 1, 1776 and voted in favor of Richard Henry Lee’s motion for independence. After a two to three days length of debating and revising the language of a statement drafted by Thomas Jefferson. On July 4, Congress officially adopted the Declaration of Independence, and as a result the date is celebrated as Independence Day.

2. After the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, the “Committee of Five" was charged with overseeing the reproduction of the approved text.

3. When news of the Declaration of Independence reached New York City, it started a riot.

George Washington, commander of the Continental forces in New York, read the document aloud in front of City Hall. A raucous crowd cheered the inspiring words, and later that day tore down a nearby statue of George III. The statue was subsequently melted down and shaped into more than 42,000 musket balls for the fledgling American army.

4. Eight of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence were born in Britain and opted to stand with their people .

5. One signer later recanted.

Richard Stockton, a lawyer from Princeton, New Jersey, became the only signer of the Declaration of Independence to recant his support of the revolution. On November 30, 1776, the hapless delegate was captured by the British and thrown in jail. After months of harsh treatment and meager rations, Stockton repudiated his signature on the Declaration of Independence and swore his allegiance to King George III.

6. There was a 44-year age difference between the youngest and oldest signers.

The oldest signer was Benjamin Franklin, 70 years old and the youngest was Edward Rutledge, a lawyer from South Carolina who was only 26 at the time.


The aforementioned is an eye opener and great source of inspiration. It is interesting to note that the independence declaration was a motion moved by one man (Mr.Richard Henry Lee) who had drafted the language to suit it's tone. The draft was debated by the delegates for two to three days before the voted in fervor of the declaration. When the news reached New York, the news brought the spirit of revolution. People rioted and pulled down the statue of King of Britain as a sign of civil disobedience to the occupying power. It is noted that out of the signatories, one of them backed out to work with the occupying power against the wishes of his people. This should remind us that what ever is happening in Barotseland also happened somewhere else. Some of the signatories were arrested but America maintained her independence declaration and in the end archived her independence.

In conclusion, to maintain independence declaration means implementation of what had been agreed and continue working towards the objective of self legislation governing to weaken the administration of the occupying power. People of Barotseland should understand that the declaration of independence brings revolution and shift in royalty to discontinue collaborating with the occupying power. It is ideology that is upside exhibited in our struggle that has given room to Zambia's ruthless behavior in this issue, for how long should we continue preaching peace to someone who finds no dignity in it? Zambia will continue doing what it best known for such as arrests detentions, maiming, terrorizing, and shredding off the letters of communique.

Barotseland freedom is coming!

  • 31
  • Jul

When dawn's come
And Barotseland is born
Born from the blood of those who paid the ultimate price
Our freedom shall be priceless
Born from the never-healing scars of torture
Our freedom shall be total
Born from the pain of amputated limbs
Our freedom shall be limitless
Born from the sound of breaking bone
Our freedom shall be beautiful
Born from the betrayal of broken promises
Our freedom shall be prosperous
Born from decades of neglect
Our freedom shall be magnanimous
Born from total economic misery
Our freedom shall be sweet
Born from the ashes of the Barotseland Agreement 1964
Our freedom shall be fortified
Born from state betrayal
State treachery
State trickery
Sate thuggery
State hooliganism
State gangsterism
State mobsterism
Our freedom shall be truly democratic
The traitors shamed
Shameless hoodlums
Left barefaced

When dawn's come
And Barotseland's born again
A country we shall truly call our own
Our own country
To which all shall belong
Short and tall
Fat and all
Man and woman
Young and old
Baby and child
Truly free
Unconditionally free
Totally free
Unreservedly free
Categorically free
Entirely free
Absolutely free

When dawn's come
And the people of Barotseland are free
Free from bondage
Bondage of slavery
Bondage of oppression
Bondage of repression
Bondage of servitude
Bondage of captivity
No burden is heavier to bear
Than slavery
No burden is heavier to bear
Than oppression
No burden is heavier to bear
Than repression
No burden is heavier to bear
Than servitude
No burden is heavier to bear
Than captivity
Time to remove the bandages
Revealing scars
Scars we bear
Scars we proudly wear
As badges of valour
Testimony of the brutality we had to bear
The brutality we had to endure
Treated like animals ever
While the world watched
And turned a blind eye
When dawn's come
And Barotseland is born
Our ancestors finally smiling
In their graves
After turning, and turning and turning
Edgily, restlessly and anxiously
For decades on end
Their spirits failing to find eternal peace
Their pride and glory finally restored
Our children smiling
Old men dancing
Old women ululating
Finally coming out of hiding
Freedom, freedom, freedom at last

When dawn's come
And Barotseland is born
Mbengenge shall deliver us to freedom
Mbengenge everywhere
Tears of joy flowing freely
Finding their way down the cheeks Of an old man
Barotseland is free
A fulfilment of a dream
Gallant men and women sacrificed
Their pride and honour
To deliver us from
Lucifer Di'bolos
We've secured Bulozi
Free at last.

