Are the calls for the secession of Barotseland justifiable?
Name: Fujitsu.
Country:
Date: 15 Jan 2001
Time: 17:05:24
Barotse Cultural Association and Inete, in view of the fact that the talks of Barotseland secession are on hold temporally. Which of the presidential candidates do you think will be more cooperative and help Barotseland the most. Mungomba, Nevers Mumba, Katele Kalumba, Mwila, or UNIP.
Name: Fujitsu.
Country:
Date: 15 Jan 2001
Time: 16:57:49
Barotse Cultural Association, in view of the fact that the talks of Barotseland secession are on hold temporally. Which of the presidential candidates do you think will be more cooperative and help Barotseland the most. Mungomba, Nevers Mumba, Katele Kalumba, Mwila, or UNIP.
Name: Mulozi
Country: Barotseland
Date: 05 Jan 2001
Time: 06:30:28
Malozi mucwani,nabona mwapila.Its good to hear that the meeting took place and now hope that the way forward is to laid down soon.
Happy Newyear and God bless you.
Name: Munga-a-munzi
Country: Kingdom of Barotseland
Date: 02 Jan 2001
Time: 05:58:08
Warm and tender greetings to all Barotse citizens and I wish you a prosperous 2001, may god your creator reward you abundantly for your tireless efforts in all your endeavours.
MARTIN,
Greetings to you in the new year, you will appreciate the fact that its easy to advise a wise man than a fool, hence the saying "you can beat a fool half dead, but you cannot beat the foolishness out of him", the Barotse people have at every opprtunity sought dialogue with the Zambian government to honour the union treaty "The Barotseland Agreement 1964" but the Zambian government have instead expelled Barotseland from the union state by their declaration of the agreement as being dead. Now tell me honestry in your own opinion who has been trying to maintain the togetherness of 'Zambia'. There is no statistics to indicate that only a few people of Barotseland support self-determination for Barotseland. The above analysis is just a repeat of what the Barotse patriots have said before on this forum.
Name: martin
Country: zambia
Date: 28 Dec 2000
Time: 15:41:30
BCA,
what can zambia and its people ( including the majority of LOzis)do to convince a few Lozis like you to stay in the framework of republic of zambia?
Name: martin
Country: zambia
Date: 28 Dec 2000
Time: 15:41:15
BCA,
what can zambia and its people ( including the majority of LOzis)do to convice a few Lozis like you to stay in the framework of republic of zambia?
Name: Barotse Cultural Association
Country: Barotseland
Date: 28 Dec 2000
Time: 08:39:20
Merry Christmas and best wishes for the new year to all fellow contributors on this page. We have brief end of year comments for some of you.
MARTIN, we have noted your advice against lengthy submissions. However, we have a problem. You will agree that most people who vehemently oppose the Barotse issue, including yourself, do so out of ignorance. Post-independence leaders decided that it was convenient to lock up information on Barotseland and other relevant aspects of Zambia's history. The reasons for this should now be obvious to you. They succeeded in duping the citizenry into believing that Barotse autonomy amounts to secession and treason. You and your likes are products of this diabolical plan, carefully laid to deny Barotseland her rightful place in the scheme of things in Zambia.
The starting point in undoing this injustice is to release factual information so that the issue of Barotseland is seen in its proper context, even by those who choose to oppose it. We have taken this task as our historical and sacred duty and perform it at the slightest opportunity. As far as this debate is concerned, it is not easy to provide the vital information we have released so far in a few sentences. Such contributions, particularly when given as answers to questions, would only succeed in inviting further questions. Nevertheless, you will be happy to learn that even the history of Barotseland, like every other subject, is finite. We will soon exhaust the syllabus. Thereafter, we will revert to short and concise submissions that you desire.
MULOZI, sorry we misled you into believing that the last meeting was to be held in Lusaka. We shall be more clear next time. However, the meeting proceeded as planned. It was attended by seventy-eight delegates representing the BCA, BPF, Agenda for Zambia, Liseli Conservative Party, private individuals and, as was expected, state agents! At the end of the two-day meeting a twenty-five persons steering committee was set up to work on the resolutions and draw up a programme for future work. The committee convenes in mid January for this task.
KAYOMBO, welcome back. Indeed there are links between the Barotse and the tribes of Northwestern province. As you have noted from our recent contributions, Mbuywana, daughter of Mwambwa, married a Lunda chief. This means part of the Lunda royal house are descendants of Mwambwa, who is mother to Mbuyu, founder of the Lozi Kingdom. This link precipitated the saying 'Kaluyi-Mwambwa, Kalunda-Mwambwa', which implies that the Aluyi and the Lunda have a common ancestry. Other links derive from the exile of the Aluyi in Kabompo during the 34 year Kololo regime. Among other things, this led to the establishment of the Lozi chieftainship of SIKUFELE in Balovale (present day Zambezi District) which subsists to this day.
Name: martin
Country: zambia
Date: 15 Dec 2000
Time: 09:51:29
on lighter note, BCA i intentionally try to keep my postings to the point and not make them long...i suggest you try to do the same.make your new year's resolution to do that.have nice day
Name: Robatse Makgadi
Country: Orange State, SA.
Date: 14 Dec 2000
Time: 00:26:10
I was so pissed off to read some of the contributions by some people on this website. How could the British have signed similar agreements with the likes of Chitimukulu or Mwata Kazembe when these chaps were still jumping from one tree to the other? Lewanika was not a sell-out and I will tell you why, ask the ANC of South Africa who was among their first honorary presidents when in 1912, their party was founded in Blomfontain as the very first African liberation organisation. His son, Mbikusita, was the pioneer of political liberation in your country in 1948. Aka got rid of the KK regime by forming the MMD. Guys, enough respect, stop the insults or you will soon feel very sorry for yourselves.
Name: KAYOMBO
Country: ZAMBIA
Date: 13 Dec 2000
Time: 11:44:50
BCA From your recent contributions, it does appear to me now that the people of western province have rather close historical links with tribes in North Western province. please shed some light.
Name: MULOZI
Country: BCA
Date: 13 Dec 2000
Time: 07:12:53
Thanks for your invitation,but please you had alluded of the meeting taking place in Lusaka and besides the notice time been short. We and others would have very much Loved to take part all the same i wish you a fruitfu meeting and please advice the people let them realise the way forward.
Please let us know of the developments.
Nalumelisa Malozi kaufela!Na Kuku wamena.
Name: Barotse Cultural Association
Country: Barotseland
Date: 13 Dec 2000
Time: 03:26:12
MARTIN, we are surprised that up to this point you have not grasped the basis for our stand that the term SECESSION is a misnomer when applied to Barotseland and Zambia. We further believe that your case is not really of failure to comprehend a situation but a desire to prolong an argument unnecessarily. However, for the sake of those who may be misled by your deliberate refusal to correctly read a straight forward matter, we take you through a step by step analysis of the situation as follows;
Legally, Northern Rhodesia comprised two Protectorates of Northern Rhodesia and Barotseland as separate territories up to independence in 1964, even though they had a Common Colonial Governor. This situation was not unique as it had been applied in the case of Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland which were administered by a Common High Commissioner. However, as opposed to these other countries which obtained independence separately, Barotseland and Northern Rhodesia, on account of geographical proximity and the fact that their peoples had intermingled through a shared Colonial Administration, decided to merge and proceed to independence as one country. The basis or foundation of that merger is the Barotseland Agreement 1964. This fact is highlighted and underscored by the Agreement which, in the first paragraph of the Preamble says;
“This Agreement is made this eighteenth day of May, 1964 between KENNETH DAVID KAUNDA, Prime Minister of Northern Rhodesia, on behalf of the Government of Northern Rhodesia of the one part and SIR MWANAWINA LEWANIKA THE THIRD, K.B.E, Litunga of Barotseland, acting on behalf of himself, his heirs and successors, his Council, and the chiefs and people of Barotseland of the other part..........”
The second paragraph of the Preamble says;
“...Whereas it is proposed that Northern Rhodesia shall become an independent sovereign Republic to be known as the Republic of Zambia...”
The third paragraph of the Preamble goes on to provide as follows:
“....And whereas it is the wish of the Government of Northern Rhodesia and of the Litunga of Barotseland, his Council and the chiefs and people of Barotseland that Northern Rhodesia should proceed to independence as one country and that all its peoples should be one nation...”
The rest of the Agreement provides the terms and conditions of the merger detailing the rights and powers of each of the two parties to the Agreement. One important provision is Article 4 which entrenches the Barotse Regional Autonomy by providing for a legislative body called the Litunga-in-Council, the Barotse Government, the Barotse Courts, Local Authorities, the Treasury etc.
It is crystal clear that it is the Barotseland Agreement 1964 which makes Barotseland a part of Zambia. In other words, it is this Agreement which created Zambia. But, this treaty was torn apart by the Government of Zambia during the period 1966 to 1968 through unilateral and unconstitutional actions, rendering it unworkable. The Government is on record, particularly after the advent of the Third Republic, in saying that it considers the Agreement a dead issue. Under these circumstances would any sensible person insist that Barotseland, legally speaking, is still a part of Zambia? Does Zambia exist?
Perhaps, for the sake of clarity, we should draw a near parallel from one of the common treaties in human society - the marriage. Consider a situation where one partner, in pursuit of selfish aims of escaping the obligations that go with matrimonial laws, nullifies the marriage certificate by tearing it and committing acts which breach the law governing marital relations. Would the marriage continue to subsist, in the eyes of the law, even if the two people continued to live under one roof. If the aggrieved partner, after several attempts to restore the marriage have failed, opts out, would this partner be accused of breaking the marriage? At what point did this marriage cease to exist? Was it at the point that the aggrieved partner walked out or at the point when the legal instrument of marriage ceased to apply?
With the foregoing analysis we now pose the question - if Barotseland today decides to restore herself as a self governing state would she, in legal terms, be considered to be seceding from anywhere?
As for you Martin, we challenge you to show where, in our submissions, we have argued for the discarding of entrenched constitutional, social and cultural developments of the colonial period. If anything, we have repeatedly said that our history determines who or what we are. It is very dangerous to wholesomely discard your history for you will end up by discarding yourself.
Name: Barotse Cultural Association
Country: Barotseland
Date: 13 Dec 2000
Time: 03:23:08
BEN in Germany, we give you the chronological order of the Litunga(s) of Barotseland. Firstly, it should be appreciated that the Aluyi (Ancestors of the Lozi) came from a tradition of female rulers. That is why they were led by a woman, Mwambwa, during their trek from the Congo. Mwambwa was succeeded by her daughter Mbuyu. After Mbuyu the people decided, for a variety of reasons, to transfer leadership to the male gender. Thus, her fisrt born son MUYUNDA (later called MBOO), became the first King.
Mboo was succeeded by his brother INYAMBO who was also succeeded by another brother, YETA (known officialy as Yeta I). Yeta was succeeded by Inyambo’s son NUMWA who was succeeded by a cousin, NGALAMA. The latter was a son of Iñalamwa, one of Mbuyu’s sons who did not ascend to the throne.
Ngalama was followed by two of his sons in succession, YETA (known as Yeta II) and NGOMBALA. Ngombala’s reign was so lengthy that his children and nephews were considered too old for the throne when he died. He was succeeded by his grandson YUBYA who was in turn succeeded by a brother, MWANAWINA ( Mwanawina I). Mwanawina was followed by two sons in succession, MWANANYANDA and MULAMBWA.
Mulambwa was succeeded by his son SILUMELUME amidst controversy as this succesion was disputed by another son, Mubukwanu, leading to disunity and civil war. It was at this time that the Kololo, a warrior tribe from Lesotho, invaded the Kingdom, overan and ruled the Aluyi (later called the Lozi) for 34 years from 1830. In the meantime, two sections of the Aluyi had managed to regroup and move away from the central plains. One group went to the Manyinga area, in Kabompo, where they built a stockade to barricade themselves from Kololo influence. The second group went to the western part of Barotseland in Nyengo area. These groups were led by IMASIKU and IMBUWA, both of whom were Mulambwa’s sons.
In 1864 the Lozi, under the leadership of LUTANGU (later called SIPOPA), who was Mulambwa’s son, rebelled against Kololo rule and overthrew it. It is said and believed that all Kololo men were executed while the women were shared among the Lozi aristocracy. Sipopa was succeeded by a nephew, MWANAWINA (Mwanawina II) in 1876. The latter was a son to Sibeso, one of Mulambwa’s sons. Mwanawina II died in 1878 and was succeeded by LUBOSI, another of Mulambwa’s grandsons (his father was Litia). In 1884 Lubosi was overthrown in a palace coup by his cousin, TATILA AKUFUNA who was Imbuwa’s son. Lubosi escaped and was exiled among the Kwamashi tribe ocupying an area along the present border with Angola. The following year, Tatila was overthrown in a popular uprising which saw Lubosi reinstated to the Kingship. Following his return, Lubosi strengthened his hold on power by purging his rivals. He further consolidated his hand throughout the Kindom by appointing personal representatives as overseers and tax collectors among the tribes. This earned him the name/title of LIWANIKA-la-MAFUCI, a luvale and Luyana term for ‘gatherer or conquerer of lands (nations)’. Thus he assumed the legendary name of Liwanika (corrupted to Lewanika by the British). Developments partaining to the Partition of Africa and colonialism heightened during his reign. He signed a Protectorate treaty and several concessions with the British between 1890 and 1910.
Lewanika was followed on the throne by four sons in succession. He died in 1916 and was succeeded by his son Litia, who ascended to the throne as YETA III. In 1945 Yeta III abdicted on account of ill health and was succeeded by his brother IMWIKO. Imwiko died in 1948 and was succeeded by another brother MWANAWINA III, who had been Knighted in 1959 for service in the first world war and carried the title Sir Mwanawina. He reigned up to the time of independence and led the Barotse Government into the negotiations for the incoporation of Barotseland into Zambia. These negotiations culminated into the signing of the Barotseland Agreement in London on 18 May 1964 which paved the way for the birth of Zambia as a unitary state with provisions for Barotse Regional Government. Mwanawina III died in 1968 and was succeeded by his brother, MBIKUSITA who reigned as Lewanika II. Mbikusita was the last of Lewanika’s sons on the throne.
Lewanika II died in 1977 and was succeeded by his nephew, ILUTE, who was a son of Yeta III. Due to distortions introduced by enchroachment into the Barotse system by the Zambian Government Ilute’s official name/title was mistakenly taken to be ‘Ilute Yeta IV’, just because his father reigned as Yeta III. This is wrong because a Litunga does not carry a surname to the throne but reigns in his own name or, if his birth name is considered inappropraite, it is replaced with one of the past Kings’ names on succession. Ilute succeeded as Ilute and was not Yeta IV. He died in July this year and has been succeeded by a cousin, LUBOSI, who is Imwiko’s son. After all succession rituals are done with, the current Litunga’s name/title should be confimed as either Lubosi II or Imwiko II, and not Lubosi Imwiko as we read from the press.
In all, there have been 23 Litungas since Mboo the first King. If the two who ruled the exiled groups during the Kololo interregnum are included, then the total is 25.
Name: Barotse Cultural Association
Country: Barotseland
Date: 13 Dec 2000
Time: 01:54:16
MARTIN, we are surprised that up to this point you have not grasped the basis for our stand that the term SECESSION is a misnomer when applied to Barotseland and Zambia. We further believe that your case is not really of failure to comprehend a situation but a desire to prolong an argument unnecessarily. However, for the sake of those who may be misled by your deliberate refusal to correctly read a straight forward matter, we take you through a step by step analysis of the situation as follows;
Legally, Northern Rhodesia comprised two Protectorates of Northern Rhodesia and Barotseland as separate territories up to independence in 1964, even though they had a Common Colonial Governor. This situation was not unique as it had been applied in the case of Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland which were administered by a Common High Commissioner. However, as opposed to these other countries which obtained independence separately, Barotseland and Northern Rhodesia, on account of geographical proximity and the fact that their peoples had intermingled through a shared Colonial Administration, decided to merge and proceed to independence as one country. The basis or foundation of that merger is the Barotseland Agreement 1964. This fact is highlighted and underscored by the Agreement which, in the first paragraph of the Preamble says;
“This Agreement is made this eighteenth day of May, 1964 between KENNETH DAVID KAUNDA, Prime Minister of Northern Rhodesia, on behalf of the Government of Northern Rhodesia of the one part and SIR MWANAWINA LEWANIKA THE THIRD, K.B.E, Litunga of Barotseland, acting on behalf of himself, his heirs and successors, his Council, and the chiefs and people of Barotseland of the other part..........”
The second paragraph of the Preamble says;
“...Whereas it is proposed that Northern Rhodesia shall become an independent sovereign Republic to be known as the Republic of Zambia...”
The third paragraph of the Preamble goes on to provide as follows:
“....And whereas it is the wish of the Government of Northern Rhodesia and of the Litunga of Barotseland, his Council and the chiefs and people of Barotseland that Northern Rhodesia should proceed to independence as one country and that all its peoples should be one nation...”
The rest of the Agreement provides the terms and conditions of the merger detailing the rights and powers of each of the two parties to the Agreement. One important provision is Article 4 which entrenches the Barotse Regional Autonomy by providing for a legislative body called the Litunga-in-Council, the Barotse Government, the Barotse Courts, Local Authorities, the Treasury etc.
It is crystal clear that it is the Barotseland Agreement 1964 which makes Barotseland a part of Zambia. In other words, it is this Agreement which created Zambia. But, this treaty was torn apart by the Government of Zambia during the period 1966 to 1968 through unilateral and unconstitutional actions, rendering it unworkable. The Government is on record, particularly after the advent of the Third Republic, in saying that it considers the Agreement a dead issue. Under these circumstances would any sensible person insist that Barotseland, legally speaking, is still a part of Zambia? Does Zambia exist?
Perhaps, for the sake of clarity, we should draw a near parallel from one of the common treaties in human society - the marriage. Consider a situation where one partner, in pursuit of selfish aims of escaping the obligations that go with matrimonial laws, nullifies the marriage certificate by tearing it and committing acts which breach the law governing marital relations. Would the marriage continue to subsist, in the eyes of the law, even if the two people continued to live under one roof. If the aggrieved partner, after several attempts to restore the marriage have failed, opts out, would this partner be accused of breaking the marriage? At what point did this marriage cease to exist? Was it at the point that the aggrieved partner walked out or at the point when the legal instrument of marriage ceased to apply?
With the foregoing analysis we now pose the question - if Barotseland today decides to restore herself as a self governing state would she, in legal terms, be considered to be seceding from anywhere?
As for you Martin, we challenge you to show where, in our submissions, we have argued for the discarding of entrenched constitutional, social and cultural developments of the colonial period. If anything, we have repeatedly said that our history determines who or what we are. It is very dangerous to wholesomely discard your history for you will end up by discarding yourself.
Name: Barotse Cultural Association
Country: Barotseland
Date: 13 Dec 2000
Time: 01:52:08
BEN in Germany, we give you the chronological order of the Litunga(s) of Barotseland. Firstly, it should be appreciated that the Aluyi (Ancestors of the Lozi) came from a tradition of female rulers. That is why they were led by a woman, Mwambwa, during their trek from the Congo. Mwambwa was succeeded by her daughter Mbuyu. After Mbuyu the people decided, for a variety of reasons, to transfer leadership to the male gender. Thus, her fisrt born son MUYUNDA (later called MBOO), became the first King.
Mboo was succeeded by his brother INYAMBO who was also succeeded by another brother, YETA (known officialy as Yeta I). Yeta was succeeded by Inyambo’s son NUMWA who was succeeded by a cousin, NGALAMA. The latter was a son of Iñalamwa, one of Mbuyu’s sons who did not ascend to the throne.
Ngalama was followed by two of his sons in succession, YETA (known as Yeta II) and NGOMBALA. Ngombala’s reign was so lengthy that his children and nephews were considered too old for the throne when he died. He was succeeded by his grandson YUBYA who was in turn succeeded by a brother, MWANAWINA ( Mwanawina I). Mwanawina was followed by two sons in succession, MWANANYANDA and MULAMBWA.
Mulambwa was succeeded by his son SILUMELUME amidst controversy as this succesion was disputed by another son, Mubukwanu, leading to disunity and civil war. It was at this time that the Kololo, a warrior tribe from Lesotho, invaded the Kingdom, overan and ruled the Aluyi (later called the Lozi) for 34 years from 1830. In the meantime, two sections of the Aluyi had managed to regroup and move away from the central plains. One group went to the Manyinga area, in Kabompo, where they built a stockade to barricade themselves from Kololo influence. The second group went to the western part of Barotseland in Nyengo area. These groups were led by IMASIKU and IMBUWA, both of whom were Mulambwa’s sons.
In 1864 the Lozi, under the leadership of LUTANGU (later called SIPOPA), who was Mulambwa’s son, rebelled against Kololo rule and overthrew it. It is said and believed that all Kololo men were executed while the women were shared among the Lozi aristocracy. Sipopa was succeeded by a nephew, MWANAWINA (Mwanawina II) in 1876. The latter was a son to Sibeso, one of Mulambwa’s sons. Mwanawina II died in 1878 and was succeeded by LUBOSI, another of Mulambwa’s grandsons (his father was Litia). In 1884 Lubosi was overthrown in a palace coup by his cousin, TATILA AKUFUNA who was Imbuwa’s son. Lubosi escaped and was exiled among the Kwamashi tribe ocupying an area along the present border with Angola. The following year, Tatila was overthrown in a popular uprising which saw Lubosi reinstated to the Kingship. Following his return, Lubosi strengthened his hold on power by purging his rivals. He further consolidated his hand throughout the Kindom by appointing personal representatives as overseers and tax collectors among the tribes. This earned him the name/title of LIWANIKA-la-MAFUCI, a luvale and Luyana term for ‘gatherer or conquerer of lands (nations)’. Thus he assumed the legendary name of Liwanika (corrupted to Lewanika by the British). Developments partaining to the Partition of Africa and colonialism heightened during his reign. He signed a Protectorate treaty and several concessions with the British between 1890 and 1910.
Lewanika was followed on the throne by four sons in succession. He died in 1916 and was succeeded by his son Litia, who ascended to the throne as YETA III. In 1945 Yeta III abdicted on account of ill health and was succeeded by his brother IMWIKO. Imwiko died in 1948 and was succeeded by another brother MWANAWINA III, who had been Knighted in 1959 for service in the first world war and carried the title Sir Mwanawina. He reigned up to the time of independence and led the Barotse Government into the negotiations for the incoporation of Barotseland into Zambia. These negotiations culminated into the signing of the Barotseland Agreement in London on 18 May 1964 which paved the way for the birth of Zambia as a unitary state with provisions for Barotse Regional Government. Mwanawina III died in 1968 and was succeeded by his brother, MBIKUSITA who reigned as Lewanika II. Mbikusita was the last of Lewanika’s sons on the throne.
Lewanika II died in 1977 and was succeeded by his nephew, ILUTE, who was a son of Yeta III. Due to distortions introduced by enchroachment into the Barotse system by the Zambian Government Ilute’s official name/title was mistakenly taken to be ‘Ilute Yeta IV’, just because his father reigned as Yeta III. This is wrong because a Litunga does not carry a surname to the throne but reigns in his own name or, if his birth name is considered inappropraite, it is replaced with one of the past Kings’ names on succession. Ilute succeeded as Ilute and was not Yeta IV. He died in July this year and has been succeeded by a cousin, LUBOSI, who is Imwiko’s son. After all succession rituals are done with, the current Litunga’s name/title should be confimed as either Lubosi II or Imwiko II, and not Lubosi Imwiko as we read from the press.
In all, there have been 23 Litungas since Mboo the first King. If the two who ruled the exiled groups during the Kololo interregnum are included, then the total is 25.
Name: Barotse Cultural Association
Country: Barotseland
Date: 11 Dec 2000
Time: 02:00:03
MULOZI, INETE, YETUNA, KAYOMBO, MUKOYA, OMEI IMENDA, MUÑA-MUNZI, and all stakeholders able to access this website.
We are happy to confirm that the meeting to brainstorm over the issues of Barotseland and the way forward will be held on 15 to 16 December 2000 in Mongu. Venue and time is Kanyambi Conference Hall at 14:00hrs. Please, make every effort to be present.
Name: Barotse Cultural Association
Country: Barotseland
Date: 11 Dec 2000
Time: 01:57:38
In this contribution, we address the void of governance prevailing in Barotseland as a result of the Zambian Government actions to dismantle Barotse power structures. This situation, coupled with a deliberate misinformation campaign by the Government denies the people of Barotseland the knowledge and enjoyment of the fruits of their rights.
1. SOURCES OF REVENUE As a constituted government, Barotseland had at its disposal several means of raising revenue as enshrined in the Barotseland Agreement 1964. Some of these means were local taxation as per provisions of Article 4 (3) (q) and the Barotse Treasury Ordinance provided for under Article 4 (3) (n) of the Agreement. But, for purposes of illustration, we reflect on the provisions of the fourth paragraph of the Preamble to the Agreement which states as follows:
“...And Whereas having regard to the fact that all treaties and other agreements subsisting between Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Litunga of Barotseland will terminate when Northern Rhodesia becomes an independent sovereign Republic and Her Majesty’s government in the United Kingdom will thereupon cease to have any responsibility for the government of Northern Rhodesia including Barotseland, it is the wish of the government of Northern Rhodesia and of the Litunga of Barotseland to enter into arrangements concerning the position of Barotseland as part of the Republic of Zambia to take the place of the treaties and other agreements hitherto subsisting between Her Majesty the Queen and the Litunga of Barotseland....”
The treaties and agreements referred to in this paragraph include the 1890 and 1900 concessions which obliged Her Majesty’s Government to pay an annual sum of 2000 British pounds and mineral royalties, in perpetuity, to the government of Barotseland. Since the Government of Zambia, successor to the government of Northern Rhodesia, accepted these responsibilities, it is obliged to make these payments - in perpetuity.
2. DESTRUCTION OF GOVERNMENT AND NATION In order to secure proper implementation of the Agreement and, among other matters, effect the provisions of the paragraph quoted above, the Litunga, Sir Mwanawina III led a delegation of the Barotse Government in July 1965 to Lusaka for discussion with the Government of Zambia. This delegation included the Ngambela (Prime Minister) and his cabinet among whom were four elected members (on a UNIP ticket) of the Barotse National Council. These UNIP councilors were Messrs. Ndangwa Noyo, Kopano Mutondo and Muchala Situtu - all still alive, and Kawana Mulemwa, deceased.
In the ensuing discussions, the Barotse delegation unanimously resisted the attempts by the Government of Zambia to dilute the provisions of the Agreement. This situation infuriated the Zambian Government officials who had expected the UNIP Councilors on the Barotse delegation to support the Government position. Consequently, Simon Kapwepwe, leader of the Zambian Government negotiating team, proposed and secured the support of the UNIP leadership to suspend from the party, for six months, all the 25 members of the Barotse National Council elected on the UNIP ticket. The intention was to nullify their positions as Councilors and cripple the Barotse National Council by denying it a quorum.
Following this abortive meeting, the Zambian Government unilaterally decided to put into effect some form of payment to the Barotse Government under a vote officially referred to as ‘The Barotse Treaty Obligations’. Whether or not the figures determined by Government were an accurate reflection of the value due in terms of the treaties is not the subject matter of this submission. However, this will be raised at an appropriate time. Meanwhile, some arbitrary sums of money, as reflected in the ‘Yellow Book’ of Government Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure, have been paid as follows;
1965 (details not available), 1966,1967,1968 (details not available), 1969 (K6,700.00), 1970 (K9,718), 1971 up 1992 (K6,700 for each year), 1993 (K1,897,000), 1994 (K1,980,000), 1995 (K4,672,000), 1996 (K5,169,000), 1997 (K4,608,000), 1998(K12,000,000), 1999 (K12,000,000), and this year 2000 (K13,000,000).
While these payments were being disbursed, the Government of Zambia, through legislative process commencing in 1965 to 1970, progressively dismembered the Barotse Governmental structures and appropriated the assets including the infamous 78.5 million British Pounds. To this extent, whatever disbursements purported to have been made towards Barotseland cannot be well and fully accounted for.
An answer to a possible question regarding the supposed beneficiaries of these disbursements is that since the Barotse Government had been destroyed the people of Barotseland have not benefited in anyway.
This realisation, coupled with the expressed desire for the recovery of nationhood, form the basis for our appeal to ALL the people of Barotseland to support the clarion call for Self-Determination.
ENVISAGED FORM OF GOVERNMENT It is necessary to address this matter because there is some expressed disquiet, in some quarters, with regard to Self-determination based on the unfounded fear that the Royal Family will be the sole beneficiary. These fears are anchored on the old practice where members of the Royal Family benefited directly from the treasury through what was known as ‘quarterly payment’. This system entitled them to free allowances every three months. These fears, though genuine, should be allayed by the fact that the envisaged Barotseland is a Constitutional Monarchy, to be administered by an elective government. The Litunga will be a titular Head of State whose stately functions will be clearly defined.
This form of governance was, infact, established in 1945 with the creation of the Katengo Legislative Council during the reign of King Imwiko. The Council eventually became elective and is the authority that is referred to in the Barotseland Agreement as the National Council which, together with the Litunga, is the law making body for Barotseland. Further constitutional development in this respect was curtailed by the ill fated integration of Barotseland into Zambia.
It is envisaged, therefore, that when Barotseland re-establishes itself as a nation, her people will draw on the experiences of existing nations under Monarchical as well as Republican governments to design a system commensurate with modern democracy. It is also envisaged that the problematic issue of arbitrary alteration of constitutions, experienced by most African and other emergent nations, will be addressed. We have learnt the bitter lesson that power for making constitutional amendments should, at all times, vest directly in the people and not some transient majority in a Legislative Assembly .
Name: martin
Country: zambia
Date: 10 Dec 2000
Time: 21:46:34
Its interesting to note that BCA and others who support his secessionist views seem to believe that on the issue of barotseland the "issue of secession does not rise since it was never part of zambia".I seem to read this as meaning if lozis decided to seceed the would not call it "secession" but rather something else.well, that seems to also justify some of the views chilango and others have advocated that we should also not appeal to the barotse agreement as "gospel truth" so that we as the people of zambia and africans have a right to accept or deny its validity. do modern africans living in zambia today have a the right to accept or deny according to their COLLECTIVE self interest any rules and agreements the British colonial masters helped engineer?
Name: Matabela kuwa kutoma kwaliyehisa!
Country: Mwa hae mo!
Date: 09 Dec 2000
Time: 20:21:32
Is there anyone in this house that read the book that talks about' Mulambwa Santulu u amuhela bo Mweene'? just wondering cause the issue of Mulambwa welcoming the Mbundas reminded me of this book though i never read it in full. all these books i'm convinced have historical facts pertaining to the origins of the Lozi clan. if anyone has an idea munitaluseze yana nozi buka yeo. litumeliso kwa Mambumbwe a lyambai koba fumaneha kaufela.
Name: Observer
Country:
Date: 08 Dec 2000
Time: 15:04:47
BCA_ We coming come to Zambia in few days time and we would sure love to attend one of all yours meeting. If there's one between now and 15 Jan. Plizzz, let us know.
Name: Observer
Country:
Date: 08 Dec 2000
Time: 15:04:07
BCA_ We coming come in few days time and we would sure love to attend one of all yours meeting. If there's one between now and 15 Jan. Plizzz, let us know.
Name: Mulozi
Country: Barotseland
Date: 07 Dec 2000
Time: 10:25:37
Uzibe mutu,ucwani,am okey just frustrated that i cant contribute much to the coz. nalumelisa malozi kaufela ko mwizi,mulumele winowino!Na kina Mulozi Kuku wamina,nabona mwapila.
Yesterday whilst listerning to the news i come across a statement on the elections in zanzibar,apparently it seems Zanzibar had an agreement with the Govt of Tanzania in 1964,but still has it right to having a president and own parliament.This was done in good faith,i hope we learn a lesson from this sort of system,however,it is vital that we meet as BCA has suggested and see what plan of action will be in place.It is time we got ride of this mess and look to the future. As young people would love to die after seeing that the Barotse agreement has been restored.I hate this country because it never repected my rights and i promise to fight in what ever means, therefore your task BCA is still being awaited.
"What is this rumur i hear that a short person is kicking someones head"
Ciao!!!!
Note: Zanzibar not Tanganyika
Name: Mulozi
Country: Barotseland
Date: 07 Dec 2000
Time: 10:23:15
Uzibe mutu,ucwani,am okey just frustrated that i cant contribute much to the coz. nalumelisa malozi kaufela ko mwizi,mulumele winowino!Na kina Mulozi Kuku wamina,nabona mwapila.
