BAROTSELAND, WHAT EVERYONE IN ZAMBIA NEEDS TO KNOW, WHERE IS THE MISUNDERSTANDING WITH THE ZAMBIAN GOVERNMENT???

A MUST READ

BAROTSELAND, WHAT EVERYONE IN ZAMBIA NEEDS TO KNOW, WHERE IS THE MISUNDERSTANDING WITH THE ZAMBIAN GOVERNMENT???

By: Prof. Edgar Ng’oma/ Philosopher/Political Analyst/Distinguished governance fellow.

“Important issues everyone in Zambia needs to know about BAROTSELAND.critical highlights why there is cease less confrontation between Government and Barotse which in the past has resulted into several arrests of treason nature and several deaths of Barotse protestors. However, in my informed view after my one month vigorous research into this issue HH stand a great chance to resolve this misunderstanding once for all because of the % support he got from there in 2021 general election save alone if it were not for the unguided statement he made in January where through a permanent Secretary of Western he communicated his feeling on Barotseland as a country as its promoters like to call it where he said there is no country called Barotseland. Whether the statement was true or not but the occasion and the channel of communication could have been different, bearing in mind overwhelming support HH receive from there. It’s never too late to withdraw that statement to paveway for a progressive engagement by the two Zambian governments and the Barotse royal establishment confederacy. The LITUNGA and Linyungandamba feel disrespected and demeaned such that the former Linyungandamba has resigned even his position as commissioner of the teaching service commission last week. This is how offensive the statement the head of state made is. Damage control and total withdrawal of that statement are necessary to find a way forward.

BAROTSELAND FEVER.

The Barotseland issue is a very contecious, sensitive, and passionate issue, especially as viewed by the Barotse royal establishment confederacy with the Litunga and the Linyungandamba The Linyungandamba is actually the Prime Minister of the Kingdom directly charged with the responsibility of running the affairs of the Kingdom since inception at the foundation of the Kingdom in the 1800 as we will learn through the historic events as I have captured and tabulated them so that fellow citizens can understand where the history of this country is coming from.

It is important to state here that according to my informed assessment, an ameacable solution settlement could easily be reached between the two parties. I have understood where the Barotse royal establishment raises its basis to call for a separation because, according to them, they contend they have solid reasons why they want to separate from Zambia. It is a clear misunderstanding, according to me, because of the documents I have come across in my investigative journalism of my research in this issue. I will provide the necessary information for each one of us to judge for ourselves whether indeed the Barotse royal establishment has a ligitimate case or not. I suppose they have.

NECESSARY QUESTIONS TO ASK ABOUT BAROTSELAND & ZAMBIA.

It is very important for us to approach this issue by asking necessary questions in order for us to understand the whole issue in totality . This will help us appreciate the whole subject. I have framed the following questions;

1. What is the Barotse royal establishment asking the Zambian government of President Hichilema to do?

2. Was Zambia born as a result of a marriage between the Litunga of Barotse and kenneth Kaunda on 18th May 1964 in London through the Barotse agreement of 1964?

3. Prior to independence in 1964, did the Malozi people want Barotse to be an independent state, or did they reject it to be part of Zambia. What was the result when this was subjected to a vote of 25 seats in Barotseland?

4: What was the purpose of the Barotse agreement of 1964? Was it to form Zambia, or did it serve other interest since Zambia already existed as Northern Rhodesia, which Barotse was already an integral part of?

5. Were North western province, central province Lusaka province,Southern Province and Copperbelt in 1964 at independence, were they part of Barotseland territory?

6. What were the terms and conditions in the Barotseland agreement of 18th May 1964.

7. What were the terms and conditions in treaty should it happen that one decides to end that agreement( treaty)?
what was the procedure to be followed.

8. If the Barotseland agreement was terminated by either party in the treaty, what are the reparcations?

9. Were there any other kingdoms in Zambia that were under British protection apart from Barotseland? If yes, why are they also not asking to get independence?

10. What is the reason all the 5 past presidents had to be petitioned by Barotse royal establishment to allow them to separate from Zambia and from the look of things all did not entertain that separation? These and many more questions citizens want answers to be provided for.

11: What is really troubling the Litunga of Barotseland for him to insist to separate from Zambia? The government and the people of Zambia, through this investigation I have done, will now know what has been problematic to the Litunga, and when addressed, the whole problem will end. I am very sure all the 7 presidents have not understood what the Litunga want.

INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM.

From my informed research digging historical facts deeper, it seems likely that the termination of the Barotse agreement of 1964 with an act of Parliament ACT No. 33 of 1969, which was to amend the Zambia independence order,1964, and the constitution is a source concern and the beginning of the problem for the Litunga of Barotseland.

ACT NO. 33 OF 1969.