  • 31
  • Jul

By Saleya Kwalombota

The right to self-determination has a wide scope. In a cultural sense it covers the right to speak one’s language, to profess one’s religion, to celebrate one’s culture. The right to self-determination also has a political aspect, where a people or nation may have the right to have its own political parties, and have a form of political autonomy. The most known form of self-determination and the most far reaching is the right to secede from a state in order to form own state. This right is only limited by the principle of territorial integrity, which implies that external borders of a state are not to be changed without the consent of the state. This does not impair Barotseland's independence resolve since Barotseland boundary preceded the "unitary" formation of Zambia, neither is it seceding but reverting to it's original status.

The formal Barotseland declaration of independence of 27th March 2012 would have not been done had Zambia being willing to reach the peaceful settlement of Barotseland impasse. For Barotseland the most important issue is the recognition of her statehood, since she holds the right of being a separate state derived from being a British protectorate before the birth of Zambia.

International community should follow the rationale of Western European states in the case of Kosovo to recognize Barotseland. Recognition in Kosovo case was granted notwithstanding Serbia’s claim to territorial integrity. Resolution 1244 of the UN Security Council remained valid, respecting Serbia’s territorial integrity. This means that Kosovo was recognized while at the same time there was a legally binding document in force demanding (implicitly) not to recognize. The territorial integrity of Zambia falls off in Barotseland issue as Zambia is made up of two former British protectorate nations of which Barotseland is part of, not Zambia.

The argument that Barotseland case has no precedence could be likened to that of Kosovo which was a special case too. It was argued in Kosovo case by UN envoy that independence was the only option to realize a politically stable and economically viable state and additional argument for independence was that the uncertainty about the future of Kosovo threatened democratic development and ethnic reconciliation. The Kosovo issue was not a precedent, but a case on its own. The recognition of statehood by the international community of any country is unilateral act and are no rules in international law which state how many states have to recognize. Furthermore, there are no rules in international law on how big a state should be, how many inhabitants it should have or whether it is economically viable. Therefore, international community should act in good faith and recognize Barotseland's statehood before Zambia commits more atrocities against unarmed people of Barotseland.

Barotseland forward!

  • 24
  • Jul

By Saleya Kwalombota

The very heart of the human condition and the survival of any people depend on having a righteous VISION. This article will act as a dialectic framework for interrogating political and public vision of governance system that is generated from the VISION of constitutional Government in a Monarch Nation State. However, not in any way invalidating opinions by some people who have argued that the current BRE structure is sufficient to constitute a transitional government.

The unwritten laws of Barotseland speak of peace, order and good governance, but these things do not constitute vision. They are protocols of DO, DON'T and PROCEDURAL. A vision requires an understanding and acceptance of the proper steps necessary to actually bring about PEACE, ORDER and GOOD governance. It’s how we reconstitute our governance structures to get at constitutional government from here, which matters. There should be no resistance to change and there should be political will to reconstitute our "traditional" forms of political representation and governance practices, to maintain control of our own affairs, and to have government that will be accountable to the people. The government where ministries and government departments will be audited and make the report public. Today if someone raises a question against the usage of funds the BRE collects from the Barotseland properties doted across the territory, such a person may be echoed with a sharp reaction and considered having committed unforgivable crime against the monarchical authority. It is not even easy to make an appointment for a meeting with the Litunga; one has to go through KUTA procedures that at the end become a source of bribery and corruption. Unfortunately, with this type of system, the King is kept out of touch with his people who are in much need of his wisdom and guidance to sensitive issues of his territory. This is not what the people of Barotseland want to be subjected to, but rather, where the tenets of democracy will be the overriding factor.

Democracy does not mean elections with ballots; it means the voice of the people in the selection of their leaders and in the decision-making of governments. The first task in advocating for a constitutional monarch government must be to develop and advance that meaningful vision. But having vision is not enough – the people must also be free to implement their vision. Hence, the delay in institution the civil government to tackle the economy and political affairs of the Barotseland Royal State is of people's greatest concern. The heartbeat of constitutional monarch is to bring the people to a sense of belonging and participation which is integral to the tenets of democracy within a constitutional monarch. What the people need is a governance paradigm that can provide government space for statutory institutionalization of traditional and customary authority without overruling the principle of democracy.

The monarchical authority in a constitutional system the world over does not take a leading role in governance but act as the custodian of the civil government. The people themselves must be able to translate their vision into policy proposals, organizations, and political movements without bringing the authority of the monarch into contempt. The constitutional monarch makes it possible for citizenry's directly involvement in the determination of their self-governance. As long as the nation's first governance is dominated by laws and policies of a by-gone era of the monarchical bureaucracy, it will be difficult to see how meaningful governance practices and culturally appropriate institutions can be appreciated.

The challenge that Barotseland is facing, is the recognition of a system that will be better in governance system in conformity with today's politics other than the current bureaucracy setup where Indunas are only chosen and appointed by the Litunga at his discretion without subjecting them to public elections. People need a governance system that will transform the Act of governance into an agency for positive change, otherwise, to continue the status quo, simply means that the people will continue to have less involvement in issues, as the Barotse Royal Establishment (BRE) bureaucracy will be supreme in matters of governance of both royals and commoners. A key aspect of Barotseland struggle for self-determination is the fundamental right to determine both the process of leadership selection and the basis upon which these leaders derive and exercise their authority. Failing to change the heavily bureaucratic system is to chose to continue with the by-gone era of the system.