Yesterday whilst listerning to the news i come across a statement on the elections in zanzibar,apparently it seems Zanzibar had an agreement with the Govt of Tanzania in 1964,but still has it right to having a president and own parliament.This was done in good faith,i hope we learn a lesson from this sort of system,however,it is vital that we meet as BCA has suggested and see what plan of action will be in place.It is time we got ride of this mess and look to the future. As young people would love to die after seeing that the Barotse agreement has been restored.I hate this country because it never repected my rights and i promise to fight in what ever means, therefore your task BCA is still being awaited.
"What is this rumur i hear that a short person is kicking someones head"
Ciao!!!!
Name: Mulozi
Country: Barotseland
Date: 07 Dec 2000
Time: 10:18:56
Uzibe mutu,ucwani,am okey just frustrated that i cant contribute much to the coz. nalumelisa malozi kaufela ko mwizi,mulumele winowino!Na kina Mulozi Kuku wamina,nabona mwapila.
Yesterday whilst listerning to the news i come across a statement on the elections in Tanganyika,apparently it seems Tanganyika had an agreement with the Govt of Tanzania in 1964,but still has it right to having a president and own parliament.This was done in good faith,i hope we learn a lesson from this sort of system,however,it is vital that we meet as BCA has suggested and see what plan of action will be in place.It is time we got ride of this mess and look to the future. As young people would love to die after seeing that the Barotse agreement has been restored.I hate this country because it never repected my rights and i promise to fight in what ever means, therefore your task BCA is still being awaited.
"What is this rumur i hear that a short person is kicking someones head"
Ciao!!!!
Name: Ben
Country: Germany
Date: 05 Dec 2000
Time: 13:06:46
Can anyone give me a list of the litungas of Barotseland from 1968 to 2000? I know Godwin Mbikusita Lewanika II acceded on 15 Dec 1968, and Ilute Yeta IV died 7 Jul 2000. When was the transition between those, or were there any litungas in between?
Name: Barotse Cultural Association
Country: Barotseland
Date: 04 Dec 2000
Time: 09:34:21
MULOZI, the targeted date for the conference on Barotseland is early next year. However, we intend to hold a preparatory meeting within December, the date of which will soon be confirmed by the organising committee. We would like you and other enthusiasts to attend this initial meeting and hope to give you the date and venue within the next few days.
MWELWA, your outburst is really unnecessary. The answer to your questions on the Copperbelt vis-à-vis the boundaries of Barotseland was given in our contribution of 15-10-2000. INETE quoted the relevant section for your benefit on 30-11-2000. So what is your problem? You have been told to bring up a different issue instead of dwelling on a matter that has been dealt with. That is the way to make progress.
It is inconceivable that we could turn this debate into a consensus room because we have no control over other contributors actions and feelings. What is becoming clear, however, is that our position on Self-Determination is supported by historical facts and international law while our opponents have nothing to offer in counter arguments, save for bad language as you have just done. If you care to go through all contributions you will find that we have not failed to conclusively and effectively deal with every point raised by those opposed to us. We will continue to do this but we refuse to keep repeating ourselves. If you bring up an issue that was raised before we will only refer you to the relevant section of this web page for your answer.
Name: Barotse Cultural Association
Country: Barotseland
Date: 04 Dec 2000
Time: 09:24:45
Pursuant to our promise to MUKOYA, this contribution traces the origins of the Nkoya people. We also, simultaneously, discuss the origins of other tribes and how and why these people are collectively called the Lozi. We feel obliged to do this because the Nkoya issue has been deliberately confused to create the impression that this grouping is not part of the Lozi family. Our concern is compounded by the fact that those who propagate this confusion are the least informed about the affairs and history of Barotseland. Worst of all, the Nkoya controversy is encouraged by personalities within the government of Zambia as a way of destabilizing Barotseland.
1. GENESIS The Lozi nation was founded by Mbuyu, daughter of Mwambwa. Mwambwa was a princess of the Luba empire in present day Congo (former Zaire), who broke away and migrated south with her family and followers after a succession dispute. During this trek Mwambwa passed through and temporarily settled in the Lunda country of present day Northwestern province of Zambia. During this short stay one of Mwambwa’s daughters, Mbuywana got bethrowed to Kaping’a, the Lunda chief. Consequently, Mbuywana remained with Kapinga when Mwambwa left Lundaland to settle in the present day Barotse plains which encompass the great Zambezi river. Mwambwa’s people were later to call themselves ALUYI, which means people of the river. Their original language is called Luyana. Later, Mwambwa decided to, temporarily, leave her people and check on her daughter Mbuywana, but she died on her way to the Lunda country. This misfortune resulted in the dispersal of the Aluyi in different directions of Barotseland.
2. BIRTH OF TRIBES The dispersal of the Aluyi across Barotseland was the genesis of most of the present Lozi tribes. Section 5 hereunder reveals how these groups were later brought under one authority. Each group that left was led by one of Mwambwa’s children. One such group, led by NALINANGA, daughter of Mwambwa, headed eastward. These are the ancestors of the Nkoya. They initially settled in the areas currently known as Nalinanga, Nakalomo and Namitome. These areas are within the north-western part of Limulunga, in Mongu. They later moved along the Luena marshlands in search of permanent settlements. In time the leadership of this group was transferred to a man called SIOKA, a son of Nalinanga whom the Nkoya refer to as SHIHOKA and is commonly known as Siokanalinanga. In Lozi tradition the name Sioka is given to a child who is considered not to have long life and one who dies soon after birth. Similar names are Kuokela, Muokela, Muyunda, Nayunda, Siyunda etc.
Some people have argued that the name Siokanalinanga refers to one person. This is wrong because it refers to two people, a woman and her son, as demonstrated in the foregoing paragraph. This combination of names is not peculiar to these two people. Similar situations arise with others names such as Mbuywamwambwa derived from Mbuyu-wa-Mwambwa which means Mbuyu-daughter of-Mwambwa. Other names are Atangambuyu from Atanga-wa-Mbuyu, Namushakende from Namushi-wa-Akende, Kabilamwandi from Kabila-wa-Mwandi, Lubindatanga from Lubinda-wa-Atanga etc.
3. SOURCE OF ‘NKOYA’ Sioka’s people eventually settled in an area called Ñoya or Koya along the banks of Likolomani stream, a tributary of the Luena river. Some areas of present day Mongu, Lukulu and Kaoma under Indunas (Chiefs) Sibeta, Mushashu and Mayankwa converge on this area. In one of our recent contributions, we submitted that Lozi tribes draw their names (which we called labels) from their area of settlement, economic specialty and other considerations peculiar to them. Sioka’s group were therefore referred to as Ba-Ñoya or Ba-Koya meaning ‘people of Koya’. In similar fashion, other groups who migrated from the centre acquired their tribal names/labels. Examples are the Kwamashi (Ba-mashi) and the Ba-Kwandu who, under the leadership of ILISHUWA, settled in the marshlands of the Kwandu or Mashi river on the border with Angola. With passage of time and evolution of language the phrase ‘Ba-Koya’ transformed into ‘Mankoya’ and at present, with the usage of English, these people are simply called the Nkoya.
In their areas of settlement the Nkoya came into contact with other people from whom their leader Sioka married. These were the MBWELA, who trekked through Kapompo from KOLA in Congo. Others were the MASHASHA and LOKOLWE who were offshoots of the Kaonde people, also trekking from Kola. From a Mbwela woman the Mutondo group was founded while from a Mashasha woman was founded the Kahare group. Yet again, from a Lukolwe woman the Kabulwebulwe group was founded. When Sioka’s people decided to nominate an heir he, wisely, directed that his sons should rule over the clans of their mothers. In this way the Chieftainships of MUTONDO, KAHARE and KABULWEBULWE were established. These chiefs are descendants of Nalinanga, daughter of Mwambwa. Nalinanga was a sister to Mbuyu, founder of the Lozi dynasty.
We do not dispute the story about SHILAI MASHIKU, daughter of LIBUPE who, it is claimed was the originator of Nkoya Chietainship upon removing meat from the “Boiling Pot”. However, this event happened at TUMBA in KAPOMPO, under the tutelage of MUKWETUNGA (Inlaw) SHIKALAMO before the Mbwela people made contact with Sioka.
There is a common expression among the Nkoya in which they say that “Yami nili wa Shihoka” or “Yetu tuli ba Shihoka” meaning “I/We are descendants of Shihoka”. To assert the fact that the Nkoya originate from Ñoya there is a saying, recorded by Reverend Johasaphat M. Shilumika, a Pastor at S.A.G.M (Luampa Mission). In his book, LIKOTA LYA BA NKOYA, he quotes an ululogy which goes as “Likunde lya Ñoya nili loya kunde. Mwanuke weti kuna kai aka limona ku mwembulo, mbembata makunde tenda mbuto kulingana”.
4. ESTABLISHMENT OF KINGDOM In the aftermath of the dispersal of Mwambwa’s people, Mbuyu remained with the remnants in the central plains. She established a Monarch and had a number of children of whom MUYUNDA, later called MBOO was the eldest son. Other sons were INYAMBO, MWANAMBIYNYI, IÑALAMWA, YETA, and MWANAWINA. Daughters were MBOANJIKANA, NAKATINDI and NAMAKAU. Later, Mbuyu abdicated on account of age and was succeeded by her son Mboo. Mboo established surbodinate chietainacies and appointed some of his brothers and sisters to these positions. The present Libonda Regency of Chieftainess Mboanjikana in Kalabo originates from those times. Mboo was succeeded by his brother Inyambo who was also succeeded by another brother Yeta (known as Yeta 1). In the meantime Mwanambinyi rebelled against his brothers and trekked southwards where he asserted himself over the other people who had earlier moved there. Yeta was succeeded by a nephew, NUMWA who was Inyambo’s son. Numwa was succeeded by NGALAMA who was a son of Iñalamwa.
5. ASSIMILATION Ngalama was an expansionist who spread his rule over the other families (tribes). His objective, apart from expanding his Kingdom, was probably to reunite the dispersed family of his great grandmother, Mwambwa. He subdued Mwanambinyi, Mange and many others who had earlier moved away during the Great Dispersal. Ngalama’s line of descendants have ruled Barotseland to this date. His son, NGOMBALA expanded the Kingdom further in all directions. Every tribe was brought under the rule of the King even though local chietainacies were maintained and/or established as a way of decentralising the Monarch. The Nkoya were not spared in this era. After Ngombala two of his grandchildren, YUBYA and MWANAWINA ascended to the throne in succession. Mwanawina was also followed by two sons in succession, MWANANYANDA and MULAMBWA. Mulambwa was a reformist who introduced some form of constitutional rule in the Kingdom. It was during Mulambwa’s reign that the MBUNDA people, led by Chiefs Chiengele and Kandala arrived in the Kingdom from Angola. Mulambwa received them, granted them citizenship and recognised their chieftainship. In this respect the Mbunda are Lozi.
6. ENTER THE TERM ‘LOZI’ At this stage it is prudent to explain the origin of the terms ‘Barotse’ and ‘Lozi’. In 1830 the Aluyi were conquered by the Kololo, a branch of the Sotho people of present day Lesotho, led by Sebitwane. This was shortly after the death of Mulambwa which gave way to a power struggle between his two sons, SILUMELUME and MUBUKWANU. The Aluyi were deeply divided and, consequently, the invaders overcame them easily. The Kololo could not pronounce the word Aluyi and therefore called their subjects ‘Arozwi’ or ‘Marozwi’. The conquered Aluyi on the other hand did not have an ‘r’ in their vocabulary and corrupted these new terms to ‘Alozi’ and ‘Malozi’. After the overthrow of the Kololo and re-establishment of Aluyi rule in 1864, the people continued to refer to themselves as ‘Malozi’.
SIPOPA, who was one of the surviving sons of Mulambwa, took over the reigns of power after the overthrow of the Kololo. Meanwhile, the Kololo language had taken root among the Aluyi during the occupation period to the extent that they adopted it as their lingua-franca and merely changed its name from Sikololo to Silozi. Therefore, none of the Lozi tribes can claim to be the originators or owners of the Silozi language as it was imposed from outside. Further more, it should be stated that Lozi is not a tribe. It is the common language of the people of Barotseland, who are the descendants of the Aluyi.
7. CONCLUSION During the reign of LUBOSI LEWANIKA, the 15th King and grandson of Mulambwa, Kaonde tribesmen invaded the Nkoya area and overran it. Lewanika dispatched a fighting force which repulsed the invaders and fortified the area. In our submission of 15-10-2000 we provided details of how Lewanika secured Barotse sovereignty with the British colonialists. In 1938, during the reign of YETA III, who was Lewanika’s son, it was found necessary to establish a physical presence of the central authority in the Mankoya region. This was intended to bring the administration of Mankoya in line with other regions of Kalabo, Senanga, and Sesheke which had a Resident Prince or Princess. Accordingly, the NALIELE administrative centre was established through the appointment of MWANAWINA LEWANIKA, the King’s brother, as Resident Prince. It is this authority which has become the target of detractors, under the influence of the Zambian Government, to weaken the Litunga’s authority in Kaoma (formerly Mankoya district).
We challenge those who exposé the position that the Nkoya are not Lozi to own up by providing
Name: Uzibe mutu
Country: Dazed
Date: 01 Dec 2000
Time: 11:06:56
Malozi kucwani! I decided to cast an eye on this site once more but i miss the likes of BCA again. guys where are you at! I like your intellectual arguements. keep it real yo!
Name: Uzibe mutu
Country: Dazed
Date: 01 Dec 2000
Time: 11:06:49
Malozi kucwani! I decided to cast an eye on this site once more but i miss the likes of BCA again. guys where are you at! I like your intellectual arguements. keep it real yo!
Name: mwelwa
Country: zambia
Date: 01 Dec 2000
Time: 08:17:49
you guys are rude.is it any wonder that lozis cant fit in well with the rest of zambia? your areas are some of the most xenophobic and least developed in the nation.you have turned this debate room into a consesus room....were anyone who with an opposing view is first told to shut up and then told to go away.now i know someof you maybe a few of you maybe doing it to protect the nation by encouraging the secessionist side but the rest of you are just closed and most likely bitter lozis.
Name: MULOZI
Country: BAROTSELAND
Date: 01 Dec 2000
Time: 02:06:41
Mucwani bahesu! am worried,i dont know whether am being pushybut i feel i need to contribute.Whats happening why ant we meeting.BCA you indicated that a meeting in mongu would take place soon ,when is that soon?????? Why dont we who are here meet, call a meeting and we will be there i can grurantee.Something need to be done and that should be done now.
Name: INETE
Country: Zambia
Date: 01 Dec 2000
Time: 01:08:34
Mwelwa,
Your question on the boundaries has been answered. If you have nothing further to ask go well.
Name: mwelwa
Country: zambia
Date: 30 Nov 2000
Time: 18:33:06
you guys are in a fighting mood.i was only asking what the boundaries of barotseland were.I thought you would enlighten me cause i had no idea.is it your contention that the present day copperbelt was part of barotseland?
Name: Munga-a-munzi
Country: Kingdom of Barotseland
Date: 30 Nov 2000
Time: 02:34:28
MWELWA
FIRSTLY, its not an excuse to claim what is legally and rightfully yours.
SECONDLY, secession for Barotseland does not arise since Barotseland since "independence" in 1964 has never been a part of Northern Rhodesia Protectorate (alias Zambia). This fact has been propounded by a number of Barotse intellectuals on this forum. How many times do you want us to repeat ourselves, you make us look like we are dealing with kindergarten kids. It will be to everybody's advantage if you contribute to this debate after doing your homework.
LASTLY, like BO INETE has pointed out the big question is when is Barotseland self-determination taking place. We also appreciate the fact that you acknowledge the fact that Barotseland existed as an independent sovereign state before "independence" in 1964, but your worry are the boundaries.
Name: INETE
Country: Zambia
Date: 30 Nov 2000
Time: 02:18:04
Mwelwa,
People like you who come into a debate long after it has started should first update your knowledge and avoid repetition by reading what has been submitted so far by others. For your sake I have an extract from the Barotse Clutural Association's submission of 15 October 2000 which reads as follows:
"The areas covering present day copperbelt province together with the land buttressed by the lower part of Kafue river and the lower Zambezi was treated seperately by the Secretary of State for the Colonies. In order to bring a semblence of order in this area, the British authority requested King Lewanika of Barotseland to hold the land by establishing control structures within the area. The British offered Lewanika mineral royalties as renumeration for this service. It should be stressed at this particular point that this land is not necessarilly part of Barotseland but was transfered to the Barotse King’s rule for convinience, in return for specific renumeration. This ‘transferred area’ and Barotseland make up the territory which was called Barotseland-North Western Rhodesia. On the request of King Lewanika, the Company stationed a Resident Representatve at Lealui. However, due to hostile conditions of mosquitoes and other water borne ailments, this representative asked to be shifted to higher ground. Thereupon, he was shifted to Kalomo which become the British administrative center for Barotseland-North Western Rhodesia".
Now take time off and update your knowlwdge on this issue.
Name: mwelwa
Country: zambia
Date: 29 Nov 2000
Time: 18:25:47
dont use politics of the third term to give an excuse to seceed.Do u know what the boundaries of barotseland are?
Name: Observer
Country:
Date: 29 Nov 2000
Time: 17:13:23
Inete_ Right on!
Name: INETE
Country: Zambia
Date: 29 Nov 2000
Time: 09:03:10
With all these calls to FTJ to go for a third term I am more determined to see Barotseland breaking away. There is blatant disregard for almost everything by these so called political leaders of Zambia.
Name: INETE
Country: Zambia
Date: 29 Nov 2000
Time: 01:04:51
With all these calls for FTJ to go for another term, my desire to see this issue of breaking away is getting stronger. I do not see any sense in allowing this crop of leaders to continue this blatant abuse of political power.
Name: mwelwa
Country: zambia
Date: 26 Nov 2000
Time: 21:43:55
I would also like to know what the boundaries of barotseland were before independence.can anyone help? a link to a website with boundary maps for barotseland before independence would be interesting to see.
Name: Chris Burman
Country: United Kingdom
Date: 20 Nov 2000
Time: 11:08:25
I'm a student in the UK doing some research on forest products in Zambia. I only became aware of Barotseland in the last few days - so I am new to this debate. Could somebody tell me the geographic boundaries and a small amount of history surrounding the debate?
With many thx.
Name: Nondotiya komu yamwa mezi!
Country:
Date: 17 Nov 2000
Time: 15:42:43
It is wrong to link Muyongo's ambitions for the secession of namibia's caprivi strip to the self determonation of the great kingdom of barotseland.the reason being that there is no legal document signed between him or rather his party when they merged with swapo to totally liberate namibia. But for the Barotseland call there is a legal document meaning that it's a just cause to fight for their self determination. moreover in the Caprivi it's only one tribe trying to fight the namibian government when infact the whole caprivi comprises of more than one tribe. it's clear that they are fighting a war at two fronts and mind you that this was a formula that led to hittler's great defeat in world war two! the namibian mafwes are fighting both subias, mbukushus, etc. for chrissake how can you win such a battle if you are fighting your own people? the barotse cause in zambia is justified where as that in namibia is not and there is no link between the two. period.
Name: Barotse Cultural Association
Country: Barotseland
Date: 16 Nov 2000
Time: 09:31:16
MUKOYA, we wish to tackle your misplaced claim about prominent Lozi lawyers not supporting the Barotse cause. Firstly, we assume that you know the lawyers in question as you have listed their names. We are not comfortable to discuss positions of specific personalities on this matter, whether or not they are supportive of SELF-DETERMINATION for Barotseland. Since it is your opinion that these people do not support the Barotse cause we challenge you to seek their personal positions. You will find that your assumption is misplaced because most of the people you have listed are for the cause. We further caution you to note that the BCA is composed of people of varied backgrounds and persuasions. You should not take the mistaken view that the BCA and its ideals exist separately from the Barotse people you see around.
Your insinuation that these lawyers do not support this cause arises from the fact that they have not taken it to court. This is a complete misunderstanding of the role of a professional lawyer in society. A lawyer acts on instructions from a client. We are confident that if and when the people of Barotseland decide to litigate over this matter most of the prominent Lozi lawyers will not be found wanting.
We have never claimed that ALL the people of Barotseland support the issue of Self-Determination. In our recent submission in response to KAYOMBO, as well as earlier submissions, we concurred and reiterated our position on the need for a Referendum within Barotseland. A call for a referendum indicates for divisibility of opinion in society. However, we know, for sure, that the majority of the people support the call for SELF-DETERMINATION.
As regards your persistent clamour about the Nkoya relationship with other Lozi tribes and their rebellion against the Litunga, we advise you to read our next submission.
BARRY RYAN, we notice from your question that you understand the issue of Barotseland as regards SELF-DETERMINATION, for which we are thankful. As regards the issue of Caprivi Strip it is not for us to delve into the matter. We advise you to seek details on the basis of the Caprivi conflict from Misheck Muyongo. However, what we know is that the South-West African Peoples Organisation (SWAPO) and the Caprivi African National Union (CANU) initially operated separately as liberation movements. They later merged, on specific terms, as a way of strengthening their efforts in Liberating Namibia. You should further note that although the Caprivi Strip is in Namibia, the people therein are Lozi, whom we can not disclaim.
Name: Mulozi
Country: Barotseland
Date: 16 Nov 2000
Time: 09:07:43
Mukoya,who are you a little min ach!Dont play around this site if you ant getting anything am back beware okey!l'll trace you if you playin with me. All the points are layed down for you conglatulations inete and munga-a munzi keep on the spirit.
By the way BCA whens the meeting in Mongu?
l'll be back!!!!!!
Name: INETE
Country: Zambia
Date: 16 Nov 2000
Time: 05:52:33
Mukoya,You are a trouble maker.You do not understand the origins of the Nkoya's as it is clear you have not bothered to read informative submissions on this page despite being advised to do so.I challenge you to quote the clause(s) in the Agreement which discriminate against the Nkoyas. You have been reminded that there are 32 tribes in Barotseland. What is it that the other 31 tribes have failed to see? You seem to be bent on sowing seeds of discontent. You will not succeed. You emphasise so much on the prominent Lozi Lawyers, they are not opinion leaders for your own information and with or without them we will soldier on. As and when they see fit they will join in.
Name: Munga-a-munzi
Country: Kingdom of Barotseland
Date: 16 Nov 2000
Time: 02:28:52
MUKOYA, you will appreciate that the democratic way to confirm the popularity of self-determination for Barotseland is through a United Nations monitored referendum for Barotseland within Barotseland on similar lines as in East Timor. The call for a referendum has been championed by Barotse patriots at many a forum, this is because we want to pursue the matter diplomatically since technically and legally Zambia no longer exists since it was declared stale by the Zambian Government when they declared the union treaty (The Barotseland Agreement 1964) as being stale. To date the Zambian Government has remained mute over the issue of a referendum. You must remember also that being diplomatic is not a weakness in itself, but is a channel accepted by all civilised communities as the best way for conflict prevention, management and resolution as opposed to fighting which has become an everyday occurrence in Africa, therefore if even just one African can make a difference that will be for the better.
If you are sincere enough as you say you're a Nkoya (not Koya as you wrote in your first contribution) then you would find out how and when the Nkoya occupied the present day Kaoma district, besides they are not the only tribe in Kaoma and they are in the minority compared to the other remaining tribes (this does not subtract from the fact that we believe in minority protection).
You will agree with me that if you are a naughty child (Nkoyas) who does not want to obey the laws of his parents (Barotse Monarch) then the best way is for you to move out and find your own home elsewhere where you can exercise your jurisdiction, this fact was clearly stated by His Royal Highness the Litunga (King) of Barotseland in his letter of 1 February 1994 to President FTJ Chiluba concerning the Nkoyas. If the other 31 tribes in Kaoma respect the laws and customs of Barotseland why not the Nkoyas. Being disobedient does not mean you're right, and it's not a right under the law.
ALSO in his letter to President FTJ Chiluba of 1 February 1994, His Royal Highness the Litunga (King) of Barotseland alluded to the fact that government involvement in Kaoma conflicts was obvious, like I stated in my earlier reply to you this was to weaken Barotseland's birthright to self-determination through divide and rule.
LASTLY, you talked about inter-marriages as a basis to deny Barotseland's right to self-determination, but did the inter-marriages between Indonesians and East Timorese stop East Timor from obtaining its self-determination, the answer is NO, did the inter-marriages between Ethiopians and Eritreans deprive Eritrea's right to self-determination the answer again is NO, I could go on and give more examples but I think the two examples should suffice. So Mukoya where is the basis of your arguments (sorry I called them muddled thinking and rightfully so). Do not misunderstand the reasons why we try as much as possible to answer your questions, its not because we are trying to get permission from anyone on our right to self-determination but as a gesture of good neighbourliness, the onus as to which way forward is on the Barotse people themselves.
Name: Mokoya
Country:
Date: 16 Nov 2000
Time: 01:48:00
Dear Fellow Collegues,
Your support for the restoration of the Baroste Aggrement must be upheld with due respect.I believe that the agreement is valid to date,my main concern as most of you may now realise is who the agreement will favour(Lozis)definetly not Nkoyas and besides for Govt to give in to your plee the struggle will be prominet Lozi Lawyers to fight the MMd Govt,but again these same people have not come out in the open,mind you the same Lawyers have become renown through their struggle for Justice for Kaunda and many more.Thier silence on this issue clearly suggests that it either they are not intrested or basically do not want to get involved.
The issue of Refrendium will not work i can promise you Kaoma will vote aganist.Even if the rest of the other towns will support it.And finally the people of Kaoma will be subjct to a subordinate Litunga kind of system which am dearly aganist.
More later.
Name: Barry Ryan
Country: Ireland
Date: 15 Nov 2000
Time: 09:12:41
I am currently doing research on the connection betweeen the seccessionist movement which occurred in the Caprivi Strip, Namibia in August 1999 and claims of the Barotse nation. If anyone could briefly point out the basis of Mishake Muyongo's argument I would be very grateful.
Name: Observer
Country:
Date: 14 Nov 2000
Time: 13:28:50
Mukoya_ Lets just say that neither you nor I know what those prominet lawyers you mention are thinking about the agreement. Silence is not an indication that they don't support it - this could go either way. This is not about Michael Sata who has to comment on every damn thing. Just because the so called prominent Lozis don't support it, it doesn't render the agreement void. After all, they may be too comfortable with their profession, unlike a poor man in Barotse who has to struggle. Mind you, change can come in two ways: through the so called elites or the poor man, or both. The choice is yours!!
Name: INETE
Country: Zambia
Date: 14 Nov 2000
Time: 12:17:59
Mukoya, Lumela. I agree with you when you say not all Lozi's are in support of the implementation of the Barotse Agreement of 1964.It is their right to exercise the freedom of choice. That does not invalidate the cause, however. There are those of us who want to see our rights being respected. Until this year, I was among those who did not know the truth about the Agreement. You can understand why, freedom of expression as we see it now was not there in the Second Republic hence the one sided view that has been advanced over the years.Among other distortions, I was made to believe the Agreement would only benefit the Royal Family! Now I know better. There are others out there who still don't know the facts. The idea of a referendum on this issue (exclusively for the people of Barotse) is the only way to settle claims and counter claims about how much support we, who are calling for the restoration of the agreement have. Anything else is mere howling in the wild. I will not touch the issue of alleged Nkoya rejection of the rule of the Litunga. Others who are more knowledgeable will tackle the issues with you, Shangwe.
Name: MUKOYA
Country:
Date: 14 Nov 2000
Time: 04:46:40
MUNGA-A-MUNZI Again let me stress this fact not all Lozis are for the idea of the baroste agreement,and besides by the way you comments are"You seem to be an impostor masquarading as a Barotse citizen of Nkoya origin. 3. Your replies are a manifestation of an infertile mind that is a depiction of muddled thinking". Clearly shows how Lozis consider us Nkoyas.
Face facts with facts u are not addressing the issues here why ant other Lozis intrested!this is a big question which both BCA and you supportors of the agreement must start asking yourselves.Credible Lawyers are mostly Lozi(sakwiba Sikota,Sachika Sitwala,Mundiya Sikatana,Mwangala Zalomez etc)ant doing anything,if the coz was justifiable these people would have been in the forefront.
Merely becoming emotional doesnt pay answer my querries.
Name: Munga-a-munzi
Country: Kingdom of Barotseland
Date: 14 Nov 2000
Time: 02:58:06
MUKOYA, reading through your response to our answers to your queries, the following are obvious:
1. Either you dont read our replies, if you do then you dont understand the political climate in Zambia present and past, because what you are asking has already been tabulated for you in clear plain language. 2. You seem to be an impostor masquarading as a Barotse citizen of Nkoya origin. 3. Your replies are a manifestation of an infertile mind that is a depiction of muddled thinking.
SECONDLY, If you marry somebody from say Botswana it does not mean that Botswana should give its severeignity to Zambia because you yourself come from Zambia, this should be common sense even to the very simple mind on the street.
If you are still not satisfied I can meet you in person so we can discuss at your convenient time and place.
Name: Mukoya
Country:
Date: 13 Nov 2000
Time: 02:28:20
Munga-a-munzi and BCA well done failures you havent aticulatated my concern as u seem to potray that there is unity among the people of Baroseland.Tell me why is it that the Nkoyas do not want to be ruled by the Litunga,tell me why were there conflicts in Kaoma sometime ago??????simple the Nkoya people are not happy with the Litunga's rule.
Tell me once more if Govt wont agree to abide with your agreement are you going to rule yourselves and if so what sort of govt will be in place with Prince Aka as your learder and the Litunga on the other side,this will just bring more problems.
Alot of Lozis in Lusaka are mirred to Bembas,Nyanjas and so on,do you think they will support this struggle,bear in mind that we have alot of children today with names Chanda Mundia,and nawa Bwalya.
More later
Name: Munga-a-munzi
Country: Kingdom of Barotseland
Date: 09 Nov 2000
Time: 08:53:19
MOKOYA
APPRECIATING that what I was advancing to you are not suggestions but facts,
APPRECIATING ALSO the fact that there are 32 tribes in Barotseland (see my first contribution to this page) where I have outlined not only the origins of the Lozi but the tribes of Barotseland. Like observer furnished you with facts which you yourself is free to verify, why dont you furnish us with facts not your opinions. You should not feel embarassed if someone calls you by your tribe, my feeling which could be wrong is that you are not proud of what god made you to be.
Name: Barotse Cultural Association
Country: Barotseland
Date: 09 Nov 2000
Time: 08:40:01
MUKOYA, your questions on the Nkoya people (not Koyas as you choose to call them) and the Barotse Treasury do not merit our attention at this stage for two reasons. The first is that we exhaustively dealt with the matters in our contributions of 23.6.2000 and 15.10.2000 respectively and the second is that we are satisfied with Munga-a-Munzi’s response to you. Please read section 3 of the 23.6.2000 contribution titled ‘Tribal Conflicts’. We shall not repeat ourselves unnecessarily. Besides, we expect every contributor of average intelligence who comes on this page for the first time to realise that obvious questions about Barotseland would have been raised and dealt with in the early stages of the debate. The sensible thing to do is to read through before you come in. This will serve other peoples time and energy.
Name: Observer
Country:
Date: 09 Nov 2000
Time: 00:41:08
Mokoya_ I symphasize with all yours situation. Nevertheless, I'm a bit curious though as to under what circumstances would provoke such a reaction. I don't really buy your arguement unless you convince me otherwise. For a start, I've been told that most of the successful businessmen in mongu are Lovales, Mbundas, Nkoyas, mbukushus and so on. Where is the beef exactly then? I had the priveledge to go to mongu also, all I have seen is nothing but a mild, peace-loving people just like their Tswana brethren across the border. I for one believe that there is no pure lozi as such - besides, I heard that the late litunga had some subiya or sotho blood. Who is lozi then? you tell me!
Name: Mokoya
Country:
Date: 08 Nov 2000
Time: 05:25:29
Munga munzi,Thanks for your suggetions apparaently am not amused!well i dont need to.Aswer my question Lozis in mongu per say are tribal centred lets face facts.My Mum is Makoma and am Nkoya but when ever we go to kalabo or i stick around mongu the always say mangengo and really treat us as outcasts,this is what am taking about,some Lozis feel more Lozi than others.
Name: Munga-a-munzi
Country: Kingdom of Barotseland
Date: 06 Nov 2000
Time: 11:18:40
MUKOYA,you will appreciate the fact that the first graduate the late Dr. Fwanyanga Mulikit was not a member of the Barotse Monarch, but an ordinary citizen of Barotseland, again you will appreciate that Barotseland had a school called Barotse National School in Mongu where people from all over Barotseland went, thus at "independence" Barotyseland Kingdom had the highest literacy compared to Northern Rhodesia Protectorate. Barotse National School like the Kingdom itself was renamed by the UNIP government whose leaders gave themselves english names which no one changed for them. Its the same UNIP government which stole Barotseland treasury and property.