This amendment which terminates the Treaty between the government of Northern Rhodesia and the Litunga of Barotseland which provides that it may be cited by that title),which agreement shall on and after the ammendment of the constitution (Amendment) (No. 5) Act, 1969, cease to have effect, and all rights ( whether vested or otherwise), liabilities, and all obligations thereunder shall thereupon lapse.

So section 10 of the constitution was repealed and represented by section 18 .

18. (1) Save as hereinafter provided, no property of any description shall be compulsorily acquired, except under the authority of an Act of Parliament which provides for payment for compasation for the property or interests or right to be taken possession of or acquired.

This Act of Parliament ACT. 1969 according to my informed research is the source of problem for the Litunga and Barotse royal establishment and not for the people of western province in which act power of the Litunga and property that belonged to the royal establishment was reduced (authority/power) and revenue generating and property was also taken away to government of the republic of Zambia .

Without wasting time, this is why the Litunga and the Barotse royal establishment is not calling for seccession but separation between her and Zambia.

INTERNATIONAL LAW ON WHAT HAPPENS WHEN ONE PARTY END A TREATY.

So then, according to international law, what happens when one party to a treaty decides to end it or decide not to be party anymore to a treaty? This is where legal minds need to spend more time to disect. However, later in this research, you will understand why and how this BA 1964 was terminated constitutionally and technically through an act of Parliament.

Well, it is very important at this moment to understand why, in the first place, this government of Northern Rhodesia and the Litunga of Barotseland went into this treaty, which was an independence order . Who needed this treaty more than the other? Or was it on an equal basis that each one needed the other to gain independence ? Let me answer this by first explaining this important background.

Way back in 1835, Europe showed interest in Africa after sending several missionaries to explore it with the hope of conquering it to be a source of raw material for the industrial revolution that was taking shape then in Europe . Let me focus more on the British because they are the source of the Barotseland problem Zambia is currently facing each time there is regime change.

So, a thorough research was done by Scotish missionaries and London missionaries society in the heart of Africa and East & West Africa and a report was submitted to the British parliament on 2nd February 1835 53 years ahead of the Berlin conference in 1888 at which conference Europe resolved how to share Africa and later colonised it without the Africans knowing anything about it. Africa did not know the sociological tools and the psychological war fare imperialists were going to use to conquer her. Africa is far from getting off the brain washing detergent.

*LORD MACAULAY’S ADDRESS BRITISH PARLIAMENT ON HOW TO CONQUER AFRICA 2ND FEBRUARY 1835*

So, then, on 2nd February 1835, Lord Macaulay’s address to the British Parliament read, and I quote the complete address, and he read to a packed parliament session;

*”I have travelled across the length and breadth of Africa and I have not seen one person who is a beggar,who is a thief such wealth I have seen in this country, such caliber that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her SPIRITUAL and CULTURAL HERITAGE and therefore, I propose that we replace her OLD and ANCIENT EDUCATION system, her CULTURE, for if the africans think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own , they will lose their selfesteem, their native culture and they were become what we want them, a truly dominated nation.”*

__*LORD MACAULAY’S ADDRESS TO THE BRITISH PARLIAMENT ON 2ND FEBRUARY 1835*__

What followed after this address was the colonial gear in full swing unleashed on Africa. They tailored the brain washing machinery in four categories. Here, socialogists devised a lethal psychological war fare against Africa, to which Africa until today has not awakened to save for a few learned miseducated lot.

Note that it is not me saying it, but Lord Macaulay who said they needed todupe Africa in orderto conquer it , in his address to the British parliament in 1835 7 years after Shaka Zulu’s British sponsored assassination in the Zulu mighty Kingdom in 1828.

THE 4 BRAIN WASHING MACHINERY.

The four mondus operandi Europe used to brain wash and conquer Africa were;

1. RELIGION
2. EDUCATION
3. HOSPITAL/MEDICINE
4. NUTRITION

I will do a separate article to explain how these four have continued to destroy and keep Africa stagnant for all this long. Out of the 4 above RELIGION AND MISEDUCATION have caused a huge blow to Africa such that I am so terrified to see and observe that some of the very celebrated Academicians and pan Africanists are busy spearheading false religious beliefs brought in by imperialists to manipulate Africa in order to make it easier to conquer Africa. Sadly so, I have heard some of these celebrated scholars and Pan Africanist talk about meeting in heaven one day. What is very painful is that Africa is very far away from emanicipating herself from mental slavery because they despise history, they are taught in school that history is a useless subject fit for dull and weak minds and they are told that history teaches of what happened already long time ago, one can not change it and that there is nothing to learn from it. Far from it ! although true that one can not change the past, however, the truth is that history will make you understand why you are where you are today and once you know what caused what you are busy with today as a result of what was decided for you by your ancestors who were deceived then, with you knowing reality, you have the chance to change it. Knowing your history would change the approach to life and start doing what now out of your true knowledge of your history you have come to learn, the knowledge would be helpful in correcting past mistakes.
Let me come back to the misinformation agenda of imperialists on just another day so that I take time to explain how the 4 brain washing machine have kept Africa where the continent is today Let no one lie to you that Europe love Africa, far from it.