Tukongote Litunga Ni lyetu

  • 20
  • Jul

The position of the boundaries of Barotseland is described by the publication of the document entitled International Boundary Study no. 123 of 3rd July 1973 by the Geographer, Directory for Functional research, Bureau of Intelligence and Research, Department of State, the United States of America as published in the provisions of Bureau of the Budget Circular No. A-16 which states as,


It may be argued by some people that the boundary of Barotseland is at the Zambian railway line stretch. This would be a grave error, to say the least. However, the people of Barotseland know the exact extent of their boundary as it is documented, and are not egoistic to lay claim to lands not belonging to them or that was handed over to the British Crown.

Such people are advised that, going by the arrangement to hand over land through the arrangement of the "transferred land" by the way of statement of Claim (A) given by Mr. Harry Johnson, the Consul General or High Commissioner who was responsible for the British Central African Protectorate (BCAP), Barotseland cannot claim land that was handed over.

It is essential to explain the boundary of Barotseland as was decided on 11th June, 1891 which is found in the activities that took place on that date briefly as follows:-

"Treaty between Her Britannic Majesty and His Majesty the King of Portugal their respecting Spheres of influence in Africa, Lisbon, June 11, June, 1891. Ibid, Vol. 3, pp. 1016- 26 as seen from Great Britain Treaty series, Portugal No. 1, (1891) Cmd 6375.”

This arrangement was done without the knowledge of His Majesty King Lewanika who had taken extreme exception about the intentions of the Portuguese to emasculate his land as seen from his letter addressed to Her Britannic Queen Victoria and High Commissioner Robinson on 23rd October 1896 when he stated that:-

"I would be very glad if the British Government separates me from the Portuguese because if the latter come into my land, they will steal it. I do not wish my country to be divided into two parts between Portugal and German; it must be in one part under England. The Government must carry me as a woman carries a Child upon her back..."

It must be explained that these activities had taken place when the issues of the borders of Barotseland had become topical. This argument had led to the appointment of an arbitrator to facilitate the determination of the issue in 1903.

King of Italy Victor Oscar Emanuel III was appointed to arbitrate to determine the right boundary. In the process, he took a reconciliatory position of a common mathematical equation by adding what the Portuguese and the British had claimed and divided the same by 2 in order to arrive at the 22 degrees of the Greenwich.

The issue of Barotseland boundary, even at this time will not create problems because there is an international principle which states that:-

"Nemo dat quod non habet" meaning "No one can give away that which does not belong to him"

In this regard those who demarcated the territory of Barotseland after 1964 by the regime of Kaunda will have to give account for their misdeeds.

The boundary between Barotseland and Angola and Barotseland and Zimbabwe can be determined by perusal of the International Boundary Study No. 120 of 24th March 1972 and No. 30 of 2nd March 1964 respectively.

In conclusion, it should be stated that the boundary of any African country that achieves independence must state the extent of its boundaries which must be supported by documentary proof, according to the summit of the Heads of States and Government of OAU no. AHG/16/1 of 15th July 1964.

It is, therefore, important to bring to the people’s attention that the Barotseland boundary will be determined properly on the basis of what is provided under the International law to which all States are accountable.

Barotseland has never been independent because the British transferred the obligations with regard to the protectorate arrangement to the Zambian government. Therefore, as Barotseland attains Statehood, the issue of the proper boundaries will be determined at the appropriate time.

Bulozi fasi la bondata Luna

By Saleya Kwalombota

  • 19
  • Jul

The indisputable facts of Zambia’s repudiation of Barotseland Agreement 1964 warrant the imposition by the ICJ of Restraining Orders designed to prevent a military attack on Barotseland, to prohibit any type of Zambia's illegal administration of Barotseland and economic sanctions against Zambia should it ignore the order. The Restraining Order should also seek prohibition of Zambia and its allies from advocating aggressive military actions against Barotseland.

The responsibility of Barotseland after the 2012 BNC independence resolutions could not have been better if it did not further taken a legal option of taking Zambia to international courts. Zambia's attitude towards Barotseland at now is not in good faith and against peaceful settlement of the matter, if no attachment of International Court of Justice or African Union commission on Human and people's rights, justice may be perverted. The Barotseland transitional government should be given a plus for immediately putting together an international legal team of competent international lawyers specialists and moving to The Hague to seek as “case coordinator” and liaise with the World Court administration on how best the case could be filed.

Zambia's administration of Barotseland in the absence of BA64 is strange and assault on the Vienna Convention on law of treaties. Hence, a legal seeking to the world court would advance accountability under international law and the ICJ would likely grant Barotseland's Petition for Interim Measures of Protection and Zambia's activities could be suspended in the territory during the course of the years of litigation which would directly and positively give a relief to the people of Barotseland to institute governance structures without compromise.