When the MMD gavernment came into power they continued with the satanic acts of commiting sins against Barotseland and top on the agenda was divide and rule hence conflicts in kaoma between Barotse citizens of Nkoya origin started figting their fellow citizens, this lunacy and barbaric acts of rule and divide were meant to weaken Barotseland's birthright to self-determination, all these acts whre perpetuated by self-proclaimed democrats who cannot draw a line between dictorship and democracy.
As for other tribes in Barotseland there is no segregation whatsoever, most of the tribes Nkoyas inclusive were settled in Barotseland under the authority of the Litunga, if he gave Barotseland citizenship to these tribes why would he discriminate against them now, for all Barotse citizens my word of caution is that be careful of wolfs in sheepskin who pretend to love you now when this was not the case yesterday, who love you on the surface when inside they wish you ill, like the bible says you will know them by their fruits. I LOVE YOU ALL PEOPLE OF BAROTSELAND, MAY GOD YOUR CREATOR BLESS YOU ABUNDANTLY. REMEMBER GOD IS ALWAYS WITH YOU AT ALL TIMES GOOD AND BAD.
Name: martin
Country: usa
Date: 03 Nov 2000
Time: 09:18:59
As usual i acknowledge your reasoned arguments BCA. I look forward to responding when i get a chance to analyse them.
Name: Mukoya
Country:
Date: 03 Nov 2000
Time: 02:37:42
Tell me BCA whats all this as Koyas dont want to be ruled by you guys.One you are too tribalistic,l've been to Mongu several times and i see the segregation between the so called" Pure Lozis" aganist Mangengo,Makoma of kalabo,Mamdunda and the other tribes.Could you also enlighten me on where the finds the Royal estalishment went to, all i know is bene Aka the few royals children went to school in England.How did the common Lozi get any scholarships no.I think l've put my views across.
Name: Barotse Cultural Association
Country: Barotseland
Date: 03 Nov 2000
Time: 01:58:59
We take advantage of the slump in contributions during the week to address a number of matters pending on our desk.
MARTIN, you accused us of not addressing issues because you were unsettled by our statement that we have dealt with your type of submissions before. This statement was merely an opening sentence to a contribution in which we tackled the issues you had earlier raised item by item. Your accusation is therefore without foundation. In contrast we note that you have not acknowledged the fact that you were mixed up in your claims about Zimbabwe and your assertion that the Barotseland Agreement 1964 (BA’64) was imposed by the British. Instead you jumped to Nkhruma and the unification of Africa, but we inform you yet again that we dealt with this issue on 19 Aug. 2000 in response to CHILANGO and others. In that submission we said that amalgamation of states or federations do not lead to dissolution of member governments. The states involved agree to form a larger state with a central authority but retain their right and power over local governance. This is what will happen to Africa when and if it forms a union state. We do not envisage a situation where the people of Zambia will accept to have their state institutions dissolved and surrender authority for determining who runs Lusaka, Ndola, Kaputa etc to the union government. We are sure that Tanzania will retain its structure as a union of Tanganyika and Zanzibar within the larger African state and so will the Federation of Nigeria. You should note that the European Union comprises members who have federal structures within their states. The United Kingdom had been strengthening self-rule in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland during the same period that the EU treaty was being formulated.
It is therefore our argument that honouring the BA’64 which allows for Barotse autonomy does not subtract anything from African unity. On the other hand, when Barotseland reconstitutes itself as a separate state on account of failure of the BA’64 she will remain a part of the African family of states. You should not confuse global unity with the right of peoples to run their affairs.
On your repeated misapplication of the term “gospel truth” in reference to the BA’64 we agree with bo INETE who submitted that truthfulness of an agreement lies in its contents and identity of the signatories. However, we suspect that what you really mean to say is that not all agreements are binding. In this respect we advise you to note that an agreement can only be deemed not to be binding after being proved to have been founded on defective or false information. In the absence of such proof any agreement signed by two or more consenting adults in exercise of their power of attorney is valid and binding. In any case, if the BA’64 is not binding then Zambia does not exist!
MULOZI and OMEI, your calls for a gathering in Lusaka have not been ignored. If we are taking long to come back it is because we are an Association and consultations have to take place on such a project. However, be informed that the wider feeling is that meetings of the magnitude you are proposing would be more productive if held in Barotseland. Having said this we assure you that we are open to informal consultative gatherings at any place and time as long they are feasible in terms of logistics.
With regard to the suggested publication of information in the media by the BCA this has been done and continues to be done. However, it should be appreciated that each news media organisation operates under a specific mission and editorial policy which determine the extent to which submissions get published and to a large extent the media in Zambia is not independent. Establishment of own publishing organ is a more direct solution and we will welcome material support to the project.
YETUNA, we are grateful for your reasoned contribution of 12.10.2000 and assure you that the BCA does not wish to hold monopoly over the issue of Barotseland. In past postings on this page as well as pronouncements elsewhere we have been categorical in our call for a free and open debate which should lead to a referendum within Barotseland on this issue. In so doing we have also stated and established our incontestable right, as individuals and groups, to participate fully in determining the future of Barotseland, with a clear understanding that the majority decision should, in the end, prevail.
With regard to cooperation with the Kuta and the Litunga, we do not wish to blow our trumpet but we assure you that we have played a role in all positive actions taken by the establishment over the matter of the Barotseland Agreement in the past seven years. Without revealing unnecessary details, it can be stated that the BCA’s advisory and consultancy services constitute a major input in the developments which have taken place since the Royal Establishment decided to take an open stand in the matter of the BA’64 seven years ago. To this end we believe the current level of awareness on Barotseland, which among other things has led to the establishment of this website page, is a direct consequence of a general campaign in which we have played a role.
We stand ready to cooperate with the Kuta, and infact are duty bound to continue along this path, and we shall do all that is possible and necessary to ensure progress.
KAYOMBO, your parents who have always been in Barotseland are Lozi of the Luvale stock. We have no doubt that your parents as well as yourself are free to settle in any Silalo within Barotseland and freely engage in any lawful pursuit. We do not find it necessary at this stage to go into details about the way the Lozi nation is constituted because the information is available in our contribution of 21 Jun 2000 (read section 3 of that contribution). The terms ‘Mu-Lubale’ and “Mu-Wiko” are no different from others such as ‘Mu-Nyengo’, ‘Mu-Kwamashi’, ‘Mu-Kwangwa’, ‘Mu-Mbowe’, ‘Mu-Mbunda’ etc which are descriptions of the Lozi tribes in terms of their origin, economic speciality or other considerations peculiar to the grouping. Every tribe in Barotseland is labeled in this manner not only for identity but also as a demonstration of the fact that the Lozi society is a heterogeneous structure of social groups which is not afraid of according special recognition to each grouping. Other people who are not part of the Lozi nation in terms of origin and cultural upbringing are collectively identified as ‘Mañete’ or ‘Manyukunyuku’. These are usually excused when they fall out of line for the simple reason that they are deemed not to be well schooled in Lozi traditions and mannerisms.
LASTLY, we comment on unsavory expressions from some people who apparently lack the intellectual capacity to submit reasoned arguments. Examples are Ronald Siame on 2.11.99 with his “it should be some old goats” comment, Henry C on 8.12.99 who says “these guys are just greedy fools” and Bwalya on 12.10.2000 who retorts “mwe mbwa ninshi?”, a Bemba expression for ‘what is wrong with you dogs?’.
We note that most of these submissions were made in the early stages of the debate when the contributors were short on information about the legitimacy of the Barotse issue. For this reason we have in the past tolerated foul language and other violations of norms of decency by these Manyukunyuku. However, at the level we have reached we do not expect Bwalya’s type of contribution. We expect those who disagree with us to advance valid and reasoned arguments. Insults merely indicate that you have run out of ammunition and have nothing to offer.
Name: Barotse Cultural Association
Country: Barotseland
Date: 03 Nov 2000
Time: 01:56:38
We take advantage of the slump in contributions during the week to address a number of matters pending on our desk.
MARTIN, you accused us of not addressing issues because you were unsettled by our statement that we have dealt with your type of submissions before. This statement was merely an opening sentence to a contribution in which we tackled the issues you had earlier raised item by item. Your accusation is therefore without foundation. In contrast we note that you have not acknowledged the fact that you were mixed up in your claims about Zimbabwe and your assertion that the Barotseland Agreement 1964 (BA’64) was imposed by the British. Instead you jumped to Nkhruma and the unification of Africa, but we inform you yet again that we dealt with this issue on 19 Aug. 2000 in response to CHILANGO and others. In that submission we said that amalgamation of states or federations do not lead to dissolution of member governments. The states involved agree to form a larger state with a central authority but retain their right and power over local governance. This is what will happen to Africa when and if it forms a union state. We do not envisage a situation where the people of Zambia will accept to have their state institutions dissolved and surrender authority for determining who runs Lusaka, Ndola, Kaputa etc to the union government. We are sure that Tanzania will retain its structure as a union of Tanganyika and Zanzibar within the larger African state and so will the Federation of Nigeria. You should note that the European Union comprises members who have federal structures within their states. The United Kingdom had been strengthening self-rule in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland during the same period that the EU treaty was being formulated.
It is therefore our argument that honouring the BA’64 which allows for Barotse autonomy does not subtract anything from African unity. On the other hand, when Barotseland reconstitutes itself as a separate state on account of failure of the BA’64 she will remain a part of the African family of states. You should not confuse global unity with the right of peoples to run their affairs.
On your repeated misapplication of the term “gospel truth” in reference to the BA’64 we agree with bo INETE who submitted that truthfulness of an agreement lies in its contents and identity of the signatories. However, we suspect that what you really mean to say is that not all agreements are binding. In this respect we advise you to note that an agreement can only be deemed not to be binding after being proved to have been founded on defective or false information. In the absence of such proof any agreement signed by two or more consenting adults in exercise of their power of attorney is valid and binding. In any case, if the BA’64 is not binding then Zambia does not exist!
MULOZI and OMEI, your calls for a gathering in Lusaka have not been ignored. If we are taking long to come back it is because we are an Association and consultations have to take place on such a project. However, be informed that the wider feeling is that meetings of the magnitude you are proposing would be more productive if held in Barotseland. Having said this we assure you that we are open to informal consultative gatherings at any place and time as long they are feasible in terms of logistics.
With regard to the suggested publication of information in the media by the BCA this has been done and continues to be done. However, it should be appreciated that each news media organisation operates under a specific mission and editorial policy which determine the extent to which submissions get published and to a large extent the media in Zambia is not independent. Establishment of own publishing organ is a more direct solution and we will welcome material support to the project.
YETUNA, we are grateful for your reasoned contribution of 12.10.2000 and assure you that the BCA does not wish to hold monopoly over the issue of Barotseland. In past postings on this page as well as pronouncements elsewhere we have been categorical in our call for a free and open debate which should lead to a referendum within Barotseland on this issue. In so doing we have also stated and established our incontestable right, as individuals and groups, to participate fully in determining the future of Barotseland, with a clear understanding that the majority decision should, in the end, prevail.
With regard to cooperation with the Kuta and the Litunga, we do not wish to blow our trumpet but we assure you that we have played a role in all positive actions taken by the establishment over the matter of the Barotseland Agreement in the past seven years. Without revealing unnecessary details, it can be stated that the BCA’s advisory and consultancy services constitute a major input in the developments which have taken place since the Royal Establishment decided to take an open stand in the matter of the BA’64 seven years ago. To this end we believe the current level of awareness on Barotseland, which among other things has led to the establishment of this website page, is a direct consequence of a general campaign in which we have played a role.
We stand ready to cooperate with the Kuta, and infact are duty bound to continue along this path, and we shall do all that is possible and necessary to ensure progress.
KAYOMBO, your parents who have always been in Barotseland are Lozi of the Luvale stock. We have no doubt that your parents as well as yourself are free to settle in any Silalo within Barotseland and freely engage in any lawful pursuit. We do not find it necessary at this stage to go into details about the way the Lozi nation is constituted because the information is available in our contribution of 21 Jun 2000 (read section 3 of that contribution). The terms ‘Mu-Lubale’ and “Mu-Wiko” are no different from others such as ‘Mu-Nyengo’, ‘Mu-Kwamashi’, ‘Mu-Kwangwa’, ‘Mu-Mbowe’, ‘Mu-Mbunda’ etc which are descriptions of the Lozi tribes in terms of their origin, economic speciality or other considerations peculiar to the grouping. Every tribe in Barotseland is labeled in this manner not only for identity but also as a demonstration of the fact that the Lozi society is a heterogeneous structure of social groups which is not afraid of according special recognition to each grouping. Other people who are not part of the Lozi nation in terms of origin and cultural upbringing are collectively identified as ‘Mañete’ or ‘Manyukunyuku’. These are usually excused when they fall out of line for the simple reason that they are deemed not to be well schooled in Lozi traditions and mannerisms.
LASTLY, we comment on unsavory expressions from some people who apparently lack the intellectual capacity to submit reasoned arguments. Examples are Ronald Siame on 2.11.99 with his “it should be some old goats” comment, Henry C on 8.12.99 who says “these guys are just greedy fools” and Bwalya on 12.10.2000 who retorts “mwe mbwa ninshi?”, a Bemba expression for ‘what is wrong with you dogs?’.
We note that most of these submissions were made in the early stages of the debate when the contributors were short on information about the legitimacy of the Barotse issue. For this reason we have in the past tolerated foul language and other violations of norms of decency by these Manyukunyuku. However, at the level we have reached we do not expect Bwalya’s type of contribution. We expect those who disagree with us to advance valid and reasoned arguments. Insults merely indicate that you have run out of ammunition and have nothing to offer.
Name: Mulozi
Country:
Date: 26 Oct 2000
Time: 10:26:00
Malozi a muteleze,i have put down some comments requesting the BCA to inform me of the way forward.What am intrested in is for us who are in Lusaka to meet soon. We have alot to do and if you guys are working alone i believe that we will not go Far though i praise you for your tremendous efforts.
"Do not argue with a fool coz people will not know who the fool is."
Where many people urinate,it becomes wet.When many people discuss a problem a solution is easily found.
Name: Mulozi
Country:
Date: 26 Oct 2000
Time: 10:23:07
Malozi amuteleze,i hve put down some comments requesting the BCA to inform me of the way forward.What am intrested in is for us who are in Lusaka to meet soon. We have alot to do and if you guys are working alone i believe that we will not go Far though i praise you for your tremendous efforts.
"Do not argue with coz people will not know who the fool is.
Where many people urinate,it becomes wet.When many people discuss a problem a solution is easily found.
Name: Observer
Country:
Date: 25 Oct 2000
Time: 17:28:38
Martin's arguements are boring - repetitive in nature with no facts. If people of barotse won't go with the idea, give me the reasons why they won't rather than just say won't agree to the idea.
Name: Tupa ya kubo
Country: Zambia
Date: 25 Oct 2000
Time: 10:46:06
While it is not our intention to be embroilled in personal attacks innuendoes and character assisnations with respect to Aka or any other personality, it is our contention that the issue of SELF-DETERMINATION for Barotseland should not be trivialized but that it should be handled with the utmost seriousness it deserves. Barotseland can only be an integral part of Zambia under the argis and observance of the terms of the Barotseland Agreement 1964 as it is the only legal instrument that brought her under this unitary dispensation. No Agreement, No One Zambia One Nation, No unitary state. To do otherwise is tantamount to holding the people of Barotseland under bondage and servitude country to the provisions of Articles 14 of the Zambian Constitution, 19 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights and 8(2) of the International Convent on Civil and Political Rights
Name: martin
Country: usa
Date: 25 Oct 2000
Time: 10:01:17
If protesting will help you vent your frastrations go for it.I am confident that our lozi country men will see you for who you all are...secessionist who could bring more and worse suffering in Bulozi land.Even if you where able to make a sound argument as to why the agreement is valid your people will reject your views.My brother the best days for zambia are ahead and the lozi people will play an important part.As an aside the geopolitics of the next 2-6 years, or perhaps more,make it very unwise for the western part of zambia to seceed.The namibians and Angolans(UNITA or MPLA) would make war against the western part.So in the worst case senerio where the nation allowed you seceed. It would be the beggining of suffering of not just an economic nature but war and loss of life.Thats why i know most of your people will not support you.Again i wont insult you but disagree with your views only.peace
Name: Mulozi
Country:
Date: 25 Oct 2000
Time: 04:49:38
Martin,now you are Talking!It is apparent that we sort out issues constructively,but however to Malcom x says " exercise the right to insult" if there is need.Now, if one talks nonse should i keep quite! i talk shit!i dont care what anyone says am in a free country! as long as i know that what i am sayin is right and another is talking shit stuff i dont care i talk shit.Even Bush talked shit when asked a useless question.Lets move forward.
Now Inete,i surppose that your observation is great but i must hasten to tell you that the police will definetly brutalise this group.There will be no permit given as the police are Govt Machinery.However i must say if this can be organised i will be the first to demostrate.I have demostrated several times and aressted.I must say however that it only the few who have understoond this agreement.It would seem that it this was to go ahead only few people would attend.
Reasons why am saying this is the BCA has remained silent over our meeting in Lusaka for us to formulate strategy.Secondly most Lozis think that all wehave is a hidden agenda .People need to rtealse the truth.I recommend to the BCA to try and publish articles in our print media weekly or so censitise our people on this issue. Questions on matter could be addressed.I also wish that a program on let the people talk on Phinex concerning the same can be done.
Munwana ulimun'gwi hautubi nda. One fingure can not crush a louse,threrfore unity is strength.
Name: Inete
Country: Zambia
Date: 25 Oct 2000
Time: 02:08:54
Tupa Ya kubu, I would be the last one to subscribe to a violent/confrontational stance. We have made our representations to Government over the years but they have down played the whole thing and ignored us. We will pursue peaceful means and obviously it will take a few years. But for a start government would be well advised to engage in dialogue, because at the end of the day they will have to reluctantly let go, and we will have the last laugh!
Name: Tupa yakubu.
Country:
Date: 24 Oct 2000
Time: 22:27:13
Inete not a bad idea. My only question is, do you want this Barotseland secession right away or do you want a mature gradual process.Lets Say over a few years.Secondly it should be a peaceful demonstration because its our duty as Zambians to maintain Zambia's record as a peaceful nation. Thank you, Tupa yakubu.
Name: Inete
Country: Zambia
Date: 24 Oct 2000
Time: 06:40:42
The OAU Heads of State Summit takes place in Zambia next year.Can we consider using this forum to not only remind the OAU Secretariat about our position, but to also sensitise the world at large about the abrogation of the Barotseland Agreement of 1964?
A peaceful demonstration would do. All those cameras that matter will be there. CNN, BBC, Reuters, SABC name them. What do others think?
Name: martin
Country: usa
Date: 23 Oct 2000
Time: 23:18:21
Mulozi,it is important that we as debaters learn to discuss ideas.When you raise insults it shows intolerance.It shows a lack of intellectual ability.If I assumed i was debating intolerant, and non-intellectual people i would not contribute.In the interest of fairness not all contributions in support of secession are insulting...eg BCA has some informative arguments for the other side which i ofcourse disagree with.
Name: Observer
Country:
Date: 23 Oct 2000
Time: 15:43:59
Limulunga lya mulonga, mwelo kulya mbuto
Name: MULOZI
Country:
Date: 23 Oct 2000
Time: 04:45:05
Martin,if you have read all the submissions and come up with such a conclusion then i suppose you are a failure in your analysis.Get a copy of fridays national morror and see how the the King George and the Queens Mother of england used to visit barotseland.Chitimukulu was never visited by the queen or king George why?????????????he never had a links to to the british.Am telling you abash! i dont care with what you say, we as LOZIS will fight for this agreement until govt recognises it. Its not your views that will stop us!not even Govt will stop us.
The terms of the agreement will have to be honored.I know you are jealous of this whole issue if it were your tribe which was deprived like this you would be affected.As long as you bring shit to this page i will tell you shit.Go fack your mama!
Name: martin
Country: usa
Date: 22 Oct 2000
Time: 13:15:12
there is always an assumption that if "you read the earlier submissions" you can contribute...all that is meant to discourage any different view point.I have read them.They are nothing more than an attempt to get one to accept the agreement as gospel truth...and from there come up with ideas such as western province cant seceed because "the government didnt honor the agreement". Sorry that i dont think that agreement means anything to most Lozis and zambians.I am sure you also know it doesnt that's why you are angry.ok peace twikatane..one zambia one nation.
Name:
Country:
Date: 22 Oct 2000
Time: 10:19:43
Name: Inete
Country: Zambia
Date: 22 Oct 2000
Time: 08:43:55
Webmaster, I sometimes find it difficult to submit a contribution once. In the two cases below my earlier posting did not appear on the page . Hours later I decided to try again and this time both my current and earlier submissions appeared at the same time. Is there a way around this?
Name: Inete
Country: Zambia
Date: 22 Oct 2000
Time: 08:37:15
Martin, your reasoning beats me, honestly.There is no question of truthfulness or falsity in an agreement.It is factual.The parties to an agreement are bound by the contents of that signed agreement.In the event of a dispute, the agreement is the reference document to be presented to either a court or an arbiter. You will not go out of your way to look at which laws you can bend to suit a particular situation. Instead you sit down with the parties to the agreement and negotiate with a view to altering the contents of the agreement that you feel are no longer desirable.If all parties agree, then changes are made, you do not unilaterally decide on your own.It is absurd.
Pan-africanism is a long term goal and it is myopic to suggest that calling for the reversion of Barotseland to it's status prior to Independence goes against the ideal of a united Africa. You have obviously not read earlier submissions as suggested and instead want to engage in long running battles with no end in sight.I think you have run a full lap and should quietly go away. Peace yourself.
Name: Inete
Country: Zambia
Date: 22 Oct 2000
Time: 03:48:28
Martin, your reasoning beats me. The question of truthfulness or falsity in an agreement does not arise because the terms of an agreement are what is contained in it. An agreement therefore is factual.Once you are satisfied with the contents, you append your signature. In the event of any breach, the agreemnt will be your reference document,not some theory about rules being broken blaa blaa blaa.End of story.
Name: martin
Country: usa
Date: 20 Oct 2000
Time: 10:26:21
the fact of the matter is you guys cant face the fact that "agreements" are not always gospel truth when they are not in the best interest of the nation or a people. I can understand why you think it should be gospel truth.....cause you are seceessionists...you say anything to support your goal...even as far as saying the"government of zambia has deliberately not developed western province" .you know its not true.As for the fact that i accept the borders of zambia as they stand, there is another school of thought that has been around for quite a while since the time of Nkuruma which says the final emancipation for africans from our former colonial masters will come when we unite into one country. So while you characters want to seceed from zambia the nation wants greater union with the rest of the african continent.And please show some respect by addressing issues raised instead of saying" we have dealt with people like you " thats cheap and is meant to scare any critique of your point o view...it wont work.peace
Name: martin
Country: usa
Date: 20 Oct 2000
Time: 10:26:13
the fact of the matter is you guys cant face the fact that "agreements" are not always gospel truth when they are not in the best interest of the nation or a people. I can understand why you think it should be gospel truth.....cause you are seceessionists...you say anything to support your goal...even as far as saying the"government of zambia has deliberately not developed western province" .you know its not true.As for the fact that i accept the borders of zambia as they stand, there is another school of thought that has been around for quite a while since the time of Nkuruma which says the final emancipation for africans from our former colonial masters will come when we unite into one country. So while you characters want to seceed from zambia the nation wants greater union with the rest of the african continent.And please show some respect by addressing issues raised instead of saying" we have dealt with people like you " thats cheap and is meant to scare any critique of your point o view...it wont work.peace
Name: Barotse Cultural Association
Country: Barotseland
Date: 20 Oct 2000
Time: 09:33:54
MARTIN, we have dealt with people with your kind of logic on this page and they have found that they can not swallow their own medicine. Similarly, your argument that what was imposed by the British should not be acceptable immediately works against you and what you stand for. Who established the boundaries of Zambia and all other countries in the region? If, as you erroneously argue, the Barotseland Agreement 1964 should be ignored for being a British product doesn’t it follow that even Zambia should be dismantled for the same reason?
In earlier contributions we have reminded your types that it is not easy to run away from your past because your history determines what you are. If we critically examine your own person we find that there is very little about you that is not linked to the influence of the colonial past. For starters, your own name has nothing to do with your native origins. You have communicated your distaste for things imposed by the British in an imposed language, using technology which has evolved without any contribution from your ancestors. We could go on to talk about the every day things you do and relate them to the same impositions you detest so much but we have decided to be polite, as usual.
As for Mugabe and Zimbabwe, you have deliberately misrepresented the history (typical of your types). Mugabe has not moved away from the agreements and pledges of the Lancaster House Conference on the independence of Zimbabwe. Those who do not pretend to have short memories know that it was agreed that the land acquisition issue would only be visited after the first twenty years of independence. This was intended to give time to white landlords to either relocate or give up some of their land through voluntary sale. It was further agreed that Britain would fund the land acquisition project. The twenty year grace period lapsed last April and, accordingly, the Zimbabwe Parliament passed legislation empowering government to acquire land. Meanwhile, the British Government has failed to live up to its promise to provide funding. Under the circumstances, and in accordance with the rule of natural justice and international norms governing contracts between parties, the Zimbabwe Government has every right to go ahead with land acquisition and ignore the protests of the British and their allies. Mugabe’s position in this respect ties in very well with the Barotse position on the Agreement of 1964. If one party to the Agreement refuses to observe its terms then the other party reserves the right to abandon the Agreement and go their own way.
By the way, the Britsh did not impose the Barotseland Agreement on anybody. It was the Northern Rhodesian Government, under Kaunda, which decided that the two British Protectorates of Barotseland and Northern Rhodesia should merge and proceed to independence as one nation. In accordance with her long established traditions, Barotseland demanded that an agreement to effect the unity be signed and the Kaunda government accepted. The Agreement is the one that ushered in the unitary state of Zambia. It is as old as (or as new as) the Republic of Zambia! Without it the unitary state of Zambia ceases to exist.
Name: Munga-a-munzi
Country: Kingdom of Barotseland
Date: 20 Oct 2000
Time: 04:22:55
MARTIN, you are not the only person who does not understand how Zambia came into existence, just like you have parents, Zambia did not come from nowhere, to appreciate how Zambia came into being read through Barotse Cultural Association contribution of 15 th October, 2000. If that cant satify you still, then we shall conclude that facts will never change your mind since it has already been fixed with what you want to believe fact or no fact.
Name: Mulozi
Country:
Date: 20 Oct 2000
Time: 03:01:08
Martin,you seem to poses so wrong data to create so form of argument to confuse people.Tell me my friend! how was the united states of America founded???You talk of 50 staes coming together to sign an agreement of understaing to form a nation.if you are Saying Barotse is history then there is no Zambia.You come from your mothers womb but you dont see what it looks like,because she your mother shit!
Name: matin
Country: usa
Date: 19 Oct 2000
Time: 18:39:05
Munga-a-munza, on the issue of time invalidating agreements i may wanna refer you to native american indians who constantly signed peace treaties with the settlers in north america....those treaties where only valid when it was in the best interest of the settlers...I must however report that some of them are still honored today...( they have reservations indians dont pay taxes). But again it illustrates what i want to convey to you. As for the gabbage IN garbage out I can only say i dont have the best brains but God has been gracious by giving me enough to earn a living and hopefully contribute to the unity and prosperity of our nation.
Name: martin
Country: usa
Date: 19 Oct 2000
Time: 18:26:50
observer, thanks for your critique. I beg to disagree with you though.Like i said I tend to believe the school of thought that says that we can always make and break rules depending on our self interest....only the fundamental laws of nature cannot be changed.After independence we should move on and start subscribing to this way of thinking.Again an illustration may clear up what i mean. Have you noticed how the british are all of the sudden the champions of human rights and democracy....these guys until 60 years ago brutalised half the globe for 100 or so years. When it was not in their best interest to be brutal their colonies around the globe ...they changed to champions of human rights.In the same way as an independent country we can decide to make/accept rules or deny rules that are not in the best interest of zambia. or its people.The most important point i want you to see is how what we call "signed agreements" are subject to change depending on the interest of our people.Barotse agreement was made fine but personally i have a right to accept its relevance to modern zambia or its people.I would only be interested in talking about how we can better have strong local governments and that type of thing. break away is not an option.the will be a time when economic prosperity will come to our nation then maybe even you die hard sucessionists will change your minds because will make sure mongu has strong industries. peace
Name: Observer
Country:
Date: 19 Oct 2000
Time: 16:59:03
Bo Martin, you question the legality and the authority of anything imposed by the colonial masters. In the same length, why don't you question the legality and authority of the present national boundaries of Zambia, since this was something that was imposed. You seem to know your history!!
Name: munga-a-munzi
Country: Kingdom of Barotseland
Date: 19 Oct 2000
Time: 10:42:10
Tupa Yakubo
Your attack on Prince AKA exposes how dull you are at analysing issues, just to upgrade your low grade brains I will give you an assignment.
Tabulate for me statistics on how many ambassadors and high commissioners, Parastatal heads, Cabinet ministers and their deputies by tribe.
How many political parties are there and which ones have been labelled tribal parties because people who head them do not hail fron Luapuala, Northern or Eastern provinces (ie. North-Eastern Rhodesia).
Prince AKA is one of the few people I know who is intelligent, not corruptible, consistent, a democrat, focused and above all a man by all measure, whether you are using courage, intelligence. Doesn’t it surprise you that bembas could vote for the late Chama Chakomboka during 1996 presidential elections as opposed to AKA or the late Humphrey Mulemba, I know for you it makes sense.
So wether you like it or not AKA will always be the people's choice, only hyenas like you will never appreciate. If you think Dr. Inonge would have been voted as president of this country then you are cheating yourself, I remember one time she had to go into hiding because they wanted to shoot her for being a threat to the presidency of this country. What happened to the late Arthur Wina when he wanted to be the president of this country despite being an intellectual of unquestionable credentials.
So Pafa Yakubo mwa bupilo ki ku shapuka, taba ya kuli nako kaufela ki mina mu pumiwa ki baana baba mwi ya swabisa, nako kaufela ki bona bo shakame mina ki mina bo kulu, neba hamwi kwa pala kuli ni mina mube bo shakame.
Martin
Who told you that the passage of time invalidates a legal document. Guys what kind of schools do you attend. The calibre of people like you is what worries us, how can an economy improve with that type of guys, remember Garbage-IN Garbage-Out. How do you expect gold when your input is charcoal, if you want the economy to turn around put high grade brains in key decision positions.
Name: Barotse Cultural Association
Country: Barotseland
Date: 19 Oct 2000
Time: 10:39:41
Martin, the British did not impose the Barotseland Agreement on anybody. It was the Northern Rhodesia government, under Kaunda, which voluntarily decided to go for the agreement. Nobody held a gun to anybody's head to sign the agreement.
By the way the agreement was ushured in at Zambia's independence. So it is as new as Zambia. If you think it belongs to the archieves then so does Zambia!
Name: martin
Country:
Date: 19 Oct 2000
Time: 09:35:50
Mulozi, i appreciate your attempt to atleast adress what i raised in my posting.Since we disagree all i can do is give my view.I think using the fact that western province is not more developed than the other provinces , especially northern and luapula provinces as a pretext to break away from zambia works only in political rallies.that argument wont work when you are talking to someone who understands the economy of zambia.As for the barotse agreement I tend to lean to the school of thought that questions the authority and legality of anything that the colonial powers imposed on africans.These guys came over to africa and imposed their will on us.We had a chance to start all over again in 1964.my brother in life rules can be made and broken. the only rules that cant be broken are the fundamental laws of nature.Understanding this will give our people great insight into creating and abolishing rules that are not in our interests as africans.As an illustration of what i am talking about look at zimbabwe.Mugabe understands what most of the opposition parties and particularly the courts do not. When deciding to resettle landless blacks, you may have noticed that the courts have been virtually ruling against his actions as illegal.if you look at the rules britain gave ( or should i say they copied) them to govern it is truely illegal to take land from white farmers.But we all know his actions are just.Thats why my concience is clear when i look at the barotse agreement and decide to move forward without regard to it....except to study it as history ofcourse.takecare
Name: martin
Country:
Date: 19 Oct 2000
Time: 09:35:47
Mulozi, i appreciate your attempt to atleast adress what i raised in my posting.Since we disagree all i can do is give my view.I think using the fact that western province is not more developed than the other provinces , especially northern and luapula provinces as a pretext to break away from zambia works only in political rallies.that argument wont work when you are talking to someone who understands the economy of zambia.As for the barotse agreement I tend to lean to the school of thought that questions the authority and legality of anything that the colonial powers imposed on africans.These guys came over to africa and imposed their will on us.We had a chance to start all over again in 1964.my brother in life rules can be made and broken. the only rules that cant be broken are the fundamental laws of nature.Understanding this will give our people great insight into creating and abolishing rules that are not in our interests as africans.As an illustration of what i am talking about look at zimbabwe.Mugabe understands what most of the opposition parties and particularly the courts do not. When deciding to resettle landless blacks, you may have noticed that the courts have been virtually ruling against his actions as illegal.if you look at the rules britain gave ( or should i say they copied) them to govern it is truely illegal to take land from white farmers.But we all know his actions are just.Thats why my concience is clear when i look at the barotse agreement and decide to move forward without regard to it....except to study it as history ofcourse.takecare
Name: Mulozi
Country:
Date: 19 Oct 2000
Time: 02:30:24
Martin,thanks for your comments but to add on to what inete has said,the Lozis want the terms of the agreement to be in force.You agument to say old agreements is totally wrong if the British govt did not sign the Baroste this country would never have been a single state.Talking of development,the fact that Zambia is in a poor stae does not matter! we the Lozis given an opportunity to rule ourselves can never fail.We have abandant Natural Resouces currently the cattle business is boming,we have minerals which this govt has been stealing that side and besides we cad grow rice on a large scale,maize from kaoma the list is endless.We this pathetic Govt reports are that maize wont be bought from Kaoma,Western province has lagged behinde when Luapula and northern are being developed.You need to read the articles down for you to understand.Asa lozi i will spearhead the barotse agreement i dont care what you say.
Name: Inete
Country: Zambia
Date: 18 Oct 2000
Time: 12:24:44
Martin, you are obviously new on the page I do not recall seeing any of your submissions before the two below, I stand to be corrected.
If you really want to debate the issue come up with concrete arguments, not the wishy-washy stuff you've written.Just to get you going I recommend strongly that you read the following contributions on this page:
Austin Mbozi on 20-12-99 Chilufya Banda on 17-01-2000 No Name on 18-01-2000 Al Nasir on18-01-2000 Henry C on 18-01-2000 Al Nasir on 20-01-2000 Lozi Commoner on 21-01-2000 Al Nasir on 21-01-2000 Lozi Commoner on 21-01-2000 Munga Munzi on 04-02-2000 Munga Munzi on 13-01-2000 BCA on 23-06-2000 BCA on 13-06-2000 BCA on17-08-2000 BCA on 27-09-2000 BCA on 15-10-2000
Once you have read this you will definitely make and receive meaningful contributions.Adios.
Name: martin
Country: usa
Date: 18 Oct 2000
Time: 10:59:52
Mulozi, you were not cheated of anything. NObody in zambia disrepects the Lozi people we consider them are fellow country men, brothers, sisters, and for many zambians especially in urban areas most of them are our cousins and wives. Some opportunist who are power hungry want to use something that belongs in the past to bring problems in zambia.You are using the current economic problems the country is going through to try to justify to your tribesmen that you need to break away.Nobody has discriminated against the Lozi people and you know that wont fly with your people so you try to use an old agreement between you and the british and the current economic problems in zambia to justify your claims to break away.In the end your people will see you as you really are power hungry people who never liked zambia not because zambia is a bad country but for your selfish reasons.by the way i wont "peace off" I will not allow you to mislead my fellow zambians who are lozis.thanku
Name: Mulozi
Country:
Date: 18 Oct 2000
Time: 04:02:12
Attention martin,advocating for people to execise their rights is not being opportumistic.Tell me my friend if you were strip off a right wouldnt you fight for it or merely fighting for it becomes wrong.You are in patnership and you sign an agreement to share profits equally then your friend refuses to pay you your dues after sometime,dont you have the right to take him to court or revork the deal?You must first anayse issues before you critise,you look ignorant as long as you allude to issues which you dont have a right to.Some of us have a right to address the barotse issue coz we are lozi and and this affects us so please we due respect peace off.
Name: martin
Country: usa
Date: 17 Oct 2000
Time: 19:43:42
Tupa, good points. I am not lozi but your contribution gives me more reason to respect lozi institutions. They royal establishment was wise not to choose an opportunist who would have lead his tribes men to the road of seccesion.Zambia is enriched by that type of wisdom from our traditional rulers. thankyou
Name: Inete
Country: Zambia
Date: 17 Oct 2000
Time: 02:28:20
Pafa ya kubu your attack on Aka is uncalled for. If you were knowledgable about the process involved in the selection of the Litunga you would not have made such comments. You cannot campaign to be Litunga. Period.
I wish you would qualify your statement and clearly state that what you are expressing is your personal opinion which you are entilted to.
Aka is not a failure. His track record is well documented, take time to read it.
And lastly, why not come out in the open and identify yourself so that we measure you by the same yardstick?
Name: Tupa yakubo.
Country:
Date: 16 Oct 2000
Time: 19:50:00
This letter is addressed to Akashambatwa Mbikusita.
I was so shocked to hear that you now want to be Litunga of the Lozi people. Out of all the disgraceful things you have done, this is the most distasteful. First and for most, every Lozi person knows that you do not qualify to be Litunga. Without getting into rather embarrassing details, lets just say that all Lozis are aware of your questionable legitimacy. What is most disturbing however, is your insatiable hunger for power that you will do just about anything to get it, as was the case with Napoleon. The only difference is that it does not take Prussian forces at Waterloo to defeat you but rather, your own gyrate character. You were a member of the MMD party until you noticed that the other members in there were too intelligent to let you be president of their party. Unpatriotically, you formed a splinter group within the party with Mr Katyoka who later discovered that you only wanted to be president and did not let you. Since you were so power hungry you quite this group and joined the National Party, which your own sister was interim chairman. She managed the party very well and I take off my hat for her. Since she was your sister you ridiculously assumed that she would step down for you so that you could claim all the glory. Unfortunately for you and rightfully so, she did not. Your relentless pursuit ended up clouding your vision and embarrassing all Lozis by proving to the world that you are a Napoleon-like character. You stood against your sister at the party convention and both you and her lost to the late great Nkumbula since you had managed to steal votes from her. In the aftermath, you adopted a go-slow campaign against Nkumbula. Nkumbula being an honorable man agreed to have a second convention, which you lost. At this point and time you came to the realization that you would not be president so you quite again and formed AZ, your one man party and lost against Chiluba. Now you want to be Litunga and you are campaigning for Barotseland to be a separate country. Please Longolo wena it is clear that what you want is to be president. Do not lie to poor people that you care for them by flashing them some cheap change. You cannot even help yourself. Your achievements in life are rather discouraging: you failed at Zambia Ceramics, you failed in all political parties and you do not even have a house. In fact I consider you to be a thief for renting a house that belonged to the Russian Embassy and then running with the money. Akashambatwa, Barosteland needs a person that will bring all people together rather than polarize them like you clearly evidenced by running against your own sister. Thank You, Tupa yakubo.
Name: GM
Country: South Africa
Date: 16 Oct 2000
Time: 07:47:33
Barotseland Cultural Association
Thanks for your response and explanations: I am planning to come to Mungo and Western Zambia to do research and interviews: could I make contact with you for this purpose?
marinovi@mweb.co.za
Name: GM
Country: South Africa
Date: 16 Oct 2000
Time: 07:46:55
Barotseland Cultural Association
Thanks for your response and explanations: I am planning to come to Mungo and Western Zambia to do research and interviews: could I make contact with you for this purpose?
marinovi@mweb.co.za
Name: Barotse Cultural Association
Country: Barotseland
Date: 15 Oct 2000
Time: 04:30:31
1. Introduction
During the last three months, our contributions to this debate have been in the form of answers to questions and corrections to misrepesentation of facts by fellow contributors. In the process, we have noted a general lack of knowledge of the evolution of the country currently known as Zambia, particularly among the most vocal opponents of Barotse autonomy. We believe that the issue of the Barotseland Agreement 1964 and how it relates to the unitary state of Zambia has been adequately addressed. What has not been addressed, so far, is why it was necessary for the Northern Rhodesian Government, forerunner to the Government of Zambia, to enter into a unity agreement with Barotseland prior to independence. The answer to this question lies in the historical evolution of the Northern Rhodesia Protectorate.This protectorate was a product of treaties and concessions between several independent tribal rulers and the British South African Company (BSAC) led by Cecil John Rhodes. On the other hand, Barotseland, as a single unit under a reigning Monarch, signed a separate treaty for her own protection with the same company.
The treaty that the Lozi Monarch entered into with BSAC carried obligations and rights for the company which were later transferred to the British Crown when the company’s authority in Central Africa was taken over by the British Goverment. Meanwhile, the treaties which the company signed with other personalities elsewhere did not survive the company rule period for reasons which are given hereunder.
2. Colonisation of Central Africa
Northern Rhodesia did not exist until 1924 when the territories then known as Barotseland-North Western Rhodesia and North Eastern Rhodesia were enjoined under one colonial administration. This was done through the Nothern Rhodesia Order-in-Council of 1923 which, though it established one Colonial Adminstrator for the territory, secured Barotseland’s status as a separate entity by styling it as a Protectorate-within- a Protectorate. It was necessary for the British to structure the new enlarged territory in this manner to conform with their obligations not to enchroach on the authority of the Lozi King over his territory. To this end, an authority known as the Barotse Native Government headed by a Resident Commissioner was established. The Resident Commissioner was based in Mongu and was responsible both to the Litunga and the Colonial Secretary. The Colonial Governor in Lusaka facilitated the provision of technical support and protection to the Barotse territory.
The origins of the Barotseland-North Western Rhodesia and the North Eastern Rhodesia territories are explained in the following paragraphs.
Following the Berlin Conference of 1885 on the modus operand of partition of Africa, the British secured for themselves what became known as the British Central African Protectorate. This territory comprised the land east of the Kafue river including present day Malawi, and it was administered from Zomba.
On 29 October 1889, a Charter was promulagated in England giving birth to the British South African Company Chartered and Limited. This company then went into negotiations for mining concessions in Southern and Central Africa as a consequence of discovery of diamonds in Kimberly, South Africa in 1886. This hunt for concessions was spearheaded by Cecil John Rhodes who sent out two expeditions. One of these, led by Joseph Thomson and Alfred Sharpe went to the British Central Afrian Protectorate while the other, headed by Frank Elliot Lochner, was sent to Barotseland.
The Thomson expedition had an encounter with and entered into concessions with a number of personalities. Whether these were chiefs or not will be decided by the reader. They were as follows:
On 12-5-1890, Mwape-chief of the Lukusasi country. His witnesses were Msoni and Zuza. The company was represented by Thomson with Sharpe as witness. The company paid 40 British pounds for this concession.
On 10-9-1890, Kambwiri - Paramount chief of Kibende, acting in conjuction with an Arab Salim bin Nasser who signed as a witness. 40 British pounds were paid by the company for this concession. The company was represented by Thomson as signatory while Charles Wilson and I.S Grant signed as witnesses.
On 15-9-1890, Katara- chief of Kusa and the Mchinga Mts. He had no witness. 20 pounds paid. Thomson signed for the company with Wilson and Grant as witnesses.
On 22-9-1890, Nansara- Female chief of the Bisa people. She had no witness. 10 pounds paid. Thomson on behalf of company with Wilson as witness.
On 4-10-1890, Chitambo-paramount chief of the Bisa plateau. He had no witness. 20 pounds paid. Thomson and Wilson on behalf of company.
On 11-10-1890, Mshiri- paramount chief of the Baushi country on the east of the Luapula and the Kabende people to the west of the river. No witness. 50 pounds paid. Thomson on behalf of the company.
On 16-10-1890, Kalonga- Sultan of the Eastern Lamba. 50 pounds paid. No witnes. Thomson on behalf of the company with Grant and Wilson as witnesses.
On 18-10-1890, Simesi- Sultan of Western Lamba. No witness. 50 pounds paid. Thomson on behalf of company with Grant and Wilson as witnesses.
On 26-10-1890, Mkwemba- Sultan of the Central Lamba. No witness. 60 pounds paid. Thomson for the company with Wilson as witness.
On 6-11-1890, Mshiri- chief of Southern Lamba. 10 pounds paid. No witness. Thomson on behalf of the company.
On 12-11-1890, Chipepo-Sultan of the Lenje, a country occupying the middle basin of the Lukanga river and the upper basin of the Mulungushi river as far south as latitude 140.15 South. No witness. 20 pounds paid. Thomson for the company.
On 22-11-1890, Kanyesha of the south-western country of the Lala people. No witness. 20 pounds paid. Thomson for the company with Wilson and Grant as witnesses.
On 25-11-1890, Chavira- chief of the western Nsenga. No witness. 20 pounds paid. Thomson for the company with Wilson and Grant witnessing.
On 27-11-1890, Chevia and Miembe-chiefs of the Nsenga. No witness. 20 pounds paid. Thomson for company with Wilson and Grant witnessing.
In all these transactions an Arab, Jumah Abubakar, served as interpreter. Whether or not he was fluent enough in the diverse languages of the Bisa, Bemba, Lamba, Lala, Chewa, Lenje etc is a matter of speculation.
Meanwhile, Lochner made several attempts to pursuade King Lewanika of Barotseland to sign a concession with him. After extensive consultations within the Kingdom an assembly of the nation, comprising members of the King’s Council, area indunas, village headmen and ordinary people was convened at Lealui on 27-6-1890 for the signing ceremony. The signatories were as follows: Lewanika (the King). Litia, his eldest son and heir to the throne. ( Litia succeeded his father in 1916 as King Yeta III). Other signatories were Mwauluka, who was Ngambela (Prime Minister), and members of the inner cabinet (Concillors) as follows: Akufuna, Mukulwakashiko, Galibotse, Beunya, Kalonga, Nalishuwa, Namunda, Ingangwana, Lucanana Muwana, Imasikuana, Sikota and Alisheke. The concession was futher endorsed by representatives of regional authorities as follows; Induna Sambi- Administrator and Chief Advisor to the Regent Princess of Nalolo (Senanga), with fellow Councillors Ishee Kwandu, Mukwakwa, Imbuwa, Saywa, Sambiana, Namunda and Mukata. From Libonda ( Kalabo) were Induna Muleta - Administrator and Advisor to the Resident Princess and a Concillor Munono. From Sesheke region the following tribal leaders endorsed it; Induna Ratau, Katukula, Tahalima, Mwanamwalye, Nalishuwa, Mulife, Sekombwa, Mukamba (Chief of Kazungula/Kalomo region), Liku (Chief of the Nanzwa at Wankie) Kwenani and Mukwela (of the Linyati region), Musialela and Munukayumbwa (King’s brothers), and Likokwani (King’s nephew). Lastly, Liatika (King’s Secretary) also put his mark on the document.
The concession permited the company to prospect for minerals in selected areas of the Kingdom. In return, the company, on behalf of the British government, gave guarantees of protection for the Kingdom and an annual grant of 2000 pounds to be paid in perpetuity.
Frank Elliot Lochner signed for the company with Francois Coillard and Adolph Jalla as witnesses. These two witnesses were missionaries of the Paris Evangelical Mission Society, which established its first station at Sefula (near Mongu) in 1897. They had earned the trust of the King and were entrusted with translating and explaining the implications of the document to the King and Council prior to its signing.
After the conclusion of these concessions the company administration established fortresses at Fort Jameson (Chipata), Fort Rosebery ( Mansa) and Abercon (Mbala). These fortresses were established to check against incursions of the Portuguese from East Africa, the Belgians from the Congo and the Germans from Tanganyika. At this stage the British Central African Protectorate was split into two administrative zones, with Fort Jameson becoming the headquarters for the area surrounded by the new fortresses which was named North Eastern Rhodesia. Zomba remained as the headquarters for the other part, named Nyasaland ( Malawi).
Later, apprehensions were expressed regarding the authority of the 15 chiefs who had signed concessions with Joseph Thomson. In a telegram addressed to Codrington, Administrator of North Eastern Rhodesia, on 15 March 1904, H. Wilson Cox of London Wall Buildings said, inter-a-lia, “ under the Lewanika Concession, our rights to minerals are very clear. But in North Eastern Rhodesia, our rights are founded upon a very large number of contracts made with personages whose existence today are somewhat mythical. The contracts themselves varying in form”. Subsequently, Henry Hamilton Johnston, Commissioner and Consular-General at Zomba, was tasked by Her Brittanic Majesty’s Government to enquire into this matter, with a view to settling all land claims within the territories under British influence. In the process, the authority of the signatories to the concessions of North-Eastern Rhodesia was proven unreliable. In order to remove the ambiquities and uncertainties of the ‘mythical personages,’ Johnston issued certificates of claim in favour of the BSAC dated 25 September 1893 in respect of all land within the areas represented by the 15 chiefs who had signed concessions with Thomson. Four such certificates were issued as follows; Certicate of Claim “A” covering areas of the present day Central, Lusaka and some parts of Luapula and Northern provinces up to the Luangwa river. Certificate of Claim “B” covering present day Eastern and some parts of Luapula and Northern provinces. Certificate of Claim “EF” and “K” covering the area around Mbala and part of Tanganyika (Tanzania) territory. Certificate of Claim “L”, known as the North-Charterland concession, covered present day Chadiza and Katete districts in the Eastern province. With these certificates the company and its successors secured direct access to the land without resort to any other authority.
The areas covering present day copperbelt province together with the land buttressed by the lower part of Kafue river and the lower Zambezi was treated seperately by the Secretary of State for the Colonies. In order to bring a semblence of order in this area, the British authority requested King Lewanika of Barotseland to hold the land by establishing control structures within the area. The British offered Lewanika mineral royalties as renumeration for this service. It should be stressed at this particular point that this land is not necessarilly part of Barotseland but was transfered to the Barotse King’s rule for convinience, in return for specific renumeration. This ‘transferred area’ and Barotseland make up the territory which was called Barotseland-North Western Rhodesia. On the request of King Lewanika, the Company stationed a Resident Representatve at Lealui. However, due to hostile conditions of mosquitoes and other water borne ailments, this representative asked to be shifted to higher ground. Thereupon, he was shifted to Kalomo which become the British administrative center for Barotseland-North Western Rhodesia.
3. Formation of Northern Rhodesia
Through the Order-in-Council of 1909 North Western Rhodesia and North Eastern Rhodesia were merged to form Northern Rhodesia with the headquarters being moved to Livingstone in 1911. Barotseland retained its status as a protectorate with a Resident Represidentive at Mongu. Through the Order-in-Council of 1923 the British Government took over the administration of Northern Rhodesia from the company and appointed a Governor for the territory. This Order-in-Council affirmed the separate status of Barotseland by styling it as a protectorate within the British Protectorate of Northern Rhodesia. This provision was carried forward at all stages and phases of the political development of Northern Rhodesia including the period of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland (1953 - 1963).
At the end of Federation when Northern Rhodesia was to be independent of British rule, the authorities had to decide whether or not to split the two Protectorates of Northern Rhodesia and Barotseland. These authorities were the newly installed black majority government of Northern Rhodesia led by Prime Minister Kenneth Kaunda, the Barotse Government under the Litunga and the British Colonial Office. Negotiations were entered into which culminated into the signing of the Barotseland Agreement 1964 in London on 18 May 1964.
This Agreement provides for partial autonomy of Barotseland within Zambia. It is the basis for the unitary state of Zambia and the source of the national motto of ‘One-Zambia, One-nation,’ which forms a component of the Zambian Coat of Arms. It is reflected in the National Anthem under stanza No. 3 which reads ‘one-Zambia, one-Nation is our cry’ signifying the anxiety and desperation of Zambia’s founding politicians to have Barotseland within Zambia.
The term “One-Zambia, One-Nation’ does not relate to the unification of 73 tribes as claimed by dishonest politicians. It underscores the historic fact that two nations comprised in the former protectorates of Barotseland and Northern Rhodesia came together as one nation through the terms and provisions of the Barotseland Agreement 1964.
4 Origins of Barotse Autonomy
Several uninformed politicians and other people (including contributors to this website) have posed most unfortunate and unnecessary questions such as; why Barotseland should enjoy a special status to the exclusion of other parts of Zambia, why only the Litunga signed an agreement, why other chiefs do not get special recognition etc. This lengthy submission has exposed the folly of such questions. The people of Barotseland, or the Litunga, can not be held accountable for what happened (or what did not happen) in other parts of Zambia during the formative stages of colonialism. The duty of the Litunga and Council of Barotseland was to secure, protect and defend the sovereignty of the Kingdom to the best of their ability. They could not be expected to look after the interests of the territories which did not fall within their jurisdiction.
Therefore, if anyone feels that other chiefs should have signed agreements then the question as to why the agreements were not signed should be directed at the authorities who should have signed them, and not the Litunga or the Lozi people. 5. Conclusion Barotseland has the right to partial autonomy (regional government and legislative assembly) within Zambia. This right was secured through treaties that the Barotse King signed with the first Protection Authority over the territory (Britain) whose obligations were passed to the Zambian Government via the Barotseland Agreement 1964.
Conversely, Barotseland reserves the right to complete independence and self-determination in the event of failure, or refusal by the partiner government to observe the union treaty.
Name: Barotse Cultural Association
Country: Barotseland
Date: 15 Oct 2000
Time: 04:23:46
MULOZI, at the time of the Barotseland Agreement 1964 there existed an institution called the Barotse Native Treasury which was established in 1936. You will appreciate that a treasury comprises both property and liquid assets. Without any doubt the Barotse Treasury had money. Please read our next contribution to understand the history, source and strength of this Treasury.
The Barotse Treasury was forcefully incorporated into the Zambian treasury in 1965 through the Local Government Act which created the Barotseland Local Government Fund. By provisions of this Act the control of the Fund was transfered to the the Minister of Local Government whose duty was to receive and disburse the assets, as well as submit 6 monthly reports on the same to Parliament. However, the Act was just a gimmick to plunder the wealth of Barotseland as no report has ever been published on this Fund which has disapeared into thin air. By this action Barotseland has been dispossesed of her economy and capacity to control her future.
With regard to boundaries of Barotseland vis-a-vis the copperbelt please read our next contribution to understand the position.
GM of South Africa, please note that the Mafwe are Lozi. Some of them may be outside Barotseland as a result of the evolution of national boundaries during the colonial period. As for the Mbundu we have no record of their connection with Barotseland. However, if your question is in relation to the Mbunda we can safely say that these are Lozi by reason of the surenity of the Lozi Kingdom.
Name: KAYOMBO
Country: ZAMBIA
Date: 14 Oct 2000
Time: 02:12:39
Its an interesting debate. My parents have always been in Barosteland, but are not lozi, ki malubale. How are you the lozis going to treat minorities should we become a separate entity from Zambia. I'm sure this is a concern of other minorities in the province.
The other issue is, should we not be asking for a referendum on the future of the province from the inhabitants of western province? Comments please
Name: Mulozi
Country: Barosteland
Date: 13 Oct 2000
Time: 10:48:19
Malozi alutusani,am one person who thinks that the choice of the Litunga being that his been bought is something we can really cry about it doesnt matter,this should not divide us,we the people of barotseland should ensure that we tell the people want our rights are.If am not mistaken several times weve heared that we have diamonds and now the rumur of high grade oil,we are rich and the riches are for barotseland we should ensure that we are not trumpled upon.The terms of the agreement have to be met.I want the BCA to call for a meeting ya malozi mwa Lusaka,we just need to meet and meeting soon.I believe that all men have the right and duty to participate.aluswalisane ka mazoho amabeli
Name: Observer
Country: USA
Date: 12 Oct 2000
Time: 19:00:15
I must be the only Jew who didn't hear about the Choliso of the Litunga. Imwiko is the litunga! That's very interesting, though. He may be an intellectual, but I don't think he's in touch with tradition. The man barely visited his chiefdom. He spent all the 365 days in Lusaka, year after year. After all, we have so many intellectual Lozi chiefs or royalists, from Isiteko, Aka to Inyambo, but that's not something to count on, though. Despite the late Litunga being a Havard graduate, he was a traditionalist. And that's the kind of person we need - who can combine the two. What's the point of having somebody intellegent but have no tradition at heart. I'm just wondering whether the man will be able to cope with that kind of life, like I said, he has always lived in Lusaka.
Name: Yetuna
Country: Barotseland
Date: 12 Oct 2000
Time: 14:55:30
It would be very naïve to assume that only active BCA members want a strong Barosteland. The Litunga also believes in the self-determination of Barotseland. The only question is, are you or I ready to work with him towards this goal?
It is clear that everyone has his or her opinion on the Litungaship. However, the important point is that the Litunga has now been selected. Lubosi Imwiko is an intellectual and a man of sound judgement. He will work just as hard towards fulfilling our common goal, “self-determination.” It is every Lozi’s responsibility to now rally their support behind the new Litunga.
Barotseland has a deeply ingrained democracy in that the local courts (Kuta) have and will always provide an avenue for the people to express their views. So let us not be cheated in believing that democracy is new to us.
Hopefully we have learned from history…remember how the Ma Kololo invaded the Luyana? Well, it was during a period when the kingdom was divided. So my fellow brothers and sisters, let us be the strategists, advisors, the eyes and the ears of one united Barostland. Any sign of weakness (as expressed by divisive commentary) will only be ammunition to our enemies.
The Litunga works for the people. What you advise him is what he will do. BCA and the Baroste Royal Establishment should work as allies operating from two angles.
Name: Yetuna
Country: Barotseland
Date: 12 Oct 2000
Time: 12:59:36
It would be very naïve to assume that only active BCA members want a strong Barosteland. The Litunga also believes in the self-determination of Barotseland. The only question is, are you or I ready to work with him towards this goal?
It is clear that everyone has his or her opinion on the Litungaship. However, the important point is that the Litunga has now been selected. Lubosi Imwiko is an intellectual and a man of sound judgement. He will work just as hard towards fulfilling our common goal, “self-determination.” It is every Lozi’s responsibility to now rally their support behind the new Litunga.
Barotseland has a deeply ingrained democracy in that the local courts (Kuta) have and will always provide an avenue for the people to express their views. So let us not be cheated in believing that democracy is new to us.
Hopefully we have learned from history…remember how the Ma Kololo invaded the Luyana? Well, it was during a period when the kingdom was divided. So my fellow brothers and sisters, let us be the strategists, advisors, the eyes and the ears of one united Barostland. Any sign of weakness (as expressed by divisive commentary) will only be ammunition to our enemies.
The Litunga works for the people. What you advise him is what he will do. BCA and the Baroste Royal Establishment should work as allies operating from two angles.
Name: Munga-a-munzi
Country: Kingdom of Barotseland
Date: 12 Oct 2000
Time: 10:37:18
My fellow Barotse citizens, I know how you feel at this sad hour in the history of our beloved Kingdom, but what we should bear in mind is the fact that victory for Barotseland is certain. The darkest hour is always near dawn. I will end by quoting bo AKA "mwana a tau, ki tau" mi ya bapala ni tau uta chiwa ki tau.
Name: omei
Country: zambia
Date: 12 Oct 2000
Time: 09:09:36
My heart is saddened by the happenings in my beautiful Homeland of BAROTSELAND. BCA which way foward.Diplomacy has failed. Please give me a contact address.Let us start meeting and have concrete answers. Mail me at LITIYAM @yahoo.com
I will be waiting
Name: omei
Country: zambia
Date: 12 Oct 2000
Time: 09:08:55
My heart is saddened by the happenings in my beautiful Homeland of BAROTSELAND. BCA which way foward.Diplomacy has failed. Please give me a contact address.Let us start meeting and have concrete answers. Mail me at LITIYAM @yahoo.com
I will be waiting
Name: Bwalya
Country: Zed
Date: 12 Oct 2000
Time: 05:09:11
Imwe mbwa nishi,its good that the govt has selected someone for you you must stop this barotse thing we are all Zambia why must you be alone as long as MMD lives Baroste never rules,Mulozi how about that!you must be confused like the BCS
Name: Inete
Country: Zambia
Date: 12 Oct 2000
Time: 04:30:44
The waiting is over. There is despair and disillusionment in some quarters.All that is not necessary.Lubosi Imwiko was next in line for the throne. We must guard against divisions in any form.Any acts that will bring our people into disrepute must be avoided, we have a reputation to protect.Reports of tear gassing villagers is most unfortunate.However let us put all that behind us and move forward. Fact:We have a bone to chew with Government. Fact:The Royal Establishment through Ilute Yeta IV wrote to Government on 1st February 1994 reminding them of our right to secede in view of their failure to honour the Barotse Agreement of 1964.
This is a prority for our people and must be pursued by the BRE in earnest. We have lost enough time as it is.However, if those opposed to this Agreement realise that we are divided particularly after the picking of a new Litunga, they will capitalise on those differences and ensure this issue is dead and buried.The choice is ours, to succeed or fail in our endeavour. Taba ki yeo.
Name: Inete
Country: Zambia
Date: 12 Oct 2000
Time: 03:03:27
The waiting is over.Emotions are high and there is disillusionment in some quarters. Do not despair, our worth will be judged by how we conduct ourselves in the aftermath of the choosing of Lubosi Imwiko as the new Litunga.Lets not act in a manner that will bring us as a people into disrepute. In my view we have moved one step closer to achieving our objective.What is the way forward? We must submit an all encompassing and all embracing agenda to the Royal Establishment which makes no mistake about the aspirations of the poeple of Barotseland.If we agree that democratic rule exists in the Royal Esatblishment then our views must be heard,I do not want to believe that the Litunga will block moves towards self determination as he is fully aware of the issue and also the people's stand.Forward.
Name: Mulozi
Country: Barosteland
Date: 11 Oct 2000
Time: 11:22:25
Malozi mucwani,am not seeing much progress but at least ni bo Aka 's document i seem to now undrestand that with such people we are moving.Malozi, we should realise kuli mubuso wo hauna tuso,we need to develop bulozi..The main problem we have is our fellow Lozi collegues,its not clear to them what the agreement is all about. Its vital that people are told what all this is heading to.BSC i have a question for you .
1.Could you kindly inform me whetherduring the signing of the agreement Barotseland had money in its reserves and if so where the money was diverted.
2. could i be informed of the boundary issue is copperbelt part of this or are we talking of western province?????
thanks for your time.
Name: Mukusi
Country:
Date: 08 Oct 2000
Time: 15:00:42
CORRECTION: I meant to say Ngenda and not Nganga
Name: Mukusi
Country: USA
Date: 08 Oct 2000
Time: 14:59:47
Bo Inete, I concur with you. There is a lot that needs to be done if this issue is to take off. I'll try to generate some ideas to that effect. I've had a series of talks with Imutakwandu Ilute Yeta IV before his demise on what can be done and how the BRE can make itself effective within Barotseland. Unfortunate, I've been robbed of that opportunity to fully express my ideas to Imutakwandu Ilute. We should lay the foundation in Barotse before pushing the issue further. I as far as I know the issue hasn't been taken to the ICJ....it was in the process but I guess with the passing away of lawyers like Kawanambulu and Nganga and now the Litunga, just threww everything off the course.
Name: Inete
Country: Zambia
Date: 07 Oct 2000
Time: 06:38:10
Bahesu, there is work to be done. I attended the discussion at Pamodzi Hotel on Thursday October 5, 2000, and learnt with dismay how we have been tossed about by Government on this issue since 1964.There is need to enlighten the public in general and the people of Barotseland in particular wherever they reside.The issue is very straight forward and has generated so much debate because most people do not understand the issue largely due to misinformation by Government.The heading of this discussion page is a case in point, secession CANNOT arise. Can someone confirm if this matter has been taken to the OAU, UN and the International Court of Justice.
Name: Mukusi
Country:
Date: 05 Oct 2000
Time: 19:03:56
U si ka lu tolela wena Kachepa
Name: yetuna
Country: Barotseland
Date: 05 Oct 2000
Time: 17:57:00
Rule number one, you don’t campaign to be the Litunga
Name: Kachepa
Country:
Date: 05 Oct 2000
Time: 12:48:22
VOTE Aka for Lozi President Lutunga!
Name: GM
Country: SA
Date: 04 Oct 2000
Time: 11:00:58
Hello, fascinating debate. I am an author looking at the region and would like to know how I can find out about the links between those who seek the implementation of the Barotseland agreement of 1964 and the Namibian Mfwe under Mishak Muyongo as well as perhaps with Mbundu people in the region?
Name: GM
Country: SA
Date: 04 Oct 2000
Time: 10:59:15
Hello, fascinating debate. I am an author looking at the region and would like to know how I can find out about the links between those who seek the implementation of the Barotseland agreement of 1964 and the Namibian Mfwe under Mishak Muyongo as well as perhaps with Mbundu people in the region?
Name: Barotse Cultural Association
Country: Barotseland
Date: 27 Sep 2000
Time: 07:13:14
MWANA-A-POHO YENSU, we are pleased that the efforts of BCA have boosted your pride. We now call upon you to take up the challenge in selling the cause of Barotseland. You appreciate that the Barotse have, since time immemorial, been masters of their destiny save for a brief period when they were conquered and ruled by the Kololo. They later re-established their sovereignty by overthrowing the Kololo.