Barotseland's facts at hand of Zambia's abrogation of BA64 and violation of human rights warrant the case's credibility in Barotseland's favor and there are ample solid legal theories to argue to and convince the World Court. Under the ICJ Statute, the ICJ must decide cases in accordance with international law. Hence the ICJ must apply (1) any international conventions and treaties; (2) international custom; (3) general principles recognized as law by civilized nations; and (4) judicial decisions and the teachings of highly qualified publicists of the various nations. From this body of international law, the International Court of Justice would find ample basis to support Barotseland's claims not only for the benefit of Barotseland people but serves to advance the rule of law in the global community.

Despite Barotseland's strong case on both the facts and the law, and the diversity in structure and composition of the International Court of Justice, the international tribunal has a few times over the years been criticized for favoring established powers. Under articles 3 and 9 of the ICJ Statute, the judges on the ICJ should represent “the main forms of civilization and principal legal systems of the world.” This definition does not settle well with the unrepresented and developing countries; however, this does not question the court's credibility.

Nevertheless, the world court’s record has been by and large exemplary in applying principles, standards and rules of international law both in contested cases and advisory opinions and Barotseland has an excellent opportunity to protect the spirit and wishes of King Lewanika who hundreds of years ago sought protection of his nation through international recognized agreements and treaties , and it will advance international accountability all to the inestimable peace of all people of Barotseland and Southern African nations through legal conclusion of the matter.

Tukongote Litunga ni lyetu

By Saleya Kwalombota

  • 12
  • Jul


Leadership is defined as the ability of an individual to influence, motivate, and enable others toward the effectiveness and success of the organizations of which they are members. Leadership directly impacts on the effectiveness of the country's governance in terms of inculcating intra-party democracy, public outreach, gender parity, election campaigns and the constructive management of the country's economy.

I will briefly run through categories of leadership that will enable us to identity type of leaders heading our liberation groups in Barotseland.

1. VISIONARY LEADERSHIP; it inspires, believes in own vision, empathetic, explains why and how people’s efforts contribute to the dream. This type of leadership moves people towards shared dream.

2. COACHING LEADERSHIP; it promotes harmony, boosts morale and solve conflicts. This type of leadership connects people’s dreams with organizational dreams.

3. AFFILIATIVE LEADERSHIP; it listens, encourages and delegates. This type of leadership creates harmony and connects people to each other.

4. DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP; Good listener, team worker and collaborator. This type of leadership appreciates people’s inputs and gets commitment through participation.

5. PACE-SETTING LEADERSHIP; Strong edge to achieve, Low on empathy and collaboration and micro-managing. This type of leadership realizes challenges and exciting goals.

6. COMMANDING LEADERSHIP; ‘Do it because I say so.’ Threatening, tight control, Contaminates everyone’s mood and drives away talent. This type of leadership decreases fear by giving clear direction in an emergency.

Having described categories of leadership it will be necessary to explain some salient features of good leadership in terms of skills. The skills that a true leader should possess should include the ability to:

  • Debate, clarify, and enunciate values and beliefs;
  • Fuel, inspire, and guard the shared vision;
  • Communicate the strategic plan at all levels;
  • Recognize the problems inherent in the planning process;
  • Ask the big picture questions and “what if”;
  • Encourage dreaming and thinking the unthinkable;
  • Engage in goal setting;
  • View problems as opportunities;
  • Set priorities;
  • Be a critical and creative thinker;
  • Set the example (walk the talk);
  • Celebrate accomplishments.

Thus, the secret behind the successful leadership is not to allow own thinking to be contained and limited by imaginary boundaries of the ideology of the organization. Thinking outside the boundaries and limitations is what creative thinking of leadership is about. Barotseland as a state would require a cream of good cabinet that should be able to propel the newly independent country to economic heights. Let the people at every level of their own understanding develop interest to deliberate on the expectation of leadership they would prefer to comprise the first cabinet.

It is a matter of fact that every society is divided through lines of ideologies brought about by type of leadership in charge of political parties or liberation groups. Challenges will always exist but the ability to address them is what will bring much needed harmony in every democratic society. Personal qualities of a leader should be measured in terms of passion, humour and empathy, strength of character, general maturity, patience, wisdom, common sense, trustworthiness, reliability, creativity and sensitivity. These are some of the ingredients the leader should possess to effectively lead the people. I believe Barotseland has the people capable to take Barotseland to the heights of economic prosperity as leading a newly independent country is a big task and above partisan politics, that would require the input of technocrats.

Tukongote Litunga ni lyetu

By Saleya Kwalombota

  • 10
  • Jul


We are all entrusted with the duty of shaping the face of the Barotseland territory as a true constitutional monarch State, where there will be an equal distribution of the burden, as well as the acceptance of rights and shouldering of duties by all sectors, through different forms of national service. A state where there will be a good and efficient education system which educates a young generation imbued with values and national pride, which is capable of confronting the challenges of the modern world. A country whose economy will be adapted to the advanced global market of the 21st century and will be equal to that of most developed European countries. This is the country (Barotseland) we wish to shape. This is the country where our children will want to live. I know that there is sometimes a tendency to narrow Barotseland's economic potential down to the Zambian standards, believing that once independence actualization has been achieved, the other
issues on the agenda will miraculously resolve themselves. I do not believe so. It requires the input of all Barotzish nationals to easy difficulties that may come with a newly independent state.