During the colonial period the sovereignty of the Lozi Monarch was protected by the treaties that King Lewanika signed with the British Crown, a situation which should have been maintained by the Barotseland Agreement 1964. This Treaty has been treated with contempt which is an affront on the time tested integrity of the Barotse people.
Name: Barotse Cultural Association
Country: Barotseland
Date: 27 Sep 2000
Time: 07:10:28
MARY-LEE KIMBER, we respond to your query as follows;
First and foremost, the Barotse bid for self-rule does not amount to secession. This point was made very clear by Munga-a-munzi in his contribution of 4 February 2000 and was amplified by our first ever contribution of 23 June 2000. We advise you to read through these contributions as well as the Barotseland Agreement 1964 whose text was posted on this website by Munga-a-munzi on 21 May 2000. At the end of this tutorial, you will have learnt that the term SECESSION is a misnomer in as far as self-determination for Barotseland is concerned. However, at the risk of being a bore by repeating ourselves several times over, we emphasize this point;- “Since the Barotseland Agreement 1964 has been unilaterally terminated by the Government of Zambia, Barotseland IS NOT a part of Zambia”. Therefore, in setting itself up as a self governing state, Barotseland is not seceding from anything.
Secondly, the Lozi are a nation comprising 32 tribes. These tribes have different dialects, but non of them is less Lozi than the other. Therefore, the population of Barotseland is 100% Lozi. There are a few non Lozi residents who are government workers, contract workers or investors but their number is negligible.
Thirdly, you will appreciate that urbanization is a result of concentration of people around industrial activities. As a result of lost opportunities emanating from the dismemberment of Barotse structures whose authority was usurped by the incompetent Lusaka based central government, most of Barotseland is still rural area, even by African standards. We estimate the ratio of rural to urban population to be 9:1. The total population of Barotseland is about 2 million.
Lastly, we do not have accurate statistics of Barotse living outside the borders of Barotseland. However, we can safely state that they do not exceed 25% of the total population.
Name: Mary-Lee Kimber
Country: USA
Date: 18 Sep 2000
Time: 20:09:57
Hi, I am a student studying ethnic groups in Africa. I am intrigued by the Lozi's secessionist aims. I have a few questions. First, what percentage of the population of Barotseland is Lozi? Second, what percentage of Lozi live outside of Barotseland? By the way are the Lozi mostly an urban or rural group? Any help would be appreciated. Feel free to e-mail me at mekimber@hotmail.com. Thank you.
Name: Mwana A Poho Yensu
Country: USA
Date: 12 Sep 2000
Time: 20:17:54
BCA,You make me proud to be a lozi.....
Name: BCA
Country: Barotseland
Date: 12 Sep 2000
Time: 12:53:42
MULOZI, we appreciate your concern over the apparent standstill in our efforts. Your eagerness to know what is in the offing on the ground in terms of progress is also understood. However, you will definitely agree that a detailed account of these matters on this forum may not be in our best interests, as well as yours if you mean well. Every struggle has its ups and downs, but no people can be denied their rights for ever. We are confident of the future. You only need to pay a visit to Barotseland to appreciate the basis of our optimism.
Broadly speaking, the emancipation of Barotseland lies in the efforts of the people of the territory, in their individual and collective capacities. No one should sit back in the hope that there are chosen messiahs out there. The need for your direct participation in this regard requires no emphasis. You will not fail to make physical contact with us when you decide to.
Name: Mulozi
Country: Zed/ Attention BCA
Date: 07 Sep 2000
Time: 15:17:19
You see am one of the people who has stand for the agreementbut you guys can you please confirm to me what you are doing,you started fighting for the same thing from 91 until your Litunga betrayed you he was sold to the MMD by Sikota Wina,who has since been put right by the MMD.I want to know on what position you guys are with Govt now.You see talking doesnt make sense if thir is no action being taken.
Name: Barotse Cultural Association
Country: Barotseland
Date: 07 Sep 2000
Time: 10:05:54
HAMUNYARIHERE, we are not sure we understand your question. If you meant to find out how the Barotseland Agreement benefits Zambia then our answer is that it is intended to unify two territories. In the process of observing the provisions of the treaty the people of the territories will live together as one nation, sharing a common destiny and respecting each other’s rights and powers in the governance of the union state. However, if your question is intended to find out the benefits of what you term Greater Zambia in the event of Barotseland going its way the answer is simply that Zambia will cease to exist in its current form. Barotseland will re-establish itself as a separate state on account of the refusal by Zambian authorities to observe the provisions of the treaty that formed the state. The Zambian Government is in breach of this treaty and there can be no benefits from the consequences of failing to perform under a contract. We cannot force the Political Authority to honour the Agreement if they have made up their mind to ignore it. The only option available is to recognise that the treaty cant work, meaning that the intended unity can not be achieved.
NDINE, you are one of the many victims of the deliberate misinterpretation of the term ‘Culture’ by our political fathers. Please look it up in any standard English dictionary. The broad meaning of the word applies to the ‘totality of life’ of society. The definition of the word CULTURE is definitely not restricted to the SONG, DANCE and DRUM as politicians would have us believe. The culture of a people is the total sum of their customs ( including manner of dressing and ceremonies that you mentioned), their economic superstructure, technologies and the manner in which they govern themselves. In this respect BCA has a clear mandate to delve into any matter that affects the life of Barotse people. If we appear to be spending all our time on politics and governance on this forum it is because the theme and purpose of the debate is to establish the justification for Barotse Autonomy. Elsewhere we are engaged in other activities, in the same manner that you have other pursuits in addition to contributing to this forum. If you brought up a topic on the musisi and siziba dress, fishing methods, the kayowe dance or indeed the famous Kuomboka Ceremony you will not find us wanting.
Name: Hamunyarihere
Country: Zimbabwe
Date: 01 Sep 2000
Time: 08:29:43
Ladies and gentlemen of the BCA
To all of us in Central Africa we know of the common saying that goes, "To propose to an unwed mother, one must first cuddle the child". Thus the mother's decision depends on how the child figures into the new scheme of things.
Now how does the new dispensation benefit the greater Zambia?
Name: Fitz
Country: USA
Date: 26 Aug 2000
Time: 23:14:02
The idea that you cannot understand the Barotse Agreement without understanding its history is hardly controversial, even though many of us here, more like African politicians, appear to take history for granted. It is reasonable to expect that history will have determined the boundaries of the state and nation, moulded the fundamental shape of polity, shaped attitudes - positive or negative - to govt., created certain assumptions about the economy, including the of govt. in economic matters. So history is not merely an objective set of data to which y'all have equal access. The interpretation, and the manipulation, of a Barotseland's historical legacy is constantly being "revised" by the more superficial interpreters in the mass media and by govt. and politicians with particular political programmes to pursue. Be objective in your outlook....This ain't about tribalism or Lozi thing, but a genuine grievance, contesting facts laid before you.
Name: Ndine
Country:
Date: 25 Aug 2000
Time: 10:33:41
Barotse Cultural Association: As per name my expectation has always been that the BCA is supposed to be more concerned with Lozi cultural issues as opposed to political ones. Surprisingly the organisation seems to be silent on issues of promoting Lozi Musisi dresses and traditional dances/ceremonies. Almost 95% of its energy appears dedicated to a political agenda of governance. Could you BCA, therefore change your name accordingly to reflect what you stand for so as to avoid misleading the public.
Name: Barotse Cultural Association
Country: Barotseland
Date: 23 Aug 2000
Time: 16:48:51
We repeat, CHILANGO, that you should argue with facts and not personal theories. Please give us the names of chiefs who were deposed and hanged by the British colonial authorities within this area called Zambia.
We have not attempted to stop criticism of any institution including the Litunga. Criticism supported by facts or truth, as opposed to conjecture, will stand and may even be useful.
The opening sentence of your 19 Aug. contribution vindicates our earlier statement that when faced with hard evidence in support of the Barotse claims our opponents lapse into arguments which defy logic. If the Barotseland Agreement 1964 was shady then Zambia, its product, is also shady. Modern states are established by legal instruments and, whether you like it or not, the Unitary State of Zambia has no legal basis outside the Barotseland Agreement 1964. Rejection of this treaty effectively dissolves Zambia. You cannot run away from your past. Your history determines what you are.
Name: Jookootoo I
Country: Namibia
Date: 23 Aug 2000
Time: 16:39:06
Well, now what do the Barotland advocators want if not secession?
Name: kwahae
Country: Zed
Date: 21 Aug 2000
Time: 18:19:34
I totally agree with the B.C.A remarks,you see we people just want to argue in when we havent read.It is not true that the when Barotse was ruling itself only the chiefs children were taken to schools.To tell you My father whose not a member of the royal family got education scholarships from the royal establishment that even how he completed his education.Read the agreement and come up with reasons why the advocates of the agreement should stop. By the way its always funny that you always want to refer to the other chiefs,its only barotseland that had consetions with the british i dont know whether Chitimukulu and kazembeor chief monze,mpezeni had ever singed anything with the british.Look at bechwanaland read the history.its almost similar to the barotse issue infact to inlighten you guys the Lozis singed the agreement in the quest to toppal the white rule so that Zambia could be independent. Thanks a lot for your contributions.
Name:
Country:
Date: 21 Aug 2000
Time: 10:46:18
Chilango
I agree with you the Litunga was compromised. Haven't any of you people ever wondered how almost all Lewanika's children are holders of degrees from western countries. Was'nt their university places in exchange for the signing?. No wonder people like Aka are always crying for the agreement becos of its benefits to them a few Lozis.The majority of Lozis have nothing to benefit from it just like they did not benefit those old days.
Name: chilango
Country: zambia
Date: 19 Aug 2000
Time: 08:01:11
BAROTSE CULTURAL ASSOCIATION, Zambia will never go back to agreements that were shady from the start. If you insist on looking back then you should be prepared for critisim of how Litunga got the british to allow him to sign anything while the other paramount chiefs were not. I have a theory i think its because the Nyanja and bemba chiefs were $%# stubborn and did not yeild or compromise there sovereignity.Most were hanged or dethroned. So who's authority should the Modern day zambian respect? for the interest of fairness and national unity i suggest we should respect all of them. When all is said and done we must have a united zambia. I think all people in western province want that...just a few characters who feel they need positions.if you support a united zambia ...post this "one zambia one nation"
Name: Barotse Cultural Association
Country: Barotseland
Date: 17 Aug 2000
Time: 11:51:15
This debate will not be of any assistance for as long as those who claim to be nationalists ignore facts about Barotseland and the basic principles of amalgamation of nations. It is clear that the opponents of the Barotseland Agreement 1964 will continue to ignore its implications vis-à-vis the Unitary State of Zambia. This is so because when this matter is addressed honestly and impartially it becomes clear that Barotseland has a good case. Faced with this overwhelming evidence our opponents have only two options, i.e., to argue from without or simply keep quite in the fervent hope that the matter will die a natural death.
The Barotseland Agreement 1964 is now available on this web site. Those who care to read it will note that it is not about secession but unification. States which form bigger unions anywhere in this world do so through treaties of one form or another and they live by the provisions of those treaties. Failure by any of the parties to a unity treaty to honour their obligations will lead to a break up of their union.
The United States of America is a union of states which came together through an agreed arrangement and they live by that arrangement. All the states have their own state governments which deal with the day to day matters of state with the Federal Government handling national security, foreign affairs and the national economy. Similarly, the envisaged United States of Africa will not lead to the dissolution of the governments of the member states. Only certain functions of government dealing with how the union state relates to the outside world will be transferred to the central government and this central authority will be obligated to recognise and respect any entrenched provisions of the union treaty. Unification of states or federations are a preserve of civilised communities whose leaders are not petrified by the power of citizens to administer their local affairs.
The Barotseland Agreement 1964 is the foundation of the unitary state of Zambia. Before Zambia could be, the Barotseland Agreement 1964 had to be! It paved the way for the enactment of the Northern Rhodesia Independence Order of 21 October 1964 which in turn paved the way for the Zambia Independence Act of 23 October 1964. Without the Agreement the two subsequent legislation would have taken a different shape and there would have been no Zambia in the form we know it to day.
Yes HAMUNYARIHERE of Zimbabwe, you build a house by joining blocks but will your house stand if you later removed its foundation footings?
It is true CHILANGO of Zambia, that some chiefs didn’t sign any agreements. The question is, who stopped them? The British colonial authorities did not fight any chief in present day Zambia to obtain land as you have erroneously claimed. Some of the present chiefs were infact created by the colonialists. The colonialists did this after they realised the benefits of the Barotse system of government. The term ‘One Zambia One nation’ is a direct extract from the Barotseland Agreement 1964. Please read the last line of the third paragraph of the preamble. You can not insist on one Zambia if you reject the Agreement!
We are yet to see a sensible argument based on facts from our opponents.
Name: Hamunyarihere
Country: Zimbabwe
Date: 16 Aug 2000
Time: 08:20:35
Absolutely Not!
I am tired of successions, break ups, tribalism and wars. This foolishness will take a peaceful country like Zambia down the abyss of disaster like Sierra Leone, Somalia and Rwanda. The minor issues we may think can be solved by succession are trivial to the much bigger disasters that will arise as a result. Zambia draws its strength from the differences of its people. Extremes of one culture are alleviated by the presence of others. For example dowry amoung the Mashonas in Zimbabwe would have amounted to selling daughters had it not been the presence of the Ndebele's who do not value the practice. I am sure there many similar checks and balances in Zambia as well. Remember, no choir makes music with one voice. Every people in Zambia are building blocks, bricks that make a home. When we begin to split the house in sections it falls apart. Ultimately Zambia itself is a building block of Africa and she has played a very important role even sacrificing the lives of her own citizens for the liberation of others and for the greater good of Africa. If the Lozi wish to unite, it's not Zambia alone that will be sacrificed, but Zimbabwe, Angola, Botswana and parts of Namibia. So ladies and gentlemen lets think again.
Absolutely no sucession ! Hamunyarihere
Name: Jookooto I
Country: Namibia
Date: 08 Aug 2000
Time: 17:27:17
Barotseland in Zambia, Intenge in Namibia; seeking self-determination? What is wrong with these people? Should we now go back to pre-colonial boundaries or should we forge ahead with our current borders towards a united Africa? Even Europeans who started the current situation are heading to an EU why do ( some Lozi ) want to have a socalled independent homeland? Perhaps we Bantus should pack and leave to resettle around the Great Lakes as it is said we come from there. Stop crying and go ahead with the rest of the nations (Zambia and Namibia). If Lozis cannot develop within the current circumstances they will not do it in a socalled kingdom.
Name: chilango
Country: zambia
Date: 06 Aug 2000
Time: 07:00:20
By the way who is the new litunga? I hope its not that "Dr. aka" character because "akami lete lela"
Name: chilango
Country: zambia
Date: 06 Aug 2000
Time: 06:46:11
I totally agree that the western province is closed to other tribes. However I dont blame it all on the our Lozi country men and women. Because of the good intentions of the government allowing some autonomy to the area. it has resulted in a situation where outsiders are not well come( Unwritten rule....i think)since there are no fresh ideas the place is backwards. I think the 21th century solution to this problem is to abandon those shady agreements the government, colonial powers and the litunga made.the whole nation must forge a new path for itself under a "one zambia One nation model". I mean you cant expect someone who was born after independence( which in 10 yrs maybe 99% of the population...i hope not) to look to an agreement that did not involve all the major chiefs...i think that agreement will have 21st century credibility if it was signed by all the major chiefs of the republic.As it is i urge the 99% zambian population including the patrotic people of the western province and there cousins the intellectual tongas!! In the 21st century the answer to the barotseland issue is to forge a more united and better zambia.
Name: Ndine
Country:
Date: 05 Aug 2000
Time: 11:10:45
Mulozi.
I always fail to understand why most of you Lozis always want to blame Bembas for your own problems. Bembas have nothing to do with the under development of western province. I do not know your parameters for development but to say northern and luapula provinces are developed beats my mind.Its however true that Bembas are enterprising.
In case you did not know western province lags behind becos you Lozis still want to live they way you lived 100 yrs ago. Open up the place for other tribes and races to trade there and you will see the difference. Have you wondered why there are no indian shops in Kwahaya while the rest of the country have? All the shops are owned by Lozis who sell nothing but pameles. You cannot develop without outside investments.The ball is in your court. I hope the new Litunga will look forward and open up the area. It has nothing to do with Bembas. Its your own fault. Here is some english lozi for you. "Can't king kuyu high such rice"
Name: chilango
Country: zambia
Date: 04 Aug 2000
Time: 16:16:51
MUlozi, western province has lagged in development because zambia is having economic problems period. and for your own infomation i am not bemba.My point is clear there is only one zambia. As for what was signed....i dont care and i think any zambian today should not. They were many chiefs in Zambia before independence..who elevated some to sign agreements and others not? and why? i think those who were elevated to sign may have compromised with the colonialists....( thats my theory)..those who stood there ground and resisted them were not elevated to sign anything.barotseland should be a good cultural story of zambia.we must forge a new path under the "one zambia one nation " model it is in our best interest of all our people.
Name: mulozi
Country: Zambia
Date: 04 Aug 2000
Time: 11:10:44
Its a pitty we still have people who talk from without,if you dont know anything on Barotseland reserve your comments,we dont want secession what we want is our rights to the agreement to be fufilled.Western Province has lagged in development because you bembas have developed Nothern and Lwapula and the other provinces shanning Western and noth western provinces.
Thank you very much for your time.
Name: chilango
Country: zambia
Date: 30 Jul 2000
Time: 08:53:45
just because some chiefs made deals for alcohol and money with the colonial powers and others resisted where dethroned and executed.. does not give any one of the chiefs a special status in the republic of zambia. frankly i dont see why the government even considers the barotse issue....it belongs in our history books. we cannot return to being ruled by chiefs...life goes on. who cares about a document that was signed or not signed ....where all the chiefs in the republic given an opportunity to sign? if not why not ....is it because they were lesser chiefs? was kazembe or mpezeni not important?....ok one zambia one nation. twikatane bane
Name: chilango
Country: zambia
Date: 30 Jul 2000
Time: 08:38:13
i dont know why people keep talking about barotseland as if it still exists. there is only one zambia and it will continue to be so. there is no need to treat any tribe or group with a chief any more special than any other tribe.litunga is a chief like kazembe...these chiefs have a place in zambian cultural history.
Name: OMEI IMENDA
Country: ZAMBIA
Date: 24 Jul 2000
Time: 02:19:36
Thank very much for this very intresting web page and I assure you there will be more contributions from me and several of my friends.
For some time now,a number of my fellow Barotseland people and I have been discussing issues concerning 'BULOZI bwa luna' and we felt we needed a better way of sharing this information until I logged on to your page by coincidence.
Expect my contribution soon. Thanks.
Name: OMEI IMENDA
Country: ZAMBIA
Date: 24 Jul 2000
Time: 02:19:33
Thank very much for this very intresting web page and I assure you there will be more contributions from me and several of my friends.
For some time now,a number of my fellow Barotseland people and I have been discussing issues concerning 'BULOZI bwa luna' and we felt we needed a better way of sharing this information until I logged on to your page by coincidence.
Expect my contribution soon. Thanks.
Name: Ndine
Country:
Date: 13 Jul 2000
Time: 11:49:27
Condolences to all our Lozi friends on the loss of their traditional leader.
Is it possible for the Cultural Association to identify and limit itself to specific areas of discussions in the submission below. I believe not the whole text may be necessarry though it gives one background information. Very few may have the time to go through the whole document.
Name: Barotse Cultural Association
Country: Barotseland
Date: 23 Jun 2000
Time: 16:49:29
Until ‘munga-a-munzi’ made his well researched contribution last February the debate on the merits and demerits of the call for Barotse Self-Determination had been nothing but a fray of frogs. Such has been our experience in Zambia on this issue as the authorities had determined from the very beginning of our so called nationhood to trivialise, falsify and ostracize the issue of the Barotseland Agreement 1964 and Barotse autonomy within an independent Zambia. Using its monopoly hold on the tools of propaganda, and taking advantage of the naiveté of the Barotse authorities in having believed that the ‘nationalists’ who formed government after independence were men of honour, the Zambian government has, over the years, managed to reduce the matter of Barotseland to the level of a tribal conflict which projects the Lozi as being unaccomodating secessionists.
The fact that it is the Barotseland Agreement 1964 which created the Zambian nation out of two distinct territories (and states) is conveniently overlooked. These are the territories which, as at mid-night 23 October 1964, were comprised in the Barotseland and Northern Rhodesia protectorates. The fact that the cardinal point of this Agreement was that Barotseland would retain its regional government under the regulation of the Litunga-in-Council, and that the central government would not interfere in the day-to-day running of the affairs of Barotseland is conveniently forgotten. Indeed, the fact that Barotseland became a part of Zambia through this Agreement is a matter that is rarely given thought by the anti-Lozi segment of our society. The fact that the action by the government of Zambia to frustrate and finally terminate the Agreement makes Barotseland technically cease to be a part of Zambia is a matter that suprisingly escapes the attention of the so called ‘anti-secessionists’.
It is unnecessary to belabour the point that the question of SECESSION does not arise vis-à-vis the matter of Self-Determination for Barotseland. It is clear that Barotseland ceased to be a part of Zambia soon after independence, thanks to the misguided actions of the corrupt Zambian authorities!
All that the proponents of Barotse self rule are doing is simply to seek practical implementation of a situation that already exists on paper, i.e., the RESTORATION of Barotseland as an independent, democratic and self governing Monarch. The contribution by munga-a-munzi, though not exhaustive, did a lot to expose the pettiness, shallowness and ignorance of most self-appointed public commentators and opponents of Barotse Self-Determination.
We, however, want to deal with the follow up questions raised by KACHI who wants to know how the Agreement has been abrogated, the extent of Barotseland, the depth of infighting among the Lozi tribes and whether or not the proponents of Self-Determination have the blessings of the Litunga.
1. FRUSTRATION OF CONTRACT
An exhaustive demonstration of how the Agreement has been abrogated would require one to quote the entire text of the Agreement and then relate the provisions contained therein to the actual situation on the ground. However, such an approach would be lengthy and may not be appropriate for this forum.
We, therefore, have decided to deal with KACHI’s question on this matter by confining ourselves to the Article of the Agreement which deals with the governance of Barotseland. This is Article 4 and provides as follows ( emphasis by way of capital letters our own):
“4. The Litunga and his Council . . 2 The Litunga of Barotseland, acting after consultation with his Council as constituted for the time being under the customary law of Barotseland shall be the PRINCIPAL LOCAL AUTHORITY for the GOVERNMENT and ADMINISTRATION of Barotseland.
3 The Litunga of Barotseland, acting after consultation with his Council, shall be authorised and EMPOWERED TO MAKE LAWS for Barotseland in relation to the following matters, that is to say --
a) The Litungaship
b) The authority at present known as the Barotse Native Government (which shall hereafter be known as the BAROTSE GOVERNMENT)
c) Authorities at present known as the Barotse Native authorities
d) The courts at present known as the Barotse Native Courts
e) The status of Members of the Litunga’s Council
f) Matters related to LOCAL GOVERNMENT
g) LAND . . . n) The institution at present known as the BAROTSE NATIVE TREASURY . . q) LOCAL TAXATION and matters related thereto, and
r) Barotse local festivals.”
Those who are conversant with the Zambian government structure, both at local and central levels, know that Barotseland ( or Western Province as it was later unilaterally renamed by the Zambian government) has, since independence, never been administered as provided for in the foregoing Article. From the first day of independence the Zambian authorities set out to undermine Barotse institutions. Initially a Presidential appointee in the form of Resident Minister was stationed in Barotseland as political head of government administration. This was followed by shuffling of civil servants under the pretense of forging national unity in which Barotse nationals swapped places with their counterparts from other parts of Zambia. The non-Lozi civil servants had no loyalty to the system and were specifically detailed to systematically and progressively breakdown the system.
The second phase in the abrogation of the Agreement involved enactment of laws by the Parliament of Zambia which purported to scale down the powers of the Litunga, abolished the Litunga’s legislative council and effectively killed the District management system of Barotseland. Finally, the Barotse Treasury was forcefully incorporated into the national treasury and this crippled the Barotse Government. These laws are, inter-a-lia, the local government Acts of 1965 and 1966, the mines and mineral Act of 1969, the Constitutional Amendment Act of 1969 and the land Acts of 1970 and 1972.
The Constitutional Amendment Act of 1969, which purports to override the provisions of the Barotseland Agreement 1964, was passed in the aftermath of a national referendum in which the people of Barotseland entered a 69% ‘NO’ vote. Notwithstanding this fact, and inspite of the fact that the subject matter of the referendum had nothing to do with the Agreement, Government’s immediate action after the referendum was to pass this amendment which specifically targeted the Agreement. More importantly, the authorities ignored the fact that the Barotseland Agreement 1964 is a Treaty between two parties, i.e., the people of Barotseland as one party, and the Zambian Government as the other party. It is only logical, therefore, that any referendum which seeks to determine the future of Barotseland with respect to Zambia will have to be confined to the people of Barotseland only.
All legislation passed by government to achieve these sinister objectives is inconsistent with the Barotseland Agreement 1964 and, specifically, is in conflict with Article 8 which provides as follows;
8. Implementation. The Government of the Republic of Zambia shall take such steps as may be necessary to ensure that the laws for the time being in force in the Republic are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Agreement.
To this day the President of Zambia administers Barotseland directly through a Provincial Minister and Permanent Secretary, both of whom are appointed by the President and responsible to the President.
Without reference to all other provisions of the Agreement which have been tempered with, the foregoing should vividly explain how this noble treaty has been abrogated by one of the parties to it, namely, the Zambian Government.
The Barotseland Agreement 1964 cannot be subservient to the Parliament of Zambia, for it is the foundation and source of the Unitary State of Zambia. It has no amendment Clause and can only be altered by further agreements and treaties between the two parties to it. Failure or refusal by any of the parties to honour it merely frustrates the contract between them and discharges the aggrieved party from any obligations imposed on that party by the agreement. This position forms the underlining principle of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, to which Zambia is a signatory.
In a nutshell, it is the unilateral termination of the Barotseland Agreement 1964, by the Zambian Government, which justifies the call for, and gives legal force to, Self-Determination for Barotseland.
2. LAND MASS
The territory comprised in the Barotseland Protectorate, which is referred to by Article 125 of the Northern Rhodesia Independence Order 1964 in defining the boundaries of the proposed Republic of Zambia, is certainly larger than present day western province. Prior to independence, Barotseland existed as a self governing British Protectorate, within the Protectorate of Northern Rhodesia, and this fact is highlighted in the Order-in-Council of 1924, 1953 and 1963. The boundaries of Barotseland are also well documented. This is the territory that set out to join the territory comprised in the Northern Rhodesia Protectorate to form Zambia at Midnight on 23 October 1964. In the light of the unilateral termination of the Barotseland Agreement 1964 by the Zambian Government, this territory has technically reverted to its former status as a separate entity.
3. TRIBAL CONFLICTS
As munga-a-munzi says in his contribution Barotseland is a nation state comprising thirty-three tribes. The so called tribal conflict involves a chieftainency issue in the Kaoma District where there are eleven sub-chiefs under one Senior Chief. The eleven sub-chiefs preside over eleven different tribal groupings of this same District and only one sub-chief, under the influence and encouragement of some politicians within the circles of the central government, is causing the small commotion. Keen observers will have noted that this issue is given prominence by the government controlled media each time the matter of Barotseland is under serious debate within the country. The matter of contention here is that this sub-chief does not want to be under the Senior Chief, who has jurisdiction over the whole District of Kaoma.
It is important to note that the whole of Barotseland is traditionally governed in the same manner as Kaoma. In all Districts the inhabitant tribes elect their sub-chiefs who are called Silalo-Indunas (but have been given the title of “Chief” by government local administration system as seen on National Registration Cards). These Silalo-Indunas are then formally installed into their positions by the Litunga of Barotseland through the Kuta. However, the Litunga and Kuta administers the Districts through a Senior Chief who is appointed from the Barotse Royal family.
The case of Kaoma District is therefore not peculiar. There are Senior Chiefs in all Districts of Barotseland who preside over a number of Lilalos headed by various traditional rulers under the title of Silalo-Induna or ‘Chief’ as has become fashionable under the Zambian management system. It should be noted that there is no Lozi who reflects the name of a Senior Chief on their National Registration Card in defining their area of origin. They instead reflect the title of their Silalo-Induna under the column of ‘chief’ on the NRC. The titles of current District Senior Chiefs, namely Inyambo (Sesheke), Lukama (Senanga), Mboanjikana (Kalabo), Imwiko(Lukulu), Inete (Mongu) and Amukena (Kaoma) do not feature on NRCs because these are not tribal leaders. They represent the central and national authority of the Litunga and Council of Barotseland at District level. They are appointed by this central authority and serve under the administrative control of the Ngambela (Prime Minister) of Barotseland. The misuse of the term ‘Chief’ with respect to Barotseland and its undesirable consequences is just one example of the folly of Government’s attempts to reduce the Barotse Administration system to the level of those obtaining elsewhere in the country.
It should be clear, therefore, that the ‘conflict’ in Kaoma is without foundation and only persists because it is fueled by powerful external political forces.
4. LITUNGA’S BLESSINGS
Under the government system and customary law of Barotseland the Litunga is an all embracing and non-partisan institution. The personage of the Litunga does not issue decrees, promulgate laws or take any position on public affairs which has not been processed through the relevant institutions of Barotseland from the village level up to the National Council. Further more, the Litunga does not fight his own wars.
In its preamble the Barotseland Agreement 1964 gives the identity of the contracting parties as follows:
“.....KENNETH DAVID KAUNDA, Prime Minister of Northern Rhodesia on BEHALF of the Government of Northern Rhodesia of the one part, and SIR MWANAWINA LEWANIKA III, Litunga of Barotseland, ACTING on HIS own behalf, his HEIRS and SUCCESSORS, his COUNCIL, and the CHIEFS and PEOPLE of Barotseland of the other part......”
At this point it is important to note that the Zambian Government is the successor authority to the Government of Northern Rhodesia. Meanwhile, the definition of the contracting party on the Barotse side does not only reflect the depth of consultation that has to take place on issues involving the well being of Barotseland, but also reflects the incontestable right of the people of Barotseland, in their individual and collective capacity, to influence events, decision making and action in relation to matters affecting the Barotseland Agreement 1964. Any citizen and institution within Barotseland has direct claim and can take issue with this matter, but it is also clear that the final outward action of the Barotse nation shall come through its institutions, whose hierarchy is well defined.
With respect to political and policy direction of Barotseland, the peoples’ voice is the Litunga’s voice. It is precisely for this reason that the legislative and policy making institution of Barotseland is, as reflected in the Agreement, defined as the ‘Litunga and his Council’. The Council in this respect is a body of elected representatives, which at independence in 1964 comprised 45 members. Out of this number 25 members were representatives of political parties who were elected by direct universal suffrage, while the other 20 were nominated from among the various traditional institutions of Barotseland. The Litunga ratifies the decisions of this body, which are then implemented by the Executive headed by the Ngambela.
From the foregoing exposition it is clear that the people of Barotseland, through their elected representatives, control and manage the affairs of state. In the absence of the National Council, as currently obtains, the people have to go through the laborious process of mass mobilisation and political action to get to a focused objective. At the end of that process, Barotseland will have spoken and, accordingly, the Litunga will have spoken.
The foregoing process has been in progress since 1993 through a series of meetings of representatives of District Kutas and organised groups of the Barotse people in urban areas and the diaspora. On 3 and 4 November 1995, a much bigger meeting called ‘Pizo” was summoned by the Ngambela to consider, among many issues, the current impasse over the termination of the Barotseland Agreement 1964. With respect to this matter the Pizo resolved as follows:
“....if the Government of Zambia continues to be obstinate on the matter of the Barotseland Agreement 1964, the people of Barotseland shall have the right to revert to the position obtaining prior to the signing of the Agreement and seek Self-Determination...”
The resolutions of the Pizo were ratified and released for public information by the office of the Ngambela. Pursuant to these resolutions the Ngambela, through a written petition of March and April 1997, notified the U.N Security Council, the Commonwealth Secretariat and the Organisation of African Unity of the looming problem in Zambia over the matter of the Barotseland Agreement.
To answer KACHI’s question on whether or not the actions of the campaigners for the Self-Determination of Barotseland have the blessing of Barotse authorities, we can safely state, without any hesitation, that these patriotic sons and daughters of Barotseland are not only acting in line with the policy of the Barotse leadership but are also exercising their inalienable rights as conferred on them by various international conventions on human and peoples’ rights.
Name: Munga Munzi
Country: Barotseland
Date: 13 Jun 2000
Time: 09:49:51
Please accept my apologies for errors on REVOCATION of the agreement in my earlier submission of the Barotseland Agreement 1964 text . Find below the correct version.
THE BAROTSELAND AGREEMENT 1964
Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations by Command of Her Majesty May 1964
Cmnd. 2366
THE BAROTSELAND AGREEMENT 1964
Following talks in London between the British Government, the Government of Northern Rhodesia and The Litunga of Barotseland, an Agreement regarding the position of Barotseland within independent Northern Rhodesia was concluded at the Commonwealth Relations Office on 18th May, 1964. It is entitled “The Barotseland Agreement 1964”. It was signed by Dr. K. D. Kaunda, Prime Minister of Northern Rhodesia, by Sir Mwanawina Lewanika III, K.B.E., Litunga of Barotseland, and by the Right Honourable Duncan Sandys, M.P., Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies, signifying the approval of Her Majesty’s Government. The Prime Minister of Northern Rhodesia undertook, on behalf of his Government, that the Agreement would be reaffirmed by the Government of Northern Rhodesia at independence. The text of the Agreement is attached as the Appendix to this Paper.
19th May, 1964.
APPENDIX
THE BAROTSELAND AGREEMENT 1964
This Agreement is made this eighteenth day of May, 1964 between KENNETH DAVID KAUNDA, Prime Minister of Northern Rhodesia, on behalf of the Government of Northern Rhodesia of the one part and SIR MWANAWINA LEWANIKA THE THIRD, K.B.E., Litunga of Barotseland, acting on behalf of himself, his heirs and successors, his Council, and the chiefs and people of Barotseland of the other part and is signed by the Right Honourable DUNCAN SANDYS, M.P., Her Majesty’s Principal Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies, to signify the approval of Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom of the arrangements entered into between the parties to this Agreement and recorded therein:
Whereas it is proposed that Northern Rhodesia shall become an independent sovereign Republic to be known as the Republic of Zambia:
And whereas it is the wish of the Government of Northern Rhodesia and of the Litunga of Barotseland, his Council and the chiefs and people of Barotseland that Northern Rhodesia should proceed to independence as one country and that all its peoples should be one nation:
And whreas, having regard to the fact that all treaties and other agreements subsisting between Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Litunga of Barotseland will terminate when Northern Rhodesia becomes an independent sovereign republic and Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom will thereupon cease to have any responsibility for the government of Northern Rhodesia, including Barotseland, it is the wish of the Government of Northern Rhodesia and of the Litunga of Barotseland to enter into arrangements concerning the position of Barotseland as part of the Republic of Zambia to take the place of the treaties and other agreements hitherto subsisting between Her Majesty the Queen and the Litunga of Barotseland:
And whreas on the sixteenth day of April, 1964 a provisional agreement was concluded at Lusaka with this purpose and it is the desire of the Government of Northern Rhodesia and the Litunga, acting after consultation with his Council, to conclude a permanent agreement with this purpose: NOW THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH and it is hereby agreed between the said Kenneth David Kaunda, Prime Minister of Northern Rhodesia, on behalf of the Government of Northern Rhodesia and the said Sir Mwanawina Lewanika the Third, K.B.E., Litunga of Barotseland on behalf of himself, his heirs and successors, his Council and the chiefs and people of Barotseland as follows:-
1. CITATION AND COMMENCEMENT - This Agreement may be cited as the Barotseland Agreement 1964 and shall come into force on the day on which Northern Rhodesia, including Barotseland, becomes the independent sovereign Republic of Zambia.
2. THE CONSTITUTION OF ZAMBIA - The Constitution of the Republic of Zambia shall include the provisions agreed upon for inclusion therein at the Constitutional Conference held in London in May, 1964 relating to:- (a) the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms of the individual; (b) the judiciary; and (c) the public service. and these provisions shall have full force and effect in Barotseland.
3. ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE - (1) Subject to the provisions of this Agreement, the people of Barotseland shall be accorded the same rights of access to the High Court of the Republic of Zambia as are accorded to other citizens of the Republic under the laws for the time being in force in the Republic and a judge or judges of the High Court selected from among the judges who normally sit in Lusaka shall regularly proceed on circuit in Barotseland at such intervals as the due administration of justice may require.
(2) The people of Barotseland shall be accorded the same rights of appeal from decisions of the courts of the Republic of Zambia as are accorded to other citizens of the Republic under the laws for the time being in force in the Republic.
4. THE LITUNGA AND HIS COUNCIL - (1) The Government of the Republic of Zambia will accord recognition as such to the person who is for the time being the Litunga of Barotseland under the customary law of Barotseland.
(2) The Litunga of Barotseland, acting after consultation with his Council as constituted for the time being under the customary law of Barotseland shall be the principal local authority for the government and administration of Barotseland.
(3) The Litunga of Barotseland, acting after consultation with his Council, shall be authorised and empowered to make laws for Barotseland in relation to the following matters, that is to say:- (a) the Litungaship ; (b) the authority at present known as the Barotse Native Government (which shall hereafter be known as the Barotse Government) ; (c) the authorities at present known as Barotse Native Authorities ; (d) the courts at present known as Barotse Native Courts ; (e) the status of members of the Litunga’s Council ; (f) matters relating to local government; (g) land ; (h) forests ; (i) traditional and customary matters relating to Barotseland alone ; (j) fishing ; (k) control of hunting ; (l) game preservation ; (m) control of bush fires ; (n) the institution at present known as the Barotse Native Treasury ; (o) the supply of beer ; (p) reservation of trees for canoes ; (q) local taxation and matters relating thereto; and (r) Barotse local festivals.
5. LAND - (1) In relation to land in Barotseland the arrangements set out in the annex hereto shall have effect.
(2) In particular, the Litunga of Barotseland and his Council shall continue to have the powers hitherto enjoyed by them in respect of land matters under customary law and practice.
(3) The courts at present known as the Barotse Native Courts shall have original jurisdiction (to the exclusion of any other court in the Republic of Zambia) in respect of matters concerning rights over or interests in land in Barotseland to the extent that those matters are governed by the customary law of Barotseland: Provided that nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as limiting the jurisdiction and powers of the High Court of the Republic of Zambia in relation to writs or orders of the kind at present known as prerogative w
Name: Munga Munzi
Country: Barotseland
Date: 13 Jun 2000
Time: 09:43:55
Please accept my apologies for errors on REVOCATION of the agreement in my earlier submission of the Barotseland Agreement 1964 text . Find below the correct version.
THE BAROTSELAND AGREEMENT 1964
Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations by Command of Her Majesty May 1964
Cmnd. 2366
THE BAROTSELAND AGREEMENT 1964
Following talks in London between the British Government, the Government of Northern Rhodesia and The Litunga of Barotseland, an Agreement regarding the position of Barotseland within independent Northern Rhodesia was concluded at the Commonwealth Relations Office on 18th May, 1964. It is entitled “The Barotseland Agreement 1964”. It was signed by Dr. K. D. Kaunda, Prime Minister of Northern Rhodesia, by Sir Mwanawina Lewanika III, K.B.E., Litunga of Barotseland, and by the Right Honourable Duncan Sandys, M.P., Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies, signifying the approval of Her Majesty’s Government. The Prime Minister of Northern Rhodesia undertook, on behalf of his Government, that the Agreement would be reaffirmed by the Government of Northern Rhodesia at independence. The text of the Agreement is attached as the Appendix to this Paper.
19th May, 1964.
APPENDIX
THE BAROTSELAND AGREEMENT 1964
This Agreement is made this eighteenth day of May, 1964 between KENNETH DAVID KAUNDA, Prime Minister of Northern Rhodesia, on behalf of the Government of Northern Rhodesia of the one part and SIR MWANAWINA LEWANIKA THE THIRD, K.B.E., Litunga of Barotseland, acting on behalf of himself, his heirs and successors, his Council, and the chiefs and people of Barotseland of the other part and is signed by the Right Honourable DUNCAN SANDYS, M.P., Her Majesty’s Principal Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies, to signify the approval of Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom of the arrangements entered into between the parties to this Agreement and recorded therein:
Whereas it is proposed that Northern Rhodesia shall become an independent sovereign Republic to be known as the Republic of Zambia:
And whereas it is the wish of the Government of Northern Rhodesia and of the Litunga of Barotseland, his Council and the chiefs and people of Barotseland that Northern Rhodesia should proceed to independence as one country and that all its peoples should be one nation:
And whreas, having regard to the fact that all treaties and other agreements subsisting between Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Litunga of Barotseland will terminate when Northern Rhodesia becomes an independent sovereign republic and Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom will thereupon cease to have any responsibility for the government of Northern Rhodesia, including Barotseland, it is the wish of the Government of Northern Rhodesia and of the Litunga of Barotseland to enter into arrangements concerning the position of Barotseland as part of the Republic of Zambia to take the place of the treaties and other agreements hitherto subsisting between Her Majesty the Queen and the Litunga of Barotseland:
And whreas on the sixteenth day of April, 1964 a provisional agreement was concluded at Lusaka with this purpose and it is the desire of the Government of Northern Rhodesia and the Litunga, acting after consultation with his Council, to conclude a permanent agreement with this purpose: NOW THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH and it is hereby agreed between the said Kenneth David Kaunda, Prime Minister of Northern Rhodesia, on behalf of the Government of Northern Rhodesia and the said Sir Mwanawina Lewanika the Third, K.B.E., Litunga of Barotseland on behalf of himself, his heirs and successors, his Council and the chiefs and people of Barotseland as follows:-
1. CITATION AND COMMENCEMENT - This Agreement may be cited as the Barotseland Agreement 1964 and shall come into force on the day on which Northern Rhodesia, including Barotseland, becomes the independent sovereign Republic of Zambia.
2. THE CONSTITUTION OF ZAMBIA - The Constitution of the Republic of Zambia shall include the provisions agreed upon for inclusion therein at the Constitutional Conference held in London in May, 1964 relating to:- (a) the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms of the individual; (b) the judiciary; and (c) the public service. and these provisions shall have full force and effect in Barotseland.
3. ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE - (1) Subject to the provisions of this Agreement, the people of Barotseland shall be accorded the same rights of access to the High Court of the Republic of Zambia as are accorded to other citizens of the Republic under the laws for the time being in force in the Republic and a judge or judges of the High Court selected from among the judges who normally sit in Lusaka shall regularly proceed on circuit in Barotseland at such intervals as the due administration of justice may require.
(2) The people of Barotseland shall be accorded the same rights of appeal from decisions of the courts of the Republic of Zambia as are accorded to other citizens of the Republic under the laws for the time being in force in the Republic.
4. THE LITUNGA AND HIS COUNCIL - (1) The Government of the Republic of Zambia will accord recognition as such to the person who is for the time being the Litunga of Barotseland under the customary law of Barotseland.
(2) The Litunga of Barotseland, acting after consultation with his Council as constituted for the time being under the customary law of Barotseland shall be the principal local authority for the government and administration of Barotseland.
(3) The Litunga of Barotseland, acting after consultation with his Council, shall be authorised and empowered to make laws for Barotseland in relation to the following matters, that is to say:- (a) the Litungaship ; (b) the authority at present known as the Barotse Native Government (which shall hereafter be known as the Barotse Government) ; (c) the authorities at present known as Barotse Native Authorities ; (d) the courts at present known as Barotse Native Courts ; (e) the status of members of the Litunga’s Council ; (f) matters relating to local government; (g) land ; (h) forests ; (i) traditional and customary matters relating to Barotseland alone ; (j) fishing ; (k) control of hunting ; (l) game preservation ; (m) control of bush fires ; (n) the institution at present known as the Barotse Native Treasury ; (o) the supply of beer ; (p) reservation of trees for canoes ; (q) local taxation and matters relating thereto; and (r) Barotse local festivals.
5. LAND - (1) In relation to land in Barotseland the arrangements set out in the annex hereto shall have effect.
(2) In particular, the Litunga of Barotseland and his Council shall continue to have the powers hitherto enjoyed by them in respect of land matters under customary law and practice.
(3) The courts at present known as the Barotse Native Courts shall have original jurisdiction (to the exclusion of any other court in the Republic of Zambia) in respect of matters concerning rights over or interests in land in Barotseland to the extent that those matters are governed by the customary law of Barotseland: Provided that nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as limiting the jurisdiction and powers of the High Court of the Republic of Zambia in relation to writs or orders of the kind at present known as prerogative writs or orders.
(4) Save with the leave of the court at present known as the Saa-Sikalo Kuta, no appeal shall lie from any decision of the courts at present known as the Barotse Native Courts given in exercise of the jurisdiction referred to in paragraph (3) of this article to the High Court of the Republic of Zambia.
6. CIVIL SERVANTS - All public officers of the Government of the Republic of Zambia who may from time to time be stationed in Barotseland shall be officers serving on permanent and pensionable terms.
7. FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY - The Government of the Republic of Zambia shall have the same general responsibility for providing financial support for the administration and economic development of Barotseland as it has for other parts of the Republic and shall ensure that in discharge of this responsibility, Barotseland is treated fairly and equitably in relation to other parts of the Republic.
8. IMPLEMENTATION - The Government of the Republic of Zambia shall take such steps as may be necessary to ensure that the laws for the time being in force in the Republic are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Agreement.
9. INTERPRETATION - Any question concerning the interpretation of this Agreement may be referred by the Government of the Republic of Zambia to the High Court of the Republic for consideration (in which case the opinion thereon of the Court shall be communicated to that Government and to the Litunga of Barotseland and his Council) and any such question shall be so referred if the Litunga, acting after consultation with his Council, so requests.
10. REVOCATION - The hereinbefore-recited Agreement of the sixteenth day of April, 1964 is hereby revoked.
(Signed) K. D. KAUNDA Prime Minister of Northern Rhodesia
(Signed) MWANAWINA LEWANIKA III Litunga of Barotseland
(Signed) DUNCAN SANDYS Her Majesty’s Principal Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies
In witness whereof the parties hereto have hereunto set their hands in the presence of:-
(Signed) E. D. Hone Governor of Northern Rhodesia (Signed) IMENDA SIBANDI Ngambela of Barotseland
Signed by the Right Honourable Duncan Sandys in the presence of:-
(Signed) RICHARD HORNBY Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies
ANNEX TO THIS AGREEMENT
1. The Litunga and National Council of Barotseland have always worked in close co-operation with the Central Government over land matters in the past, have agreed that the Central Government should use land required for public purposes, and have adopted the same procedures as apply to leases and rights of occupancy in the Reserves and Trust Land areas, where applicable. At the same time, the administration of land rights in Barotseland under customary law and practice has been under the control of the Litunga and National Council in much the same way as customary land rights are dealt with in the Reserves and Trust Land areas.
2. In these circumstances it is agreed that the Litunga should continue to have the greatest measure of responsibility for administering land matters in Barotseland. It is however necessary to examine the position of land in Barotseland against the background of the Northern Rhodesia Government’s overall responsibility for the territory.
3. The Barotse memorandum has indicated that Barotseland should become an integral part of Northern Rhodesia. In these circumstances the Northern Rhodesia Government will assume certain responsibilities and to carry out these out they will have to have certain powers. So far as land is concerned, apart from confirmation of wide powers to the Litunga over customary matters, the position is as follows:- (1) The Northern Rhodesia Government does not wish to derogate from any of the powers exercised by the Litunga and Council in respect of land matters under customary law and practice.
(2) The Northern Rhodesia G
Name: Munga Munzi
Country: Barotseland
Date: 21 May 2000
Time: 13:21:36
Every Barotse citizen should realise that only Jesus son of the living god can solve the Barotseland problem, no one else can and I repeat no one else, no amount of human wisdom alone can help. Who would have imagined that the ill-treated majority in South Africa were one day going to be liberated against the then heavily armed South African apatheid government, this is a testimony that once again Jesus defeated the agents of darkness. I love you all and greet you in the name of our lord Jesus, Amen.
Please find below a prayer for Barotseland. I would like to urge every genuine christian to see the truth (which is the identity of god) rather than lies (the identity of Satan) to the Barotseland issue.
I would also like to urge every Barotse person to have this prayer at least once everyday.
Also find below a text of the "Barotseland Agreement 1964" itself.
THE PRAYER
Oh ye lord hear our prayer! We are in captivity. Our captors are coming. They are thirsty for our blood. They want to fill their prisons with our souls. They have made and passed laws which make it treasonable for us to speak about ourselves and our back- ground to speak about the agreement we voluntarily entered with them, and to speak about our suffering!
Oh Lord hear our prayer! Here they come: they are the judges, the jury, the prosecutors all in one dear lord, whilst we are the accused and condem- ned.
Here they come dear lord: They are the Commanders In-Chief of the Armed forces whilst we are the Commanders In-Chief of the disarmed forces.
Here they come dear lord: Oh Lord hear our prayer! When we speak their language, It is nationalism! But when we speak our language, then and only then does it become tribalism.
Our children cannot go to their schools:Not that they have failed to pass the exams (on empty stomaches), but that our parents have failed to raise their exorbitant school fees and pocket money. The schools built for us are full of (Manyukunyuku ) foreigners’ children who have to travel hundreds and hundreds of kilometres from their homes unto our fatherland.
Hear our prayers Ye Lord! Most, if not all heads of departments are our captors who are sent to rule over us.
Hear our prayer ye Oh lord! We are not allowed to pray and praise you without their supervision, as though they have been given the monopoly of your name and your wisdom. We have even started singing and praising you in their language.
Even the little which is sent for the welfare of our churches is diverted to quench their selfish motives Oh Lord: They will never let us praise you on our own dear Lord. For we are their source of income through our offerings Heavenly Father.
We are mostly promoted to Junior Ministers when we insult our parents and dishonour them! and we lose the posts after a job well done.
WE are promoted to managerial positions only when they know that the company will be liquidated!
We are sent to second class diplomatic missions, only when it is confirmed that the mission will be closed! Our chiefs are threatened with arrests, such that we have to beat war drums, others are threatened with treasonable charges for expressing their political views.
We can not go to their hospitals when we are sick because we cannot afford their medical fees.
We are loitering and littering the streets and offices of our captors with application letters for employment. These letters find their way in dustbins!
Oh Lord our Heavenly Father, it is you who said to moses in Leviticus 6:2 - 6 that if a person sins and acts unfaithfully against the lord by deceiving his neighbour about something entrusted to him or left in his care. Or If he cheats him, or if he swears falsely: (About the Agreement ) a. He must return what was entrusted to him: or whatever it was he swore falsely about b. He must make restitution , restoration or reinstatement in full, add a fifth in value to it, and give it all to the owner on the day he presents his quilty offering etc.
Sadly Dear Lord, this type of wisdom had been conspicuously missing in Chiluba’s Christian Nation. It appears that any Bible bearing the above text (Leviticus 6:2 - 6) is not regarded as a Holy Bible, but a secessionist and seditious publication Heavenly Father! What hypocrisy!
The restitution of the nation of Barotseland is inevitable Dear Lord for it was your creation Heavenly Father.
If Shalom is desired, our birthright and liberties must be upheld. The struggle for the restoration is neither punishment on one hand nor rebellion on the other. If it is your desire like you did on the nation of Israel, let it be as has always been.
The list is endless Oh Lord! But at the end of it all. God helps those who help themselves.
So come oh ye people of Barotseland and fight for your Father land.
AMEN!
"... And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." John 8: 32
THE BAROTSELAND AGREEMENT 1964
Following talks in London between the British Government, the Government of Northern Rhodesia and The Litunga of Barotseland, an Agreement regarding the position of Barotseland within independent Northern Rhodesia was concluded at the Commonwealth Relations Office on 18th May, 1964. It is entitled “The Barotseland Agreement 1964”. It was signed by Dr. K. D. Kaunda, Prime Minister of Northern Rhodesia, by Sir Mwanawina Lewanika III, K.B.E., Litunga of Barotseland, and by the Right Honourable Duncan Sandys, M.P., Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies, signifying the approval of Her Majesty’s Government. The Prime Minister of Northern Rhodesia undertook, on behalf of his Government, that the Agreement would be reaffirmed by the Government of Northern Rhodesia at independence. The text of the Agreement is attached as the Appendix to this Paper.
19th May, 1964.
APPENDIX
THE BAROTSELAND AGREEMENT 1964
This Agreement is made this eighteenth day of May, 1964 between KENNETH DAVID KAUNDA, Prime Minister of Northern Rhodesia, on behalf of the Government of Northern Rhodesia of the one part and SIR MWANAWINA LEWANIKA THE THIRD, K.B.E., Litunga of Barotseland, acting on behalf of himself, his heirs and successors, his Council, and the chiefs and people of Barotseland of the other part and is signed by the Right Honourable DUNCAN SANDYS, M.P., Her Majesty’s Principal Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies, to signify the approval of Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom of the arrangements entered into between the parties to this Agreement and recorded therein:
Whereas it is proposed that Northern Rhodesia shall become an independent sovereign Republic to be known as the Republic of Zambia:
And whereas it is the wish of the Government of Northern Rhodesia and of the Litunga of Barotseland, his Council and the chiefs and people of Barotseland that Northern Rhodesia should proceed to independence as one country and that all its peoples should be one nation:
And whreas, having regard to the fact that all treaties and other agreements subsisting between Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Litunga of Barotseland will terminate when Northern Rhodesia becomes an independent sovereign republic and Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom will thereupon cease to have any responsibility for the government of Northern Rhodesia, including Barotseland, it is the wish of the Government of Northern Rhodesia and of the Litunga of Barotseland to enter into arrangements concerning the position of Barotseland as part of the Republic of Zambia to take the place of the treaties and other agreements hitherto subsisting between Her Majesty the Queen and the Litunga of Barotseland:
And whreas on the sixteenth day of April, 1964 a provisional agreement was concluded at Lusaka with this purpose and it is the desire of the Government of Northern Rhodesia and the Litunga, acting after consultation with his Council, to conclude a permanent agreement with this purpose: NOW THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH and it is hereby agreed between the said Kenneth David Kaunda, Prime Minister of Northern Rhodesia, on behalf of the Government of Northern Rhodesia and the said Sir Mwanawina Lewanika the Third, K.B.E., Litunga of Barotseland on behalf of himself, his heirs and successors, his Council and the chiefs and people of Barotseland as follows:-
1. Citation and commencement This Agreement may be cited as the Barotseland Agreement 1964 and shall come into force on the day on which Northern Rhodesia, including Barotseland, becomes the independent sovereign Republic of Zambia.
2. The Constitution of Zambia The Constitution of the Republic of Zambia shall include the provisions agreed upon for inclusion therein at the Constitutional Conference held in London in May, 1964 relating to:- (a) the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms of the individual; (b) the judiciary; and (c) the public service. and these provisions shall have full force and effect in Barotseland.
3. Administration of justice (1) Subject to the provisions of this Agreement, the people of Barotseland shall be accorded the same rights of access to the High Court of the Republic of Zambia as are accorded to other citizens of the Republic under the laws for the time being in force in the Republic and a judge or judges of the High Court selected from among the judges who normally sit in Lusaka shall regularly proceed on circuit in Barotseland at such intervals as the due administration of justice may require.
(2) The people of Barotseland shall be accorded the same rights of appeal from decisions of the courts of the Republic of Zambia as are accorded to other citizens of the Republic under the laws for the time being in force in the Republic.
4. The Litunga and his Council (1) The Government of the Republic of Zambia will accord recognition as such to the person who is for the time being the Litunga of Barotseland under the customary law of Barotseland.
(2) The Litunga of Barotseland, acting after consultation with his Council as constituted for the time being under the customary law of Barotseland shall be the principal local authority for the government and administration of Barotseland.
(3) The Litunga of Barotseland, acting after consultation with his Council, shall be authorised and empowered to make laws for Barotseland in relation to the following matters, that is to say:- (a) the Litungaship ; (b) the authority at present known as the Barotse Native Government (which shall hereafter be known as the Barotse Government); (c) the authorities at present known as Barotse Native Authorities ; (d) the courts at present known as Barotse Native Courts ; (e) the status of members of the Litunga’s Council ; (f) matters relating to local government; (g) land ; (h) forests ; (i) traditional and customary matters relating to Barotseland alone ; (j) fishing ; (k) control of hunting ; (l) game preservation ; (m) control of bush fires ; (n) the institution at present known as the Barotse Native Treasury ; (o) the supply of beer ; (p) reservation of trees for canoes ; (q) local taxation and matters relating thereto; and (r) Barotse local festivals.
5. Land (1) In relation to land in Barotseland the arrangements set out in the annex hereto shall have effect.
(2) In particular, the Litunga of Barotseland and his Council shall continue to have the powers hitherto enjoyed by them in respect of land matters under customary law and practice.
(3) The courts at present known as the Barotse Native Courts shall have original jurisdiction (to the exclusion of any other court in the Republic of Zambia) in respect of matters concerning rights over or interests in land in Barotseland to the extent that those matters are governed by the customary law of Barotseland: Provided that nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as limiting the jurisdiction and powers of the High Court of the Republic of Zambia in relation to writs or orders of the kind at present known as prerogative writs or orders.
(4) Save with the leave of the court at present known as the Saa-Sikalo Kuta, no appeal shall lie from any decision of the courts at present known as the Barotse Native Courts given in exercise of the jurisdiction referred to in paragraph (3) of this article to the High Court of the Republic of Zambia.
6. Civil Servants All public officers of the Government of the Republic of Zambia who may from time to time be stationed in Barotseland shall be officers serving on permanent and pensionable terms.
7. Financial responsibility The Government of the Republic of Zambia shall have the same general responsibility for providing financial support for the administration and economic development of Barotseland as it has for other parts of the Republic and shall ensure that in discharge of this responsibility, Barotseland is treated fairly and equitably in relation to other parts of the Republic.
8. Implementation The Government of the Republic of Zambia shall take such steps as may be necessary to ensure that the laws for the time being in force in the Republic are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Agreement.
9. Interpretation Any question concerning the interpretation of this Agreement may be referred by the Government of the Republic of Zambia to the High Court of the Republic for consideration (in which case the opinion thereon of the Court shall be communicated to that Government and to the Litunga of Barotseland and his Council) and any such question shall be so referred if the Litunga, acting after consultation with his Council, so requests.
10. Revocation The hereinbefore-recited Agreement of the sixteenth day of April, 1964 is hereby revoked. In witness whereof (Signed) the parties hereto K. D. KAUNDA have hereunto set Prime Minister of their hands in the Northern Rhodesia presence of:- (Signed) E. D. (Signed) Hone Governor MWANAWINA of Northern LEWANIKA III Rhodesia Litunga of Barotseland (Signed) IMENDA SIBANDI Ngambela of Barotseland Signed by the Right Honourable Duncan Sandys in the presence of:- (Signed) RICHARD (Signed) HORNBY Parliamentary DUNCAN SANDYS Under Secretary of Her Majesty’s State for Commonwealth Principal Relations and for the colonies Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the colonies
ANNEX TO THIS AGREEMENT
1. The Litunga and National Council of Barotseland have always worked in close co-operation with the Central Government over land matters in the past, have agreed that the Central Government should use land required for public purposes, and have adopted the same procedures as apply to leases and rights of occupancy in the Reserves and Trust Land areas, where applicable. At the same time, the administration of land rights in Barotseland under customary law and practice has been under the control of the Litunga and National Council in much the same way as customary land rights are dealt with in the Reserves and Trust Land areas.
2. In these circumstances it is agreed that the Litunga should continue to have the greatest measure of responsibility for administering land matters in Barotseland. It is however necessary to examine the position of land in Barotseland against the background of the Northern Rhodesia Government’s overall responsibility for the territory.
3. The Barotse memorandum has indicated that Barotseland should become an integral part of Northern Rhodesia. In these circumstances the Northern Rhodesia Government will assume certain responsibilities and to carry out these out they will have to have certain powers. So far as land is concerned, apart from confirmation of wide powers to the Litunga over customary matters, the position is as follows:- (1) The Northern Rhodesia Government does not wish to derogate from any of the powers exercised by the Litunga and Council in respect of land matters under customary law and practice.
(2) The Northern Rhodesia Government would like to ensure that the provision of public services and the possibility of economic development in Barotseland are not hampered by special formalities.
(3) The Northern Rhodesia Government recognises and agrees that full consultation should take place with the Litunga and Council before any land in Barotseland is used for public purposes or in the general interests of economic development. (4) The position regarding land in Barotseland in an independent Northern Rhodesia should, therefore, be as follows:- (a) There should be the same system for land administration for the whole of Northern Rhodesia including Barotseland, that is, the Government Lands Department should be responsible for professional advice and services with regard to land alienation in all parts of Northern Rhodesia and that the same form of document should be used for grants of land (i) for Government purposes and (ii) for non-Government and non-customary purposes. The necessary preparation of the title documents should be done by the Government Lands Department. (b) The Litunga and National Council of Barotseland will be charged with the responsibility for administering Barotse customary land law within Barotseland.
- THE END -
Name:
Country:
Date: 28 Apr 2000
Time: 15:11:41
Key marshall leeeee.
Key Lee show Leeeeeeeeeee.
Name:
Country:
Date: 28 Apr 2000
Time: 15:09:33
Kiiiiiiii masholiiiiiiii.
Key Lee show Leeeeeeeeeee.
Name: kufekisa
Country:
Date: 18 Apr 2000
Time: 20:47:00
Thanks lady!! - that's cool, I certainly,...sorry we certainly need mroe people like you around - wish you a happy wedding!!
Namayani,
The thing about Muna is that he has very strong feelings about all these tribalists in Zambia slagging us the Lozis off. "Mina maBemba mwakataza" ('you bembers are problematic') he/she said...I fully understand him/her, there are alot of people out there who are annoying when the impose on others simply because they are of a particular tribe. What I'm against is his/her generalisation. Not all bembas are like that. All that does is to attract responses such as the one from Henry C.
Henry himself probably isn't a tribalist but, was innocently forced into making an emotional response. All I am asking for is, like I said earlier, a little maturity on such a delicate matter.
Name: 'Tribe-blind' Lady
Country: Zambia
Date: 12 Apr 2000
Time: 14:14:45
Kufekisa, hi, WE NEED MORE COSMOPOLITAN PEOPLE LIKE YOU IN THE WORLD today. I am "tribe-blind" if ever there is a word like that. I look at the person first. Jumping to conclusions is quite absurd and archaic. Its not like crime or racism is genetically inborn. Such vices are passed on by people who make them appear to be good to the minds of our young ones who in turn carry on from there.
A human being given the second chance or right atmosphere can make good. Who are we to write them off? If we start thinking like this, then might as well nod to certain whites' prejudice against blacks, the Holocaust, tribal wars'senseless killings etc., seemingly to rid the world of I don't know what - ridiculous isn't it? It would go as far back as there.
I would marry you, pity I am already involved, you sound like you consist of the right husband material.
Name: Namayani mungule
Country: Ireland
Date: 11 Apr 2000
Time: 00:04:32
Kufekisa
Maybe you are right on your advice to Henry c.But what wrong did you see in Muna's long contribution?I thought it was usefull as a backgound to the Barotse problem? Anyway iam just inquiring.
Name: Kufekisa
Country: Uk
Date: 31 Mar 2000
Time: 13:30:31
Ref: Henry C
May I just quote a large section of Henry C's contribution further below:
' Most of you Lozi's are selfish and that is one of the causes of the poverty you want to run away from by seceding. Other tribes in Zambia are also suffering but they don't dream of secession why? Because that is not the answer. The answer lies in hardwork and picking wise leaders. Lozis do not like living with other tribes especially Bembas because they (Lozis) are mean and they have found the Bembas a hard nut to crack. Bemba's are not thieves. Pretend your not Lozi and ask about ten people who are not Lozi what tribe they would rather not marry from. Lozi will top the list. Then ask them why?'
I have seen your previous contributions on other pages Henry but this one is the worst. I am very disappointed that someone as intelligent as you are can get down to this level of thinking. May I advise you not to judge a whole community on the basis of what a member of that community has said or done. That generalisation was stupid and uncalled for. Such matters are delicate and they require open mindedness, diplomacy and maturity when dealing with them.
I am a relatively young Lozi, an example of a modern Zambian (defined by the inter-tribal marriage of my parents). I refuse to slate people from the North despite the fact that most of our politicians hail from that background, and at the same time the political system has run the country into the ground. I will not insult any tribe beacause they are a minority and because they are the economically, or politicaly weaker.This kind of tribalistic attitude which is rife in our society is a mare indication of the decay of our society and it must be eradicated without fail. It is simply childish and completely stupid and is the very root of the problem of secession, which is the distruction of unity. This goes for Muna as well, you too are setting a very bad example for Zambia's youth. Shame on you.