I hope the leadership in our liberation groups, and the BRE inclusive, attach supreme importance to taking necessary steps, which will enable progress toward resolution of the civil government standoff. However, in light of the challenge of government standoff we might be faced with, and if the BRE does not make an effort toward a solution to the urgent call of civil government institution, people do not intend to wait for them indefinitely; otherwise, they will have to petition the Litunga as the Head of State to ease the process. Four years down the line after we unanimously voted for independence, no in-route of governance structures achievements so far, which is a matter of great concern.

A process of modernizing the BRE will be a significant progress toward takeover of governance administration by the civil government. In implementing the constitutional civil government, the current BRE Structures should be obliged to consider the separation of powers between the civil run government and the traditional re-aligned structures. It will be prudent to ease the process for now, as much as possible, for the legislation and enforcement of Barotseland laws to take effect, because time is a measure of success. An adoption of already instituted civil government structures under the leadership of Hon. Afumba Mombotwa is of greater relief bearing in mind the difficulties and sensitivities involved in the government process formation. The adoption of the civil government structures under Hon. Afumba can be done on stakeholders consensus with provision of amendment where the need arise. The civil government inauguration has a matter of
constitutional protocols that can be eased through mutual understanding.

The civil government institution is vital at the moment in time; the self- governance has the blessings of the 2012 BNC resolutions which had been accepted by all including the monarch and the BRE. This is the appointed time to break the civil government standoff in the midst of our independence struggle. If at all there are cardinal matters at the moment to table for discussion, it is the issue of power separation between the monarch and the government. The power separation requires the evident support from the BRE as the custodian of the people and our old founded monarch. The people of Barotseland's willingness, capability and implementation cannot be doubted and in practice will bring the necessary tools required for better governance in the constitutional monarch. It won't be possible, from my point of view, for our elders at BRE to have a change of mindset in the shortest possible time to adapt to the dictates of the constitutional monarch

The civil government and the BRE modernization must go hand in hand as to ignore one of them, is to breed anarchy in the system. Therefore, an organizational framework should be established with the purpose of addressing and assisting in the matters in relation to the implementation of the civil government in line with the constitutional monarch. The organizational framework should avail the Road Map Plan for coordinating the modernization of the BRE and inauguration of the "inclusive" civil government.

The 2012 BNC resolutions were balanced steps for a phased progress towards the reality of independence attainment, to which both the Privy council and the BNC committed themselves to. The Civil Government will be a step forward in attributing great importance to fulfill aspirations of our 2012 BNC resolutions which are the express reflection of the peoples' will. A full and genuine implementation of the resolutions will give the best experience of true independence. The divided opinions between the BNFA and LINYUNGANDAMBO on governance system structures is a welcome gesture to effect reasoning that will lead to self legislation realization. The two groups have so far published their proposed Barotseland transitional constitutions that included their vision of government portfolios. However, a political roadmap is a plan that should be accepted by all stakeholders, in this case the BRE, Liberation groups and technocrats through a genuine consensus, not ballot box, since the latter is an exercise that can be done in a full fledged state. The 2012 BNC resolutions are clear and reasonable, and are therefore possible and imperative to implement, as long as there is a mutual consensus of all stakeholders that will lead to a strong foundation of the civil government.

Tukongote Litunga Ni lyetu

By Saleya Kwalombota

  • 22
  • Jun

More questions have arisen on why we do not just CLAIM the current entity called ‘Western Province’ of Zambia. “Surely it would be easier to claim that (western province) and maybe the Zambian government would more easily release it to you, SELFISH Lozis, rather than this greedy demand for BUTOKA and BULOVALE,” argued someone, followed by the usual unprintables we are now so accustomed to receiving.


Barotseland is NOT breaking away from Zambia. It is merely REVERTING to her status as it WAS before the Barotseland Agreement of 1964, because the current CLAIM for Barotseland independence is born out of Zambia’s abrogation of the 1964 pre-independence agreement. Zambia is the PARTY that BROKE AWAY. Not Barotseland!

Secondly Barotseland’s CLAIM is a LEGITIMATE claim PURSUED through LEGAL means rather than, say, through Military Campaigns, where one gets what they conquer. In a LEGAL claim you will rely on your LEGAL entitlements or what you think they are.

LEGALLY speaking ‘western province’ is NOT a party to the AGREEMENT of 1964 which was abrogated. So how can Zambia’s WESTERN PROVINCE even be a point of discussion in this LEGAL contest? The agreement was between BAROTSELAND and NORTHERN RHODESIA aka ZAMBIA, under the auspices of BRITAIN also as a PARTY and BENEFICIARY.


The current province known as Western Province of Zambia was created by Zambia’s first president Kenneth Kaunda sometime after 1969, all in the effort to obliterate Barotseland, pretty much the same way Zambia’s fifth republican president Michael Sata created Muchinga province of Zambia. Both are born out of GOVERNMENT POLICY. Government policy is bound to change from time to time. For instance if I, Sibeta Mundia became president of Zambia, I could very well decide to influence change in current government policy (or even dictate, as this seems normal in Zambia), that both Muchinga and Western provinces be renamed or dismembered. Now such changes would be mere GOVERNMENT POLICY, which the next government may not necessarily uphold. It is as simple as drawing a government Gazette and it is DONE!

STATE TERRITORIES (whether sovereign or subservient as in the case of FEDERATED countries such as USA or UNITARY states such as Zanzibar/Tanzania or Barotseland/Zambia), however, cannot be changed by GOVERNMENT POLICY. If for example President Edgar Lungu of Zambia thinks it is a good idea to have Victoria Falls town of Zimbabwe (another state territory) joined with Livingstone on the Zambian side (for now), he cannot just DRAFT a government Gazette to combine it with Livingstone and make it a PART of Zambia. That would be considered ILLEGAL OCCUPATION or INVASION of foreign territory (ANNEXATION), which could land Zambia at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) or TRIGGER a bloody WAR with Zimbabwe.

So TECHNICALLY and LEGALLY the creation of ‘Western province’ in Barotseland territory did NOT alter the ACTUAL state borders of Barotseland. In fact, if anyone wants to declare WESTERN PROVINCE or MUCHINGA PROVINCE independent from Zambia, it will be rightly considered ‘SECESSION’ and one would probably NOT use the COURTS for such a CLAIM. MILITARY conquest or a demand for a referendum from the PARENT country may be a more FEASIBLE option than LEGAL recourse.

Therefore, while Butoka was given to Northern Rhodesia, for administrative purposes ONLY, (the Butoka NEVER at any time declared independence from Barotseland. In fact as will show later, they protested being ruled under the Northern Rhodesia government, pledging loyalty to the Litunga and Barotseland), Balovale District on the other hand was given to Northern Rhodesia via a government Gazette of 1941 preceded by a Commission of Inquiry. SEE here: http://barotsepost.com/images/important_barotse_documents/balovale_despute_1941.pdf So, ideally this should not alter the STATE boundaries of Barotseland because while a government Gazette can’t change state boundaries in the latter case, Zambia disinherited herself of Butoka through the abrogation of the Barotseland Agreement 1964, which being the successor TREATY to Lewanika Concessions and all other treaties SUBSISTING between Barotseland and Britain. Of course the issues that led to the petitions of the BALOVALE to the extent that a huge part was set ‘FREE’ from Barotse rule MUST be considered. So, the CLAIM for BULOVALE or parts of it is on FIRM legal ground.


It may interest many BUTOKA people to know that in fact Chief Sekute (Kazungula) and all Leya Chiefs and their people of CHUNDU native court, in charge of the large part of BUTOKA actually did protest the administrative changes that put them under Northern Rhodesia administration as they preferred to be ruled DIRECTLY under the LITUNGA of Barotseland and his government. In their letter of PROTEST dated 29th December, I96I, and addressed to the DISTRICT Commissioner at Kalomo, with copies to The Provincial Commissioner, they directly told the Commissioner that they did not want to be administered through Northern Rhodesia government but rather through the Litunga’s government. (A copy of that letter is reproduced below.) It is, therefore, expected that the BATOKA people will GLADLY wish to be Barotseland CITIZENS without much DOUBT, and must be given that first opportunity. Should they NOT, their discontent will be entertained by the Barotseland government on merit using Barotseland laws. This situation may also APPLY on the people of BULOVALE.

It is also expected and hoped that BAROTSELAND will be one of the BEST governed countries in Africa and the world. This humble assumption is based on the FACT that when others have OPTED to use military means to attain their INDEPENDENCE, Barotseland wishes to use LEGAL and PEACEFUL means to achieve her independence. It may just well be the first country on earth in present TIMES to gain independence using LAW rather than WAR.

So, what we are saying is that you can’t simply go to COURT, say ICJ, and claim WESTERN PROVINCE which does not exist as a STATE territory. Western Province is Kenneth Kaunda’s CREATION, which we dare say he created ILLEGALLY, maybe because he was ill advised to think that he NOW had the power to do so. But his action was in DIRECT violation of the Barotseland territorial integrity. It could, however, be tolerated superficially if the Barotseland Agreement 1964 had been in force, although even then it would be a LEGAL blunder that would haunt him later. BEFORE the current entity was named WESTERN province, the current COPPERBELT with parts of North Western Province is what was known as ‘Western Province’. He first named it Barotse Province, and then finally got rid of that ‘Barotse’ factor to name it western province.