What is lacking is respect. I am by the way, against the idea of secession but I can see why some Lozis are fed up with a united Zambia. It is because of people like you Henry C, not Bembas. Plus, people like Muna are the ones who tarnish the image of the majority. People have the right to feel what they feel, I have met some advocates for secesseion and they are simply fed up with the whole situation in Zambia as indeed all other tribes are. It is not running away from poverty Mr Henry C. Running to where may I ask? Aren't they asking for secession, the right to govern the Western province on their own? The right to eradicate all the poverty that exists in their own land. In fact it will be even harder for them, should secession be successful, is that running away from poverty? Is that being selfish? Please think before you make statements such as the ones you make about who would marry who and that the Lozis are the bottom of the list when it comes to the most desired partners. What sort of nonsensical crap is that? Did you do that research for your final year project or something?
Now, I apologise to you if I seam to be a bit harsh in my reaction Henry but all I'm calling for is harmony, maturity and unity, come on, we are Zambians and we will respect each other and kill all this tribal bullshit for ever. Be for real.
'The struggle goes on...'
Name: Boris Lelong
Country: France
Date: 17 Feb 2000
Time: 00:36:23
Hello! Well, I'm afraid I may not contribute a lot to the debate... I am actually thinking of going to Bulozi by march/april this year, to finalize my project on traditional music and meet again his highness. I would just like to know 1- is it likeliy that there will be kuomboka this year? 2- how have been the rains there this year? Is the river flooded? If anyone knows about that -or an internet adress where I could get such information-, thanks for letting me know at altamira@free.fr I love Bulozi and I love Zambia: peace to all!
Name: Boris Lelong
Country: France
Date: 17 Feb 2000
Time: 00:32:00
Hello! Well, I'm afraid I may not contribute a lot to the debate... I am actually thinking of going to Bulozi by march/april this year, to finalize my project on traditional music and meet again his highness. I would just like to know 1- is it likeliy that there will be kuomboka this year? 2- how have been the rains there this year? Is the river flooded? If anyone knows about that -or an internet adress where I could get such information-, thanks for letting me know at altamira@free.fr I love Bulozi and I love Zambia: peace to all!
Name: Henry C
Country:
Date: 10 Feb 2000
Time: 13:32:43
Five whole days and there is no reply from Munga. If you really want to sell your manifesto, this is the right forum. Please come back and answer these few questions sir.
Name: kachi
Country: Europe
Date: 04 Feb 2000
Time: 17:29:17
REF:Munga munzi
You have really done your work and i congratulate you for that-candid brief. I would love to be enlightened on the following:- 1-In what ways has the barotse agreement been abrogated?
2-What are the boundaries of the barotse land (from the tribes you mentioned,some seem to eminate from present angola,zimbabwe and botswana)
3-Current reports have shown some infightings among the major tribes comprising the Lozi's.How is the general feeling among the lozi's to the re-establishment of barosteland.
4-Since the litunga shall be the leader,what are his views about the establishment and does the BPF got the blessing of the Litunga?
Please,educate as more on these issues and we will be able to debate properly.
Name: Henry C
Country: Zambia
Date: 04 Feb 2000
Time: 13:23:50
I have read the manifesto below and I have afew questions for you Mr. Munga Munzi.
1. How popular is this cause in Barotseland?
2. Has the BPF done any opinion poll to find out how many people understand this agreement?
3. 36 years is a long time and most of the people whom you can utilise to fight this cause were not born that time, have you educated them about the Barotseland Agreement?
4. What do you think about those people in Barotseland who are taking part in Zambian politics by voting for parties and forming parties (e.g. Aka)?
5. What means do intend using to fight this cause?
Name: Munga Munzi
Country: Barotseland
Date: 04 Feb 2000
Time: 10:14:55
One great thinker once said an ignorant person is not only a danger to himself but also to the people surrounding him. In this vain I would urge most of those people who try to analyse data before they even correct data to just read through this brief article bellow. Hoever I was most impressed with some debators who were debating from a level headed platform not out of hatred for a tribe. I wish you god's blessing as you read through.
On the 18th May, 1964 an agreement entitled "The Barotseland agreement 1964" was concluded at the commonwealth Relations Office in London. This agreement was entered into by the following parties: Sir Mwanawina Lewanika III K.B.E. Litunga of Barotseland on behalf of himself, his heirs and successors, his council and the chiefs and peoples of Barotseland; Kenneth kaunda, Prime Minister of Northern Rhodesia; and Right Honourable Duncan Sandys, M.P. Secretary of state for commonwealth Relations and the colonies signifying the approval of Her Majesty's Government. The purpose of this agreement was to facilitate the integration of Barotseland into Zambia at the time of independence. It was therefore meant to legalise and solidify the status of Barotse people in the unitary state of Zambia. The Barotseland agreement of 1964 legitimised the existence of the independent country called Zambia, conversely its abrogation signifies the invalidity of Barotseland's integration into Zambia.
WHY SELF DETERMINATION?
The beauty of nature is determined by its conservative principles; i.e. the differences between a lion and a hyena can never be compromised by forcing them both to be like an Elephant or a Buffalo.
Paragraph one of Article one of the international Covenant on Economic, social and cultural rights of 1966 states that," All people have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development."
Furthermore, Article 22 of the African charter on Human and people's rights of 1991 states as follows:-
ALL PEOPLE SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO THEIR ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT WITH DUE REGARD TO THEIR FREEDOM AND IDENTITY AND IN THE EQUAL ENJOYMENT OF THE COMMON HERITAGE OF MANKIND.
STATES SHALL HAVE THE DUTY, INDIVIDUALLY OR COLLECTIVELY TO ENSURE THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT TO DEVELOPMENT. Zambia and its Government happens to be a signatory to this arrangement.
The Barotseland Agreement has never been honoured by the Zambian government since it was signed in 1964. This agreement has been treated with contempt and out-right disrespect. It must be borne in mind that the agreement is an international treaty. No sooner had independence been attained than the Zambian government set out to undermine not only the agreement, but also the people of Barotseland and their government.
The Zambian government's deceitfulness was clearly manifested by the passing of devious Acts solely bent on eroding the history of Barotseland. These acts were passed in bad faith, some of these were interalia; the 1965 and 1966 local government act, the mines and mineral Act of 1969, the 1970 and 1972 land acquisition changes. These manoeuvres have culminated into the 1995 land act and the white paper that categorically buries the Barotseland Agreement.
The people of Barotseland have prudently and patiently sought dialogue with the Zambian government.
The intransigent party to this contract has always been the Zambian government . Since Barotseland voluntarily entered into this agreement, it is only logical for it to now voluntarily divorce itself from the aforementioned arrangement and revert to its original status.
The Barotse Patriotic Front is now challenging the Zambian Government to show cause why Barotseland should remain an integral part of Zambia. Our call for self determination is a democratic right which is enshrined in the United Nations Charter and legally binding since the contract between Zambia and Barotseland is no longer obligatory.
It is irrational thinking for an informed leadership worthy its high office to unilaterally invalidate the efficacy of an international agreement as vital as the 'Barotseland Agreement 1964' on account of passage of time. Once, the waiting Agreement, like the 'Barotseland Agreement 1964' was not honoured to the letter since being signed on 12th may, 1840 between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Maori Chiefs of New Zealand. Consequently, the Maoris were forced to fight the restoration of their fundamental rights and freedoms. Luckily, and especially that they were dealing with civilised people of unquestionable credibility, Her Majesty, the Queen of England personally went to Wellington and apologised publicly and restored the Agreement in November, 1995; implying that the agreement was put in the cold for 155 years. Against this background, it is morally unacceptable for the Barotse to sit back and watch with impotent aloofness as the 34 year old Barotseland Agreement is being repudiated on account of being 'stale'. The 'Barotseland Agreement 1964' was the product of a crucial tripartite compromise involving the highest level of international diplomacy including the Commonwealth.
The people of Zambia cannot hold us at ransom any longer and any more.
WHY THE CALL?
The relationship of the rider (Zambian Government)and the horse (Barotseland) has become cumbersome and meaningless when the above mentioned is soberly analysed.
Zambia is not a homogeneous country. It was not until 1911 that North Western & North Eastern Rhodesia amalgamated to form Northern Rhodesia, This scenario was expedient to the colonialist's manipulative administration of the territory.
It must be noted that the historic matrices of Barotseland are enshrined in the concessions of 1898,1900 and 1923. It is further entrenched in orders in council of 1924, 1951 and 1953. These culminated into the Barotseland Agreement of May 1964, specifically pointing to the unique historic and cultural nature of the people of Barotseland from the rest of Zambia.
The Barotseland Agreement was a compromise between the British government and their colony to be independent, relinquishing further responsibilities to Northern Rhodesia and Barotseland. This also facilitated with Zambia forming a unitary nation.
The disempowering and deliberate impoverishment of Barotseland cannot be allowed to continue. Despite the fact that Barotseland joined Zambia through a trade off over its Government and resources, the writing is on the wall that Barotse people cannot hold any top portfolio let alone the presidency in Zambia.
GETTING FROM HERE TO THERE
Clearly Barotseland had its indigenous form of government that evolved over time. This type of government underwent a transformation prior to amalgamation in that an elected Ngambela or Prime Minister and councillors took centre stage. With this view in mind Barotseland self government will be in line with contemporary democratic principles and realities. A modern constitutional monarchy parallel is envisaged in Barotseland's case.
The inalienable right of self rule by the people of Barotseland is inextricably bound to the abrogation of the Barotseland Agreement of 1964. This democratic right has been stifled for a long time and the time has come for it to be put into effect. Sacrifices will be made by all patriotic and heroic sons and daughters of our fatherland. At this juncture one thing is certain - the recognition of Barotseland's inherent right to self Government is overdue and not an attempt to re-write the past but to build a better future for all its people.
People of Barotseland have the right to choose their own destiny and spearhead their own democratic, equitable and self sustained development.
WHO IS A LOZI
lozis are not a tribe. They are a nation, a clan. I read about them ....... This was reiterated, among many, by Hon. Burnside, MP for the then Broken Hill (now Kabwe), in parliament in 1963.
This Honourable whiteman was not far from the truth.
Yes Lozi is not a tribe but a nation whose only grave mistake was to institute a democratic process of togetherness with a people who did not only know what democracy was but also fell short of its understanding and implementation.
This mistake was the signing of the Barotseland Agreement 1964 which brought the Nations of Barotseland and that of Northern Rhodesia into the birth of the Republic of Zambia in October 1964. There are 73 tribes in Zambia of which 32 are from Barotseland as follows:
Tribes of Barotseland;
1. Mbowe 2. Kwangwa 3. Subia 4. Mbukushu 5. Mafwe 6. Nkoya 7. Kwangwali 8. Mbunda(,Lubale etc) 9. Nyengo 10. Kwamashi 11. Sikwamakoma 12. Sikwamwenyi 13. Kwandi 14. Mashasha 15. Imilangu 16. Simaa 17. Maliuwa 18. Mandundulu 19. Mayauma 20. Mandembu 21. Mambumi 22. Makwamulonga 23. Malukolwe 24. Toka-Leya 25. Makwengo 26. Matotela 27. Mashanjo 28. Mahumbe 29. Mananzwa 30. Lushange 31. Makololo 32. Aluyi
Thus there is not a single tribe in Barotseland which is more Lozi than the other. The only visible difference is their participation in social, cultural, political and religious welfare plus their inclination to the Centre.
Likewise, there is no single tribe in Barotseland which is more Royal than the other. For example; the late Litunga Sir Mwanawina Lewanika had some Nkoya blood, whilst Chief Kandala had some connection with King Lewanika. The current Litunga, Ilute Yeta III has some Subia blood.
A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE ORIGIN OF LOZI LANGUAGE:
Prior to the year 1830, the Aluyi were the master tribe of the country now known as Barotseland. Their valley was called Uluyi, and they spoke, the Siluyi tongue.
By 1830, their King Mulambwa, assumed to be the 10th King with the longest and famous reign died. He left a very large number of descendants. Thereafter war broke out between two of his sons and one was eventually killed. The winner Mubukwanu, might well have been expected to have a long and successful reign like his father. However, at this critical moment, the Barotse were weakened and divided. The Kingdom was invaded by tremendous warriors from the south. These were the Makololo, mainly of Basutu stock. They reached Uluyi on their conquering journey from the south. They quickly subdued the Aluyi and their subject tribes. For 25 years they were the ruler of the land.
As well known, it was usual for a victorious tribe to marry the women and adopt the indigenous language. In this country it happened otherwise, for the Makololo had their own women with them. They no doubt married many of the women of the country, but as these were many tribes, speaking diverse languages and dialects, Sikololo was made the medium of intercourse between the Makololo masters and their slaves. This arrangement was so convenient that after some 25 years, the Aluyi and the other subdued tribes rebelled and slaughtered their masters. The Sikololo language remained as a lingua Franca among the indigenous tribes.
The other reason for the insistence of the imposed language was the sparing of the Makololo women, most of whom were married by the Aluyi Indunas and Headmen.
"Sikololo", even as spoken at that time, was by no means identical with the parent SESUTU, from which it sprang. It had doubtless been considerably modified during the long journeying of the Makololo from the South, so that even in Sechuana, the form in which it is spoken by the tribes of Bechuanaland differs remarkably from Sesutu.
It is assumed that less than 10% are Aluyi (Barotse) or of Barotse extraction, the remainder being ex-slaves, originally collected from all quarters of the upper Zambezi basin.
The ruling class is much mixed, members of it having, for many generations, inter-married with some of the above mentioned tribes. Moreover, the son of a Mulozi, no matter if his mother was/is a member of one of the subject tribes, is accepted as and enjoys the privileges of the full-blooded individual. For instance, Litia (or Yeta), Lewanika's son, is of Masubia descent on his mother's side plus others mentined above. IT IS THEREFORE RIGHT AND TRUE TO SAY THAT THERE IS NO SINGLE TRIBE IN BAROTSELAND WHICH IS MORE LOZI THAN THE OTHER.
LIKEWISE, THERE IS NO SINGLE TRIBE OF BAROTSELAND WHICH CAN FIGHT A LOZI TRIBE WITHOUT FIGHTING ITSELF!! THUS: YOU CAN TAKE A LOZI FROM BAROTSELAND, BUT YOU CAN NOT TAKE BAROTSELAND FROM A LOZI.
The general underdevelopment of Barotseland is by design and not based upon the endowment of the Country. This can be attributed to the wider conspiracy against Barotseland beginning in the colonial era and extending to the present era. The general misconception held by various quarters is that Barotseland once self determined will perish as it will not have any resources to sustain it. The BPF emphatically states that this is a fallacy that actually retarded the drive for self rule. Most people of Barotseland especially misinformers in the diaspora, have fear of the unknown as they do not actually know the economic potential of our fatherland.
When Barotseland is free, the following areas have to be harnessed appropriately:
I The Fish Industry
Barotseland's major natural resource is water and this is the major ingredient in any meaningful development effort. A spin-off from this resource is fish. Barotseland has a number of rivers, swamps and fresh water lakes. All the fishing in Barotseland is done by private individuals with almost no commercial concerns. This industry if exploited economically and scientifically will provide a good source of protein and income. To supplement the natural fish habitats, Barotseland must undertake the construction of fish farms throughout the land. Fish angling, which is a tourist attraction can be improved upon. It is a known fact that Barotse waters provide habitat for the tiger fish (Ngweshi) which proves to be viable for angling to tourists.
II The Crocodile Industry
Crocodile inhabit Barotse waters, but commercially it will be viable to construct crocodile farms. The flood plain running from Lukulu to Sesheke could be utilised for the said purpose. Crocodile skins and meat will prove a good source of foreign exchange as the former are used in the designer's industry and the latter is delicacy in other countries. The crocodile brain is used in pharmaceutical or medical areas.
III Crop Agriculture
Barotseland is a very unique area which is divided into two distinct areas: the flood plain or wet lands and the sandy plateau or upper land. The interesting aspect is that the sands of Barotseland have vegetation i.e. shrubs, bushes and forests. The sandy areas have agriculture potential as opposed to desert sands that need much exploring. Already we have some areas growing Cashew nuts which only need to be expanded and improved upon. Other areas are VIZ:
· expansion of the orange industry: valencia orange plantations have to be set up. Valencia orange can grow very well in Barotse sands. · Bananas can be harnessed as well. · Avocado industry has to be introduced. · Castor oil from castor beans (or Mabonobono) which is a native plant of Barotseland - this is a lucrative venture. · The Mango industry will be revised and commercially exploited. · Rice which is already grown on a sizeable scale throughout Barotseland has to be commercialised. · Wheat production must be expanded. · Sugarcane production must be commercialised. · Millet, sorghum have potential as well. · Maize production has to be critically designated to certain areas and managed scientifically. · The cassava industry with its spin-offs must be complimented and not taken for granted. · Lastly, the natural fruit industry that occurs across Barotseland in the name of, among others: Mumonsomonso, Mambongo, Mukuwa, Mahuluhulu will be used for indigenous drinks. Research will be undertaken in order to commercialise and scientifically exploit this natural industry.
IV Cattle Industry
The paramount economic asset in Barotseland is cattle and the industry that occurs from it. Barotseland has close to a million cattle which are presently mismanaged and overexploited by unscrupulous traders without due regard to the systematic depletion of the animals.
Cattle and related industry in Barotseland
When properly harnessed this industry can generate wealth for the land. Scientific cattle management should be put in place to ensure the immediate eradication of cattle diseases such as Pleural Pneumonia, Foot and Mouth and Anthrax to name but a few which have devastated our cattle for over 50 years. Beef and dairy industry providing breeding and selling stock will be devised. The cattle should be dehorned and crossbred to enhance not only the quality of the beef but also other products like hides etc. The cattle standards will be raised in order to enhance the export capacity of meat and dairy products.
Leather and leather goods
Raw hides are the main by-products of the beef industry and have export potential although they are not being economically exploited. Mechanized tanneries need to be set up in Barotseland to consume the thousands of raw hides currently not being recovered and thus going to waste. The semi-finished leather will be mainly for export while finished leather will be for consumption but among others the shoe and leather goods plants.
V Timber Industry
Already Timber exploitation is undertaken in Barotseland but this has to be scientifically managed. By-products from this enterprise like rubber have to be re-identified (this was one product which was tapped in Barotseland for the English war effort in the second world war).
Exploitation of the Mungongo tree for among others; wine cork-making will be undertaken.
VI Tourism and Game Management
Barotseland has its share of wildlife and bird life. It is also endowed with beautiful plains and a sunny climate. Tourist resorts have to be set up in exotic locations like Sioma, Makapaela, to name but a few. Barotseland's Kuomboka Ceremony, game parks and tiger fish angling on the great Lyambai river are some of the tourist highlights.
Game ranching is one major income earner that will be emphasized upon. The Ostrich which had a natural habitat in Barotseland will be re-introduced in a number of game ranches to be made throughout the land. The Ostrich and its by-products fetch good sums of money on the international market, a few examples are: Ostrich leather for Ostrich designer shoes, Ostrich watch straps and hand bags. Ostrich meat and Ostrich chicks are also delicacies.
VII Human Resources
The major component in any development strategy is the human factor. Barotseland can boast of a highly qualified stock of men and women who are capable of running all these ventures mentioned in this paper. Furthermore Barotseland is lucky due to its heritage in that Barotseland people are the best administrators and the most incorruptible stock of people in Africa. Economic progression requires this ingredient.
People of Barotseland are trustworthy, hardworking, authentic and intelligent. These virtues are very important in efforts of development. The Zambian story is a case in point whereby corruption, ineptness, dishonest and outright mediocre carry the day.
The BPF will turn the sand of Barotseland to the people's advantage. BPF is confident that Barotseland will be economically empowered. We have the will and capacity to re-write history.
1 BAROTSELAND'S most distinctive feature has always been its isolation from the rest of Northern Rhodesia and later on Zambia. This was true long before Europeans penetrated into the upper Zambezi Valley and remained true both under British South Africa Company rule and later when the British Government assumed direct control over Northern Rhodesia.
2 REINSTATEMENT is Barotseland's right to revert to its former position as a separate nation. This is due to the fact that Barotseland existed as an independent and well defined nation long before the arrival of the first white man in the interior of Central Africa.
3. Barotseland's special status as an autonomous entity was initially entrenched in the Barotseland - North Western Rhodesia Order in council of 28th November, 1899 that facilitated the creation of the Territory known as North Western Rhodesia . This new Territory fell under the direct control of the Secretary of State for the Colonies in Great Britain, through the High Commissioner of South Africa. Barotseland enjoyed all her rights and privileges, with King Lewanika retaining his powers. This status was reinforced by the extension of British protection to the general area of Northern Rhodesia that hinged on the treaties of 1890 and 1900, which were concluded
between King Lewanika of Barotseland and the British South Africa Company.
4. BAROTSELAND'S right to reinstatement is now necessitated by: a. The abrogation of the Barotseland Agreement of 1964, which was a marriage of convenience but was abused into a slave and master type of relationship between Barotseland and the rest of Zambia.
b. Article 20:1 and 2 of The Africa Chater on Human and people's right states as follows:-
i) All people shall have right of existence. They shall have the unquestionable and inalienable right to self determination. They shall FREELY determine their political status and shall pursue their economic and social development according to the policy they have freely chosen.
ii) Colonized or oppressed people shall have the right to free themselves from the bonds of domination by resorting to any means recognised by the International Community.
5. Furthermore Reinstatement is today crystallised and authenticated by the declaration of Dr K D Kaunda as persona non grata by the Zambian Government. This is due to the fact that Kenneth Kaunda, then Prime Minister of Northern Rhodesia, was one of the signatories to the Barotseland agreement together with Sir Mwanawina Lewanika III, K.B.E Litunga of Barotseland, and Duncan Sandys, MP,Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies. Sir Mwanawina signed on behalf of the Barotse Native Government (BNG) and the peoples of Barotseland; Kenneth Kaunda signed on behalf of the Zambian Government and its people whilst the Right Honourable Duncan Sandy's signature signified the approval of her majesty's Government. Kenneth Kaunda's statelessness indeed invalidates his signature to the agreement and what it symbolized.
6. In retrospect, the proclamation of Northern Rhodesia as a British Protectorate did not erode Barotseland's Sovereignty, as can be noted from the explicit recognition of our country in article 41 of the Northern Rhodesia Order in Council of 1924; its special status again being solidified in later years by the British Government. The year 1953 also proved to be a landmark when the British Government issued a special order in council; Styling Barotseland as a Protectorate within Northern Rhodesia and affirming the rights initially confirmed to the Litunga in the 1924 Order in Council.
7. We of the Barotse Patriotic Front want to correct the fallacious and erroneous impression created by enemies of Barotseland, and make it clear that Barotseland will not substitute one form of slavery for another, the yoke the Barotse Nation has been carrying since 1964 will not be substituted for a new one, once Barotseland reinstates itself. It will not merge with any other country but become a Sovereign State within its boundaries.
8. The question of Secession is out! What will Barotseland be seceeding from? Barotseland has never been part of Zambia, because the Barotseland agreement of 1964, has never been honoured by the Zambian government, this agreement in fact epitomized the amalgamation of Barotseland and Zambia. Its non-recognition
by one party (Zambian Government) affirmed that the union between Barotseland and Zambia was null and void, this came to pass in the late 1960s.
9. We came into this union as equal partners and not underdogs, but the realities on the ground have pointed to our servile status in Zambia . Amalgamation between the said parties was a pre-requisite that facilitated the independence of Zambia as a unitary state. Without Barotseland assenting to this agreement Zambia would not have become independent in 1964.
10. Our right to self-determination is on similar lines with other nations which have determined themselves like the Czech and Solvak Republics of former Czechoslovakia to name but a few.
11. International treaties are entered into by parties that are honourable and serious minded. Our forefathers signed the aforementioned treaties so as to safeguard the future of their children, But what is obtaining today is to the contrary. Treaties are not frivolous pieces of papers. This fact is underscored by the reversion of Hong Kong to its original position. This is because serious minded parties viz: Great Britain and China, had signed a treaty that leased Hong Kong to Britain. This treaty is being honoured today by the other party . If such governments can honour these agreements, who are these scoundrels? who even have the audacity to threaten us on our birth right!! 12. Barotseland would like to revert to its former cultural and social structures which the Zambian government have tried so hard to erase. There has been a systematic and deliberate official policy to underdevelop and eventually destory Barotseland, its people, culture, language , heritage, tradition and natural resources for more than three decades.
13. The Barotse Patriotic Front (BPF) is a movement which has emerged to articulate the long standing issue of reinstatement and does not have any links with any political party or parties who have Zambia's politics at heart.
14. Barotse Patriotic Front's prime objective is to liberate the Barotse people, and lead them to an autonomous and liberated fatherland as we approach the next millennium. The struggle has begun!
Name:
Country:
Date: 02 Feb 2000
Time: 23:57:55
HENRY YOU ARE VERY RIGHT. You cant be more correct than this!
Name: Henry C
Country: Zambia
Date: 01 Feb 2000
Time: 13:54:11
Muuna,
Reading your contributions, I conclude that you're not sure of what you're writing about or your cause. I suggest you do some research about any topic before you decide to debate otherwise you're just showing the world how dumb some Lozi's can be. If you are to fight for this 'cause' then you need to do much more than this cheap pile of contributions you have displayed here. Ndine has tried to have a constructive and sensible debate with you but you keep spoiling it with your Lozi words and ignorance. Open those eyes and look at some suggestions that you have been given like opening up your area to other tribes. Most of you Lozi's are selfish and that is one of the causes of the poverty you want to run away from by seceding. Other tribes in Zambia are also suffering but they don't dream of secession why? Because that is not the answer. The answer lies in hardwork and picking wise leaders. Lozis do not like living with other tribes especially Bembas because they (Lozis) are mean and they have found the Bembas a hard nut to crack. Bemba's are not thieves. (You must tell this to your uncle before he spoils more young Lozis like he did with you) If you want to believe this you just have to look at the court cases in the papers and you will see that it's not only Bembas that are being convicted. Maybe the marjority of leaders in government are Bembas but that is because Bembas like politics just like they like football. You Lozi's just do not like to participate or combine with other tribes hence you feel maligned and now you want to secede. It is very rare to find a Lozi in a social place in towns. If you find one, then he's with another Lozi. You (Muuna) try this some day. Pretend your not Lozi and ask about ten people who are not Lozi what tribe they would rather not marry from. Lozi will top the list. Then ask them why? If you find the answer, you should start working on correcting that instead of seceding.
Name: Ndine
Country:
Date: 01 Feb 2000
Time: 09:46:58
Muuna. You have become too hostile so i quit. At least am happy that i have added some thoughts to your mind over this secession issue. Amusiyale four (Not 1 or 2). Learn to have a sense of humour as well. I log off for good.
Name: Muuna Hanyazwi
Country: Luteni Mwahaemo
Date: 31 Jan 2000
Time: 19:11:34
It seems you have lost direction with your submissions hence your contributions no longer seem to have sound arguements. shup-up and the roaches in your house if you don't have anything to say.
Name: Ndine
Country: Zambian abroad
Date: 31 Jan 2000
Time: 19:06:29
Muuna. I have failed to decode your message below. Help me understand you. And use simple lozi becos am not yet very good at it. But do conduct the survey. Get a random but representative sample to avoid biasness. I will be waiting for your results. Lukatobonana Kamuso. And avoid denying visitors food by claiming that Musapataile. Lets share.
Name: Muuna Hanyazwi
Country: Luteni Mwahaemo
Date: 31 Jan 2000
Time: 18:53:30
Ndine umubemba wa sanganu.
Name: Ndine
Country:
Date: 31 Jan 2000
Time: 14:06:11
Musike mwa yema bo Muuna. Can't King. All human beings Bembas inclusive are by nature tribally inclined. What is of concern however is the extent to which this happens. I did give you a task of finding out as to which tribe in Zambia is more at this game of tribalism in Zambia(remember its you who brought out this issue). I have no doudts that should you be objective in your survey you will find that your tribe tops the list in Zambia. Instead of you becoming annoyed get down to the task and report back. In the meantime find time to get away from the books and visit places especially kwahaye. It will be helpful. Please MWILAFULWA BANE.
Name: Muuna Hanyazwi ( za eza kizenata)
Country: Luteni mwahaemo
Date: 29 Jan 2000
Time: 22:43:35
Ndine,To hell with your sentiments. Every human being has the right to live where they want.so whether I go kwahaye or not its non of your business. You cant even read between the lines that I'm ignorant about Mongu like you. Mina maBemba mwakataza. haluzibi kapa musihozize kai! mwendi kisa kuanya kwa mazwele!
Name: Muuna Hanyazwi ( za eza kizenata)
Country: Luteni mwahaemo
Date: 29 Jan 2000
Time: 22:18:57
Ndine, Wena ubonahala kuli u mubemba ya zwezi kwa sikolo who can't use his brains. I'll go kwa hae at some point I'm still conc. to get my Ph.d
thats not true to say Bembas are not tribalists. when I was still young my uncle used to dissaprove me when I do wrong like this," eza inge mubemba" why? because you Bembas are crooks.you are street smarts. you are like shonas in Zim. you can dig someone like nothing.why did you run away from home yourself? please don't speak book knowledge here. if you bet that mabemba haki ma crook nikakufa komu.
Name: Ndine
Country: Zambian abroad
Date: 29 Jan 2000
Time: 12:03:27
Iwe Muuna. Your observations are interesting. It seems you have not fully understood your tribe. Lozis are generally very closed people and only feel secure when they are among themselves hence the reason for secession. On the other hand Bembas are open people just like your cousions they Tongas. Regarding employment please ask around. You will discover for yourself that Lozis are leaders in terms of employing their tribesmate for the same reason of feeling insecure amongst other tribes. Let me know your findings. How do you develop your area if you do not even know the current situation there. You see all of you have run away from Kwahaye. Mwaniswabisa mina ma Lozi bamwa town APU. Munoyanga kwahaye.
Name: Muuna Hanyazwi
Country: Luteni mwahaemo
Date: 28 Jan 2000
Time: 18:33:09
Ndine you'll have to bear with me. I don't know much about Shoprite or whatever. I havent been kwahae in ages.the so called chosen few are you Bembas. i was referring to benefitting all the Lozis not just you. mubemba if there's a job vacant will only employ another mubemba. they can even go to the extent of advertising a post while they know that they have already appointed their relatives or tribesmen.May be we can chat privately Ndine about this issue ndine. I can give you my e-mail address if you like.
Name: Ndine
Country:
Date: 28 Jan 2000
Time: 13:46:17
Muuna Siuboni. You do not seem to have good reasons for secession going by your postings. One time you say it is becos of Bembas and now you give a reason of wanting to harness lozi human resource to benefit all and not a few so called chosen ones. First i do not understand what you imply by the few chosen ones and secondly tell me what stops the lozis in the current set up(United Zambia) to utilise their skills to develop Kwahaye? Do you say this can only be possible after seceding. Are you implying forced labour or what. The statistics of poverty being high there is becos no real economic activities are happening. These can only occur if non Lozis are given an equal oppurtunity to operate freely in Lozi land like is the case in other provinces. Open up and you will see the difference in a short space of time. Answer me as to why you decided to push Mongu shoprite to the outskirts of town when in all other progreesive Zambian towns it is located within the town centers. Should shoprite decide to pull out of Mongu due to bad location you will cry loudly and start blaming others. Muuna move away from the approach of operating tickets to real business if the situation is to improve. Na ni mu Bemba but naziba silozi. Enjoy your dombe. See you my friend.
Name:
Country:
Date: 27 Jan 2000
Time: 23:24:15
read the post?
89% of lozis in western province are starving to death. They should just seceed in order to govern themselves?
Name: Muuna hanyazwi
Country: Luteni mwahaemo
Date: 27 Jan 2000
Time: 17:55:57
Ndine taba yenibulela is not just because lozis want to secede. let me tell you something, secession is a term used in the world of politics. it is absolutely normal to harbour secessionist ambitions as long as you don't resort to violence. the Lozis are trying to secede because they want harness their human resources in a way that'll benefit everyone not only a few or the so called chosen ones. kitaba ya niti yeo wahesu.
Name: Ndine
Country: Zambian abroad
Date: 27 Jan 2000
Time: 14:24:07
Weena Mauuna ubulelangi? Let go of what? It will be interesting to note your behaviour if a Lozi was to become a head of state. Would you still advocate for this naive approach of cessation as a means of resolving the problems of kwahaye. My advice is open up the area to businessmen with money and not only lozis with money to run a ticket shop. Have you noticed where you pushed shoprite all in the name of been afraid of competition. Lets move forward and not backwards as our vehicle for progress. Nifelize
Name: Muuna hanyazwi
Country: Mongu
Date: 26 Jan 2000
Time: 19:43:02
Wena Ndine you must be a Bemba too. why is it that you are afraid to let go? The calls for our secession are justified. you know that very well too so don't speak book knowledge here. it is a well known fact that you Bembas all you can do is talk. I dont know where you inherited that trait from. so shut up!