Finally, in the notion of ‘REVERSION’ Barotseland goes BACK to what it was before the AGREEMENT of 1964. This territory, unlike ‘western province’, is a more solid LEGAL claim, because Barotse people are more easily able to identify and prove LEGALLY what entity the Barotseland under CLAIM is. All COUNTER claims from quarters outside of Barotseland MUST have to be proved in competent international COURTS of law. Future internal challenges or discontent, if ANY, will be handled by the Barotseland GOVERNMENT.


Demanding the independence of WESTERN PROVINCE from Zambia would be ILLEGAL and rightly deemed SECESSION, and can ONLY be pursued by MILITARY action or FORCED demand for Zambian SPONSORED referendum, WHILE a demand for BAROTSELAND independence is PERFECTLY Legal and SECESSION does not APPLY as it is Barotseland’s right to revert to pre-agreement STATUS, now that the Barotseland Agreement of 1964 is a DEAD issue in the eyes of BOTH Zambia and Barotseland.

Recently a respectable Zambian constitutional lawyer stunned the Zambian audience when he stated on National Television; ZNBC, MUVI TV and popular radio station Phoenix when he said that Barotseland could separate from Zambia and it wouldn’t be secession! To this day, Zambia police have never questioned or arrested Dr. Ludwig Sondashi for this because they knew that he simply knew what he was saying as a CONSTITUTIONAL law expert and former government officer in first, second and third presidents’ government to the highest level of CABINET minister.

Editor’s Note: The foregoing are Sibeta Mundia’s personal opinions. They are NOT necessarily representative of the Royal Barotseland Government’s Legal Positions on the subject under discussion.



Copy of ORIGINAL PETITION HERE: http://barotsepost.com/images/important_barotse_documents/chuundu_native_court_chief_sekute.pdf

Chundu Native Court,
P.O. Box 48.
Northern Rhodesia.

29th December, I96I.

The District Commissioner,
Southern Province.

Dear Sir,

1. We, the Leya Chiefs, and our people, have the honour to write and submit our Petition, to the Government through you, in which we ask to join the Barotseland Protectorate Constitution Treaties, as has been the case long before.

2. As far as we can remember the Treaty of the 25th June 1891 which King Lewanika signed with Sir Robert Thorne Coryndon, at the Victoria Falls, and the 1910 Treaty of Concession with Colonel Fair in Livingstone were both attended by our fore-fathers.

This meant that they were all King Lewanika’s subjects as those In Barotseland Protectorate, who are still enjoying the rights and privileges of the protection of Her Majesty, the Queen.

3. To give more detail, that is why King Lewanika had to travel a long distance to come down here in order to protect our country under the Treaties.

4. We have a strong; belief and confidence that the Litunga and His Government (Barotse Native Government) will gladly accept us and care for us in the same way as it was in the past, if only the Territorial Government allows us to join the Protectorate.

We have the honour to be,

Your most humble and obedient servants,

Signed: Chief Sekute

Copies to:

The Provincial Commissioner
Southern Province,

  • 21
  • Jun

To declare independence of any territory, it must be expressly determined the extent of the territory under CLAIM, without any ambiguity.

Thus; the interim Barotseland government’s letter of legal suits to the Zambian government quoted the 2012 Barotseland Emancipation Act and Restoration Order 2012, part 1 article 1.2 which states the following on the boundaries of Barotseland currently under CLAIM:

"The National territory of the Kingdom of Barotseland in the meantime shall consist of the whole territory of Barotseland as it was from 1900 to 1947, without taking areas that were regarded as her subject or dependent territories into consideration; that is, its Eastern boundaries shall stretch from Itezhi-Tezhi to the confluence of river Chiababi with Zambezi (longitude 26 degrees East) and Northern boundaries shall stretch from the confluence of Lufupa river with river Kafue, Westwards to the Lungwebungu river, (longitude 22 degrees East). The boundary on the west shall start from Lungwebungu river (Latitude 13 degrees 28 minutes South) then Southward to Cuando river, down to the confluence of Cuando with river Luiana extending to Katima Mulilo Rapids, running along the Zambezi, Eastward to its confluence with river Chiababi (longitude 26 degrees East)”. END.

THE ABOVE CLAIM ROUGHLY AFFECTS FOLLOWING ZAMBIAN DISTRICTS - note: (The use of 'Zambian' as they may be called something else under Barotseland)

Kazungula, Livingstone, Kalomo, Itezhitezhi, Namwala, Mumbwa, Kaoma, Kabompo, Zambezi, Chavuma, Lukulu, Kalabo, Mongu, Senanga, Shangombo and Sesheke.

This present CLAIM, however, mantains the Barotseland borders with Angola, Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe as they are, currently.

Should there be any counter CLAIM over the stated territory, as a civilized society, Barotseland will do what all civilized societies do; seek international ARBITRATION. The matter will be handed over to relevant international courts for determination where proof of CLAIM of such territory will be presented.