Name: Muuna hanyazwi
Country: Mongu
Date: 26 Jan 2000
Time: 19:40:01
Wena Ndine you must be a Bemba too. why is it that you are afraid to let go? The calls for our secession are justified. you know that very well too so don't speak book knowledge here. it is a well known fact that you Bembas all you can do is talk. I dont know where you inherited that trait from. so shut up!
Name: Ndine
Country:
Date: 26 Jan 2000
Time: 09:55:08
Iwee Muuna why are you afraid of Bembas. Surely you cannot give that as a reason to live in sand. Behaving like an ostrich. Be careful of Aka and friends they stand to benefit more from this naive approach. Remember they have benefitted before as aresult of the same.
Name: Muuna hanyazwi
Country: Mongu
Date: 25 Jan 2000
Time: 22:27:10
Manduna when we say we want a free Barotseland we are not joking. we are damn tired of you Bembas. you are crooks and you have destroyed zambia in no time. luna ma lozi lubata kuipusa. to hell with your one zambia!
Name: Lozi Commoner
Country: z
Date: 21 Jan 2000
Time: 22:02:39
Al Nasir, Sorry for having been emotional and since you won't shut up, i shut up and will get back to you with convincing reasons soon
Name: Al Nasir
Country: Tunisia.
Date: 21 Jan 2000
Time: 10:01:47
Dear Lozi Commoner,
let us focus on the contents of my argument. That is the gist of the matter. Assigning me to anyone of your ethnic groups is not the issue. You go through what I have written and I can assure you of enlightement. Dont be emtional my brother. I send you Salaams in the name of the ALL POWERFUL, ALL MERCIFUL ALLAH.
Name: Lozi, commoner
Country: z
Date: 21 Jan 2000
Time: 00:01:36
Al Nasir, Why the hell are you masqurading to be an Arab yet you are just a lozi royalist who ernestly looks forward to some personal benefit from the secession. Abash masqurading, if you are a man enough or better still woman enough just come out and debate openly. You are hiding because you know that these call are driven by greed and selfish motives and the only beneficiarries in this would only be those from the royal family not us commoners.
Name: Al Nasir
Country: Tunisia
Date: 20 Jan 2000
Time: 11:23:02
My dear Henry C we do not have those minerals you are talking about. Having a coastline is an advantage but it does not matter that much.Zimbabwe and Botswana dont have a coastline but are far much better off than Nigeria, Tanzania, Ghana etc. By the way Austria has a per capita income of $28,000 and Switzerland $40,0000. These two countries are mountainous and landlocked. Compare them to Portugal and Greece with a coastline and with per capita incomes below $i5,0000! Like I said the most important resource is the human one. East Asian countries like Singapore, Taiwan, and South Korea dont have natural resources compared to your country Zambia but they are far more developed. The most important resource my dear Henry C is the Human one and I bet there are human beings in Barotseland. What matters is the way this human resource is harnessed. The Lozi's have realised that their potential cannot be realised under a poorly managed Zambia. Give me different reasons for denying the Lozi's self determination. Economic ones wont just work. I can assure you most of the objections to Lozi self determination on this page are low on rationality and terribly high on emotion. I WONT SHUT-UP!
Name: Henry C
Country: Zambia
Date: 18 Jan 2000
Time: 17:05:57
Al Nasir,
How dare you call Zambia a joke? The heat must be affecting your brain, Berber Boy. Okay we have our economic problems but have some respect for us man. Have you forgotten what happend in your country in 1984? Maybe you were too young to understand the riots sparked by economic problems in Tunisia? Yes you have managed to work yourselves out that but still you cannot compare Tunisia with Barotseland. Tunisia has a sea coast, oil, significant reserves of natural gas; iron ore, zinc and lead are also mined. Besides this the country suffers from a recurrent trade deficit which is partially covered by tourist receipts and foreign aid and loans. You make Tunisia look like the promised land. You have 500,000 Tunisians working abroad, about half of them in France.Your coastal city of Bizerte is a major port. Besides this you have a serious unemployment problem aggravated by a high rate of population growth. Each country has its own share of problems. You cant compare Tunisia to Barotseland. So shut up.
Name: Al Nasir
Country: Tunisia
Date: 18 Jan 2000
Time: 10:51:12
It doesnt really matter whether your country is full of sand or hard soil. My country Tunisia I think is more full of this Stuff called sand but we have a higher per capita than any other African Country full of trees, rivers forests etc. Namibia and Botswana I gather also full of sand have the same per capita income as Tunisia. Botswana and Namibia Have big Diamond deposits so you may argue. But I want to tell you this. Tunisia has nothing other than its human resources which it has harnessed for its development. Three countries also come to mind. Hongkong, Taiwan and Singapore which no natural resources other their human resources which have been harnessed for them to achieve high living standards comparable to the west. So respect countries without the so called natural resources because the most important resource is the human one. So your Lozi can still secede and be able to enjoy a better standard of living than current day Zambia, which I gather still imports basic commodities like bath soap, cabbage and candles, maize from less endowed countries in terms of land mass and natural resources eg malawi, Zimbabwe, Botswana and your own canned Mosi beer from Swaziland. So the point is if the Lozi feel that they can better harness their abilities in theirown kingdom please let them leave without you calling them names. Mind you Singapore was part of the Malaysian Federation but it broke away from the Federation in 1962. Today the per capita income in Singapore is $28000 compared to Malaysian $4000. Singapore did not want to held hostage by a misguided majority. Small can be beautiful.Looking at the Zambian economic statistics and your own brand of democracy I would support secession If I were Lozi. Zambia is a joke. How do you import your own beer and also failö to make sanitary towels for your ladies. If you cannot manufacture these basic items what on earth can you produce? Copper of course? But look where it has taken you.
Name:
Country:
Date: 18 Jan 2000
Time: 00:08:12
Attention Kunda
You say "I lozis are so clever why are they not in govt?
So you think those who are in govt are all more clever that those not?Then why did you remove the kaunda tean?why did you not say at the time that since he is in govt then his team was more clever that all the MMD fellows?
Man inspect your reasoning!
Name: Kunda
Country:
Date: 17 Jan 2000
Time: 22:25:36
banda, you are a bloody tribalist. who told you that lozis are more civilised than bembas? and why do you blame the bembas for destroying this country just because "they run the govt"? if the lozis are so clever why weren't they in govt? or why aren't you malawians/easterners the ones in govt?
Name: Chilufya Banda
Country: Botswana
Date: 17 Jan 2000
Time: 12:23:19
Lozi,s are more civilised than e.g the Bembas. The Bembas are good at running down things. This is understandable since they happen to have a 'northern mentality'. An inheritance from their brothers in Dr Congo. The Lozi#s on the other hand have a 'work ethos' and respect for public property. A Lozi man or woman ladies and gentlemen would never for example give a job to his or tribesman. Alas! A Bemba will do it with impunity and without shame. Look at CHilubas government- for example. You may say that theres only sand in western province so what? There is sand in Namibia and Botswana but they are more better off than well endowed Zambia! Really to tell you the truth Zambia stinks! And I would support any ehnic group that wants to pursue its own path to self determination. Keep it up Lozis-that is why the Tswanas like you very much compared to other expatriate Zambians. You are hard workers. And others should just emulate your 'southern mentality' if Zambia is going to prosper. There is a reason why things get progressively worse as you move from cape to cairo!
Name: Chilufya Banda
Country: Botswana
Date: 17 Jan 2000
Time: 12:19:39
Lozi,s are more civilised than e.g the Bembas. The Bembas are good at running down things. This is understandable since they happen to have a 'northern mentality'. An inheritance from their brothers in Dr Congo. The Lozi#s on the other hand have a 'work ethos' and respect for public property. A Lozi man or woman ladies and gentlemen would never for example give a job to his or tribesman. Alas! A Bemba will do it with impunity and without shame. Look at CHilubas government- for example. You may say that theres only sand in western province so what? There is sand in Namibia and Botswana but they are more better off than well endowed Zambia! Really to tell you the truth Zambia stinks! And I would support any ehnic group that wants to pursue its own path to self determination. Keep it up Lozis-that is why the Tswanas like you very much compared to other expatriate Zambians. You are hard workers. And others should just emulate your 'southern mentality' if Zambia is going to prosper. There is a reason why things get progressively worse as you move from cape to cairo!
Name: Chilufya Banda
Country: Botswana
Date: 17 Jan 2000
Time: 12:17:51
Lozi,s are more civilised than e.g the Bembas. The Bembas are good at running down things. This is understandable since they happen to have a 'northern mentality'. An inheritance from their brothers in Dr Congo. The Lozi#s on the other hand have a 'work ethos' and respect for public property. A Lozi man or woman ladies and gentlemen would never for example give a job to his or tribesman. Alas! A Bemba will do it with impunity and without shame. Look at CHilubas government- for example. You may say that theres only sand in western province so what? There is sand in Namibia and Botswana but they are more better off than well endowed Zambia! Really to tell you the truth Zambia stinks! And I would support any ehnic group that wants to pursue its own path to self determination. Keep it up Lozis-that is why the Tswanas like you very much compared to other expatriate Zambians. You are hard workers. And others should just emulate your 'southern mentality' if Zambia is going to prosper. There is a reason why things get progressively worse as you move from cape to cairo!
Name: serious mind
Country: Zambian abroad
Date: 10 Jan 2000
Time: 13:29:05
It is a non issue of course hence all serious debaters avoid ignore it. It is only articulated by a few individuals who have links to the royal family. I feel these are the people who benefitted so much from the system hence the would like its return. Look at the education levels of the royal family members almost all are DRs. How come? They miss the fruits.
Name:
Country:
Date: 09 Jan 2000
Time: 14:51:16
Why are there no more contributors in this room? Do you Zambians ignore this issue and think it is not worth debatig or what?
May I call upon some of those serious debaters in the other rooms like Henry Casain(Japan),Marshall Mwansopelo,Lemmy Henry ,Austin Mbozi,Dante,Gee,etc to come in this room and articulate the Barotse issue.WhY are you afraid of this room?You "intellectuals" bury your heads in the sand and pretend Barotse is a non-issue and you will see a Rwanda,Congo,Kosovo in Zambia!
Name: Me
Country: USA
Date: 06 Jan 2000
Time: 22:22:29
People advocating for this are just a primitive seperatists who must be ignored and forgiven.
Name: Austin Mbozi
Country: Ireland
Date: 22 Dec 1999
Time: 15:47:33
Ref/JM(USA)
My e-mail is 99100851@student.ucc.ie
Thank you.
Name: JM
Country: USA
Date: 21 Dec 1999
Time: 23:21:19
Hey, Austine, What's your email address? I want to contact you and discuss something personal. May be camp life...
Name: Henry C
Country: Zambia
Date: 21 Dec 1999
Time: 11:15:10
Mr Mbozi,
Your contribution is positive but I feel you should also try to understand why most(?) of the contributions seem to be too strong. If you look at people like Aka, You will see a disgruntled citizen. And then take a closer look at Mutangelwa, there are traces of greediness in him that one can smell a mile away. He is an ambitious character. Now, these are the people in the forefront lobbying for seccession. Meanwhile, while doing this, Aka also has a party and he will definately grab a chance if one came his way to stand as a presidential candidate for ZAMBIA. That is why people are not taking them seriously. If the Barotse issue was taken by level headed people and not political prostitutes, then maybe we would be tolerant to our Lozi brothers and sisters. But not with these self appointed crusaders. Lozis risk being maligned by the rest of the tribes in Zambia because of this. They will be looked at as aliens or selfish citizens. The best the Lozi's can do is forget the issue and concentrate on other meanigful things like development and becoming part of one huge Zambian family instead of chasing what I may call a lost dream. Aka is a very stressed man. Please don't listen to him. If war breaks out he will be out of there like a bullet and talking to the BBC on phone about how many government soldiers have been killed by the barotse rebels.
The call for secession is not justified. It's the last hope for Aka to be president of a country.
Name: Henry C
Country: Zambia
Date: 21 Dec 1999
Time: 11:14:59
Mr Mbozi,
Your contribution is positive but I feel you should also try to understand why most(?) of the contributions seem to be too strong. If you look at people like Aka, You will see a disgruntled citizen. And then take a closer look at Mutangelwa, there are traces of greediness in him that one can smell a mile away. He is an ambitious character. Now, these are the people in the forefront lobbying for seccession. Meanwhile, while doing this, Aka also has a party and he will definately grab a chance if one came his way to stand as a presidential candidate for ZAMBIA. That is why people are not taking them seriously. If the Barotse issue was taken by level headed people and not political prostitutes, then maybe we would be tolerant to our Lozi brothers and sisters. But not with these self appointed crusaders. Lozis risk being maligned by the rest of the tribes in Zambia because of this. They will be looked at as aliens or selfish citizens. The best the Lozi's can do is forget the issue and concentrate on other meanigful things like development and becoming part of one huge Zambian family instead of chasing what I may call a lost dream. Aka is a very stressed man. Please don't listen to him. If war breaks out he will be out of there like a bullet and talking to the BBC on phone about how many government soldiers have been killed by the barotse rebels.
The call for secession is not justified. It's the last hope for Aka to be president of a country.
Name: martin kalengwa
Country: USA
Date: 20 Dec 1999
Time: 23:59:38
one zambia one nation........no seccession period.
Name: Austin Mbozi
Country: Ireland
Date: 20 Dec 1999
Time: 17:26:41
I do not support secession.But I feel we would be fairer to our Lozi brothers if we approach their case with some tolerance.Some of the terms we are using against their leaders such as AKa and Mr Mutengelwa (check below)are too strong and may just spark serious tribal hatred.
Even views such as that expressed by Mr Chilukusha below that the Lozi "majority are not part of this talk" may require some stastical proof.
Mr John Mwenya (USA) below says"after all what would poor people benefit from sand? Are we Zambians saying honestly that Western provice would be as poor as it is if it were an independent state? Without even going into academic economics which may bore readers on this page, may use simple reasoning.Would Mongu look as poor as it is if it were a capital of a coutry -no matter how poor that country is?Wouldnt there have been a national stadium of the level of independece studium?Obviously there would have been a national team, so it means there would have been over 30 national players living on football ,including some LOZI PROFFESIONALS SOCCER STARS.All these are languishing in western provice without jobs.Then think of proffessional netballers ,boxers,athlets etc.There would have been a state house, MPs, a cbinet, the judiciary, the civil service.Think of Barotse Newapapaper reporters,radio and TV.All these would have been A SOUCE OF EMPLOYMENT which would hve taken on more Lozis that there are in our government. Barotse would have had embassies abroad- meaning more Lozi jobs.
No matter how poor the state could be,it may have had its own multinational companies.No matter how few or exploitative they may have been, at least they may have benefitted the Lozis more than the deal they have under the current system
The Barotse government would have been going directly to donors and no matter how corrupt their govt could be, that corruption would itself have beneficated a class of rich Lozis.
I know this is speculation,but it is reasonable speculation because no coutry no matter how poor it may be, the Western provice would surely have been better that it is today.Now if you agree that these basic things would have been there what more if then we move on to talk academically of the Barotse ecomomic potential which they could have exploited?
Well I do not think they should secede but we will only tackle the issue if we are fair to their position.I tend to agree with Mr Mwila below that KK must be utilised into this issue when he is still alive.I take it that the leades of Western provice like Mr AKa or Mr Mutengelwa can compromise and stop talking of secession if we show that we respect them.If as Zambia we feel that we can not afford to implement the Barostse agreement as it was originaly negotiated why cant we re-negotiate it ON A ROUND TABLE to mutually beneficial terms.
Throughout the would this post cold war era has shown to be an era of ethnic nationalism.Look around the world,Kosovo,Congo DR,Rwanda,Chechinya,Northen Ireland etc.Even among relatively peacefull groups like the Zulu and the right wing Beors in South Africa,the French-speaking monirities of Quebec in Canada,the American Indians,the Pueto Ricans etc in the USA, are still battling it out with the problem of ethnic minorities.The Barotse people can get solidarity ,inspiration or even support from any of these groups.Besides the UN charter does recognise a right to self government and so depending on how they present their case the Lozis may end up getting its support.(thougnh initially this clause was meant for former colonies it has now taken a new interpretation).
Ofcourse, I agree with Mr Antony Katala below that secssion may have its own logistical probems such determining the boundaries,but is may also be helpfull to our analysists to suppose it is possible for the Lozis to negotiate a government of national unity with the other minority tribes in Western provice and then pull out of Zambia as a group.
While not inciting secession,I think we may well be fair to our brothers and sisters of Barottse and be more torelant if we are to solve this complex problem.This way they will moderate their stance on secession.
2s plight
Name: Akashimiketwa
Country:
Date: 20 Dec 1999
Time: 04:44:19
Name: NA kafula MWAMBA
Country:
Date: 20 Dec 1999
Time: 04:41:31
Name: NA kafula MWAMBA
Country:
Date: 20 Dec 1999
Time: 04:41:20
Name: NA kafula MWAMBA
Country:
Date: 20 Dec 1999
Time: 04:41:08
Name:
Country:
Date: 20 Dec 1999
Time: 04:38:45
Name:
Country:
Date: 20 Dec 1999
Time: 04:37:22
Name: G. Chilukusha
Country: Zambian in Holland
Date: 09 Dec 1999
Time: 12:42:00
The talk of secession is only in the minds of a few lost self appointed leaders of the lozi people. The majority of the lozis are not part of this talk. As for development of western province, i hear it is not easy for a non lozi to set up business there. So if we need development let the place be open to all those with money to operate. That is they way other places in Zambia have developed. Efforts should be spent in this direction and not the retrogressive ideas of going back to the roots which ultimately will only benefit a few of the lozis.
Name: Henry C
Country: Zambia
Date: 08 Dec 1999
Time: 11:59:53
I agree with the contribution below. Secession! What for? These guys are just greedy fools without any heart for the majority Lozis. I think they can only be made to shut up by the Lozi's themselves by disowning them but I doudbt that because like some said earlier on, Lozi's have a superior mentality. By the way, what are their traditional leaders saying about this? It was their forefathers who signed the agreement which I doubt they understood. My teacher used to tell us that the Lozi's signed this agreement while licking sugar which was handed to them by the whites. I may agree with him.
Name: P.P.S
Country: USA
Date: 08 Dec 1999
Time: 05:46:35
Aka and his cronies are just another bunch of miserable failures who should be dressed down and spanked.The man is an idiot who should be thrown to crocodiles in the Zambezi River.
Name: martin kalengwa
Country: USA
Date: 07 Dec 1999
Time: 22:25:37
one zambia one nation.......
Name: Kufekisa
Country: Uk
Date: 03 Dec 1999
Time: 01:06:02
............
Name: John Mwenya
Country: USA
Date: 30 Nov 1999
Time: 23:18:18
This is a topic sane and reasonable minds cannot debate coz the advocates are only thinking in terms of how much bucks they will make out of it. So to hell with Lozi secetionists. After all wht would the poor people benefit from sand?
Name: Enemy-of-the-Bad
Country:
Date: 26 Nov 1999
Time: 08:50:03
C'mon you you guys, I want to hear you talk! This is a very important topic. Are you scared of stepping on Lozis' toes or something? I'll tell you something, if you hold back your feelings, the Lozis will secede and I don't think you like that, do you? So taaaaalk!!!!
Name: Anthony Katala
Country: Zambia
Date: 11/10/99
Time: 12:42:26 PM
FELLOW ZAMBIANS..
I am a Zambian and Lozi by tribe, my father is Lozi from Mongu and my mother is Chewa from Chadiza. I want to let people know how this debate could be a problem for some of us and not for those claiming about it.
Imagine Barotseland seceeds, I for one will have no home. People from both Barotseland and the remaining part of Zambia would not accept me because of my dual status.
Now FACTS: I have lived in Mongu for five years and I never heard of any one talking about secession, but the PROBLEM which is there is that Barotse people know for sure that when Zambia got its Independence, Western Province was the only Zambian Province which had alot of money until when it was engulfed into the Central budget. That wasn't a problem then until after waiting for a long time without development in the area. They started wondering becausing other provinces where being developed and why not Western Province. Western Province is one of the least developed in Zambia if not the last.
Another PROBLEM I have noticed is that of external forces. Early last year there was a report on the BBC website inciting that the Lozi people were suffering in four countries namely:- Botswana, Namibia, Angola and Zambia and that there was need to help liberate them. It is from such reporting that brings revolts like one in Capriv recently.
SOLUTION: Let all concerned Zambians plan and give development to all Zambian people evenly. This is governments' challenge. No single Lozi wants war but all they need is development in there area.
Now, for my brother who wanted to know the Barotseland boundaries, I will give it this way; - I hope you remember when HON. Sata explained on TV how the traditional cousinship came about in Zambia. One tribe had to conquer the other and generations that came by afters started laughing about it. - The Lozis' cousins in Zambia are:- Tongas and Illas in Southern Province, Solis and Lenjes in Lusaka Province, Kaondes, Lenjes and Lambas in Central and Copperbelt Provinces, Kaondes in North-Western Province. Lozis have other tribes they call brothers because they come from the same area like the Nkoyas, Mbundas, Luvales, Chokwes, etc and the Lundas in North-Western Province because the Lozi Queen was married to a Lunda King. - Chewas in the Eastern Province have Bembas, Bisas, Lalas and others as their cousins in Central, Northern and luapula Provinces. Probably this gives you some incite into want Barotse's boundaries could be.
My final appeal is that let us all pray to our Good Lord to seek wisdom on how to sought out this Satanic mess amongst us. Lets not call each other names, this won't help but worsening the very worst situation right now. Tribes will always be there whether we like it or not....Check the Bible.
Name: Anthony Katala
Country: Zambia
Date: 11/10/99
Time: 12:33:44 PM
FELLOW ZAMBIANS..
I am a Zambian and Lozi by tribe, my father is Lozi from Mongu and my mother is Chewa from Chadiza. I want to let people how this debate could be a problem for some of us.
Imagine Barotseland seceeds, I for one will have no home. People from both Barotseland and the remaining part of Zambia would not accept me because of my dual status.
Now FACTS: I have lived in Mongu for five years and I never heard of any one talking about secession, but the PROBLEM which is there is that Barotse people know for sure that when Zambia got its Independence, Western Province was the only Zambian Province which had alot of money until when it was engulfed into the Central budget. That wasn't a problem then until after waiting for a long time without development in the area. They started wondering becausing other provinces where being developed and why not Western Province. Western Province is one of the least developed in Zambia if not the last.
Another PROBLEM I have noticed is that of external forces. Early last year there was a report on the BBC website inciting that the Lozi people were suffering in four countries namely:- Botswana, Namibia, Angola and Zambia and that there was need to help liberate them. It is from such reporting that brings revolts like one in Capriv recently.
SOLUTION: Let all concerned Zambians plan and give development to all Zambian people evenly. This is governments' challenge. No single Lozi wants war but all they need is development in there area.
Now, for my brother who wanted to know the Barotseland boundaries, I will give it this way; - I hope you remember when HON. Sata explained on TV how the traditional cousinship came about in Zambia. One tribe had to conquer the other and generations that came by afters started laughing about it. - The Lozis' cousins in Zambia are:- Tongas and Illas in Southern Province, Solis and Lenjes in Lusaka Province, Kaondes, Lenjes and Lambas in Central Province, Kaondes in North-Western Province. Lozis have other tribes they call brothers because they come from the same area like the Nkoyas, Mbundas, Luvales, Chokwes, etc and the Lundas in North-Western Province because the Lozi Queen was married to a Lunda King. - Chewas in the Eastern Province have Bembas, Bisas, Lalas and others as their cousins in Central, Northern and luapula Provinces. Probably this gives you some incite into want Barotse's boundaries could be.
My final appeal is that let us all pray to our Good Lord to seek wisdom on how to sought out this Satanic mess amongst us. Lets not call each other names, this won't help but worsening the very worst situation right now. Tribes will always be there whether we like it or not....Check the Bible.
Name: Enemy-of-the-Bad
Country:
Date: 11/3/99
Time: 11:43:12 AM
Ladies and Gentlemen,
So far I, personally, am glad that except for Mutangelwa, Aka and a few other selfish Lozis, this whole Barotse Agreement fiasco has received little enthusiasm. However, I'm mindful of the fact that with time, after loads of misinformation from these elements, the average Lozi might start thinking that it's true that the rest of the country has deceived the Lozis. But look at it this way. When the white man came to Zambia, the most powerful king he found was Lewanika. Since it was the white man's primary interest to exploit the mineral deposits in the country, it became his task to maintain peace between himself and the Africans. The only way he could do that was through the most powerful king, who happened to have been Lewanika. Lewanika gave the white man mining concessions on the vast mineral deposits of the Copperbelt, which was not his land. In addition to that, an agreement was made between Lewanika and the white man's BSA company to be paying mineral royalties into Lewanika's treasury.
Now we all know, ladies and gentlemen, how much the white man plundered our mineral (copper) wealth to go and build his beautiful cities back home as a result of such arrangements with our unsuspecting king Lewanika. The point is that Lewanika caused the country's copper to be stolen by the white man. Secondly, Lewanika gave mining concessions on land that was not his. The land belonged and to this day still belongs to the Lambas. It appears to me, therefore, that the wise thing that Mutangelwa and his fellow fanatics should have been not by any means remind us of that part of the nation's history. They should feel embarassed. They should also keep in mind that the so-called Barotseland incoporated not only the Western province but also part of North-western province (I suppose where there are minerals)and the entire Copperbelt province. Now who is going to allow them to secede in that kind of situation?! Is that not tantamount to a declaration of civil war? People like Mutangelwa should know the consquences of their actions and what they say. It is clear that their behavior is triggered by fantasies of personal glory and agrandisement, with total disregard to the welfare of the rest of the Lozis in particular and the entire nation in general. Is it any wonder that their calls for secession have been heightened following the discovery (or is it impending discovery) of diamonds in Western Province? Lozis, please be wary of such characters as they will not lead you anywhere other than into pre-independence slavery and servitude.
Name: Kufekisa
Country: Uk
Date: 11/2/99
Time: 8:11:02 PM
People just don't feel it's worth being a Zambian anymore. A lot of definately has to do with the accelerated dicline of our economy and standards in the past few years.
It's not only about us the Lozis, there are a lot of Zambians who would jump at the opportunity to obtain a foriegn visa to get away from our nation. I last went 'kwa haye' four years ago and it's not only the old generation who are talking about secession, there are a lot of disgruntaled young people out there too. If the economic situation was better, they would be quite happy to remain Zambian. If a stronger stance was taken against corruption and tribalism, non of this would have emerged. I get so upset by people who are too proud of their tribes and keep on blowing their trumpets about it all. This is within their rights of course but it demeans other tribes who feel a degree of injustice. The smaller tribes have to put up with it, but a tribe like the Lozis is a large one and it is very difficult to take taunts.
Thankfully as it is now, there's not enough people out there willing to fight for a Barotseland. We are like any other Zambian, peaceloving, but a few of us (in their own way via calling for secession) are simply standing up against what has been a hard regime.
I think tribalism is sick and there should be laws placed to ensure that it doesn't occure. A lot of people took the 'one Zambia one Nation' slogan for granted. This is some of the problems it was trying to avoid, stability in a nation. We have already seen the effects of a disitegrated political system (mutli-partism). A lot of animausity between parties is existant. This has polorized Zambians and this form of polorization is filtering through to the grassroot levels of society, tribes and even families. We are a young nation and I feel we were not ready for democracy in 1991. More laws should have been passed to prevent corruption, tribalism and other ills currently killing our nation.
Now we have got to sort this problem out soon or we'll end with the situation which exists when man lacks the means of reasoning, war. I don't want any Zambian to be killed beacuase some politician in his cosy home has messed up. The government could actually get rough with secessionists and the innocent undoubtedly will be caught up. On the other hand if Barotseland was allowed to go, this would trigger the total disintegration of Zambia. That would be the saddest day of my life. There are also questions of which tribe will rule in a Barotseland. Remember the situation with the Nkoyas? /Further conflict within a Barotseland would arise. Believe it or not, I was caught up in such a situation which could easily have resulted in the deaths the my family and I. Tribalism is sick sick SICK ...
I am an example of a generation which is a product intertribal marriage and I am personaly against secession but I can see and understand why this situation has arisen. Incompetent politicians are to blame. You still have a chance to rectify your reputations though whilst you are still in power, save Zambia from a genocide. You dug the whole so get us out of it before it is too late.
God bless Zambia.
Name: CIM
Country:
Date: 11/2/99
Time: 6:25:29 PM
This topic is really an importatnt one and sensitive at the same time. Seccesion would entail creating another state in Barotseland. But nation states are not easily formed just like that, they are usually formed out of fussion (comiung together) or fission (breaking away) andin either case there can usually be violence involved. This is what makes me shiver, if I look at where such things have happened before. But canany one, who is well informed tell me more about this Barotse Agreement. What did it actually say? What is the rest of Zambia supposed to pay to have Barostseland part of Zambia? Please my comments are limited by little knowledge and I would like to know.
Name: Ronald Siame
Country: Denmark
Date: 11/2/99
Time: 5:27:47 PM
Well it's sad to hear this issue about the Lozi's. This should not be allowed in Zambia.I reckon it's not the younger generation who are doing this.It should be some old goats who have started misleading the young ones.
Name: Mwila
Country: Belgium
Date: 11/2/99
Time: 2:58:06 PM
It would be interesting to hear from Dr. Kaunda what he has to say on the question of Barotseland. As history tells us, K.K is the man who struck a deal with the British government on the handing over of 'Northern Rhodesia' to self rule. Another issue I would like to see addressed is the question of which tribes are currently present in the so called Western Province. While it is common knowledge that Lozis are in majority, it is also common knowledge that Nkoyas, Mbundas, Luvales etc are found in Western Province. Do the seperatists ignore the presence of these minority tribes? By the way what are the frontiers of the so called Barotseland? Does this area extend beyond the current Western Province boundaries? This debate will help raise the main issues evolving around the Barotse saga. However, Barotseland is better off being part of a united Zambia. The central government must take development to the province which has enormous potential in Tourism, Agriculture (canalisation) and gemstone mining.
Name:
Country: zambian
Date: 11/2/99
Time: 1:17:26 PM
whether you are for or not, gentlemen do we know the truth?
Name: bemba
Country: NonBarotse Zambia
Date: 10/30/99
Time: 10:20:48 AM
Lozis have a superior mentality. let them go! They will just increase the tribalist problem in Zambia in future and we might have a Rwanda situation here.
By the way, if you are Lozi and you do not feel superior or calling for secession, then I am not referring to you: you are civilised. No offence to you.
Name: Bangazeka
Country: Zambia
Date: 10/30/99
Time: 6:57:09 AM
It could be okay to talk about peoples but it could be time peoples started talking about one Africa & not withins. Do not get carried away with such ins which can easily & ably be done in the Barose withins! we appreciate the intention but watch it!.
Name: Bangazeka
Country: Zambia
Date: 10/30/99
Time: 6:56:08 AM
It could be okay to talk about peoples but it could be time peoples started talking about one Africa & not withins. Do not get carried away with such ins which can easily & ably be done in the Barotswe withins! we appreciate the intention but watch it!.
Name: Chinyemba cha Muhinyi
Country: Z
Date: 10/30/99
Time: 12:21:17 AM
This could or would mean Federation by which each group determines its destiny based on a central govt., maybe. On its own I wonder, but it can happen.
Now as to its popurarity, well everything starts small then gets larger. But the truth of the matter after having known Mutangelwa (president of BPF) and Lewanyika on a very personal level, their paths cross somewhat by fate. They're simply out of survival ideas. They would like to be well of at any cost, they are not therefore taking into account what consequences will befall the average Lozi. As usual as pioneers or leaders they will be in comfort whereas the common Lozi will endure the hardships should their unrealistic dream come true.
Take Mutangelwa for example, he stood on UNIP ticket and was defeated, he also tried various ventures IN business and again he has flopped miserably. So the only way out is to disbilize. Whether or not this will work in his favor still remains to be seen.
This should also sound as a war cry to the insensitive MMD, that each region in Zambia is as good as the next. PERIOD.
Name: Seko
Country: Zed
Date: 10/29/99
Time: 3:20:47 PM
Lozi is a very proud tribe. Now that is fine, every tribe is to varying degrees. The difference with this clique unlike others is their conservatism. The others are more liberal.
The new age Lozi incidentally are more accomodating and less hard nosed.
Before this debate soars, it is necessary to establish the true popularity of this 'craze' among them in %ntage terms. One LOUD mouthed tribesman cannot represent the opinion of the majority. This will determine how worthwhile this debate is...