However, it must be stated that Barotseland is adequately prepared to DEFEND her CLAIM of the stated boundary in any independent court on earth, as this will not be the first time in history that the borders of Barotseland will be subject of international court of Arbitration, the other having being the one between Britain and Portugal at the arbitration of the King of Italy in 1903-1905. See a copy THE BAROTSELAND BOUNDARY CASE (GREAT BRITAIN, PORTUGAL) ruling for your further reading here: http://barotsepost.com/images/important_barotse_documents/The-Barotseland-Boundary-Case.pdf

Any one or any groups of people that may not wish to belong to the above claimed Barotseland territory will be given the opportunity to repatriate to Zambia or stay in Barotseland as foreigners complying with the prevailing Barotseland laws. Conversely, Barotse people currently in Zambia who will chose Barotseland citizenship will be given the opportunity to repatriate to Barotseland or stay in Zambia as foreigners complying with the relevant Zambian laws.

The Barotse National Freedom Alliance, too, in their April 2015 position statement served to the Zambian president also collaborated with the interim Barotseland government position on boundaries above, with an extended elaboration worth considering;

"The territory of Barotseland, currently under claim, shall comprise all the areas that immediately before mid - night 23rd October 1964 were comprised in the former Barotseland Protectorate as defined by the Northern Rhodesia (Barotseland) Order - in - Council of 1953 and 1963 and the Lewanika Concession of 1909 relating to the area covered by the Kafue National Park up to the Kafue river, together with other areas as may from time to time be declared as such, subject to inhabitants’ consent."

The boundaries of Barotseland have been put in two settings; the first being Barotseland without the areas covered by the Lewanika Concessions and the other is of Barotseland as existed before the said Concessions.

Barotseland with concessions, comprised in the former Barotseland Protectorate, is free to proceed to full statehood because it arose out of the reserved territory (the Barotse Reserve) which was precluded from ruler ship of the colonial authority by King Lewanika's concessions. This is why it later acquired the status of protectorate within the protectorate of Northern Rhodesia to emphasize its self - governing status. This status was maintained by the Barotseland Agreement 1964, the only link between this territory and the Zambian government, and its termination freed the former to become a separate state with fully fledged government structures.

The Barotseland existing prior to concessions takes care of the provisions of the 1900 and 1909 concessions as well as the Balovale excision of 1941. The Lewanika Concession of 1900 (copy here: http://barotsepost.com/images/important_barotse_documents/Lewanika-Concessions.pdf ) placed the Butoka territory to the south and north - east of Sesheke district into the hands of the colonial administration of Northern Rhodesia while the 1909 Concession did the same to the areas north and east of the Barotse Reserve. BY VIRTUE OF THE BAROTSELAND AGREEMENT 1964, THE ZAMBIAN GOVERNMENT INHERITED THESE CONCESSIONS, AND BY VIRTUE OF UNILATERAL TERMINATION OF THAT AGREEMENT, THE SAME GOVERNMENT DISINHERITED ITSELF OF THE SAID CONCESSIONS AND THE SUBJECT AREAS.

The areas under concessions remain the property of the Litunga and their fate is to be determined by the Barotse government, upon formal constitution of Barotseland as an independent state. There are, of course, different options in which these areas may be claimed as dictated by their current geopolitical status.


1. The Butoka area comprises the present districts of Kazungula, Livingstone, Kalomo, Itezhi - tezhi and Namwala. These are populated areas and it goes without saying that the inhabitants thereof have a say on what happens to the territory. Therefore, Barotseland's reclaim of these areas can only be sustained if the concerned people choose to go that way through a referendum restricted to them only [Organized by the Barotse government, and if there is contention by the inhabitants of these area]. These are areas that are covered by the 1900 concession.

2. The 1909 concession is in regard to the Kafue National Park as lying west of the Kafue River. Here there are no people to consult over its return to Barotseland, save for a few poachers who have no right to be in the area. Therefore, this area's return to Barotseland is immediate and straight forward. There can be no valid counter claim by anyone.


Meanwhile, the matter relating to the areas comprised in the Copperbelt, Central and Lusaka Provinces needs to be understood within the context of which they became part and parcel of the territory of the former Barotseland - North western Rhodesia. THESE AREAS WERE TRANSFERRED TO THE SUZERAINTY OF KING LEWANIKA BY THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONVENIENCE, AFTER DETERMINING THAT THE ARRANGEMENT WAS BETTER THAN PLACING THEM UNDER NORTH - EASTERN RHODESIA OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, CREATING A THIRD JURISDICTION CALLED ‘ NORTH - CENTRAL RHODESIA ’.

The linkage of these areas with Barotseland is, therefore, via the agreements that the British government signed with King Lewanika, which agreements were succeeded by the Barotseland Agreement 1964.

In state territory TRIBE is not an issue. There is NOTHING like we are English, Bembas or Nkoyas, or Tongas, or Lundas, or Mbundas, etc. The Kingdom of Royal Barotseland is a Multi-cultural, Multi-ethnic, Multi-party Democratic Constitutional Monarchy that will adhere to good governance and a strict observance of the same Human Rights that she is relying on to CLAIM their right of Self-Determination. What will matter, therefore, is does one wish to live in Barotseland as a citizen or as an alien?

Any complications and challenges that may arise will be resolved by the Barotseland government using Barotseland laws.

By Sibeta Mundia

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.