CONCESSIONS IN BAROTSELAND & HOW SHE BECAME A BRITISH PROTECTORATE.

Back to Barotseland. Now we have understood that Europe has an ambitious agenda to conquer Africa and, in particular, the British government as regards to the Barotseland. Here, we learn that through a company spearheaded by John Cecil Rhodes Called British South African company (BSAC) will play a very important role by being an agent of the British Monarchy through signing of various concessions to access mineral resource with local chiefs and Kings in Africa respectively.

Fast forward to Barotseland, the first mining concession was signed by King Lewanika in this chronological order:

April 1889 : Germany trader by the name of Henry Ware brought clothes,blankets, and guns to King Lewanika asking Lewanika that Queen Victoria was seeking to protect his Kingdom from other warring tribes.

27th June 1889 : The Ware concession to mine for 20 years only was signed with King Lewanika, who was paid £200.

October 1889 : Ware concession signed by King Lewanika was sold to John Cecil Rhodes by Henry Ware for £900. Now, the British South Africa company had mining rights in Barotseland.

March 1890 : Frank Elliot Lochner arrives at Lealui in Barotseland. He was Queen’s Ambassador in Matabeleland in Kwabulayo in present-day Zimbabwe, which was then called Southern Rhodesia after the name Cecil Rhodes Note that at this time Lochner pretended to represent the Queen of England when he was not but a representative of the BSA company of Cecil Rhodes. However, Lochner concession was signed between King Lewanika and Frank Elliot Lochner, known as LOCHNER CONCESSION OF 1890.

I would like you to understand the terms and conditions of this concession because later when Northern Rhodesia and the Litunga will sign an order for the independence of Zambia this part will play a very important role especially so because this will be an income for King Lewanika.

TERMS & CONDITIONS OF LOCHNER CONCESSION .

1. Exclusive mineral rights
2. No treaties with anyone else to be entered into by King Lewanika.
3. £2000 (two thousand pounds) to pay annually to King Lewanika.
4. 3% mineral loyalty
5. There will be a British representative in Lealui, the royal palace of King Lewanika.
6. A school would be built in Barotseland to promote trade.

1893: Litunga complains of no British representative in Barotseland.

1895: King Lewanika protests that the Lochner concession is dead:

1897 October : Mr. Robert Thorpe Corydon declared Barotseland a British protectorate and puts its capital not at Lealui as earlier agreed with King Lewanika, but the capital is put in Kalomo in present day Southern Province of Zambia.

1898: Lewanika meets Captain Arthur Lawley, British South African company (BSAC) Senior representative and administrator for Matabeleland Southern Rhodesia now Zimbabwe in Livingstone and signed with him another concession known as LAWLEY CONCESSION.

TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE LAWLEY CONCESSION.

Special note:,Let’s by now understand that the British are here to conquer Africa and collect Africa’s natural resources for their own benefit.

TERMS & CONDITIONS

1. The British government will superintend over administrative authority over all areas under King Lewanika’s rule.

2. Extend the western border of Barotseland Kingdom to Angola, Namibia, and Congo DRC.

1899: Barotseland was renamed Barotseland North Western Rhodesia in November that same year, which extended its boders into present-day Angola,Namibia, and Congo DRC using force to extend the borders.

1900 North Eastern Rhodesia was born after the defeat of Nsingo, a Ngoni prince at Feni in 1889, and the capital city of North Eastern Rhodesia was at Fort Jameson present day Chipata in Eastern province of Zambia.

Note that North Eastern Rhodesia was a composition of Luapula, Northern province,Muchinga province , part of central province, and Eastern Province after the British conquered all Chiedoms in the above provinces.

1907: The British protectorate capital moved from Kalomo to Livingstone of Southern province of present Zambia.

At this time, we had two different British administrative authorities, one North Eastern Rhodesia with its capital at Fort Jameson and North Western Rhodesia, whose capital city was at Livingstone.

Fast forward: Beginning of problems for Barotseland.

1900: CORYDON CONCESSION TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

1. Payment to Lewanika to be reduced from £2000 to £850
2. Reduced control of land because as North western Rhodesia, with its capital at Kalomo, the British, was in control in respect that Barotseland was in 1897 declared a British protectorate which simply meant that;

MEANING OF PROTECTORATE;

A protectorate is a state that is controlled and protected by another sovereign state. A dependant that has autonomy over most internal affairs. (Has its own internal government that is under the control of an outside power) Indirect rule.
This was the source of worry and concern by the Kuta, which was the Barotseland parliament, and the Ngambela, who is the Prime Minister of Barotseland, got very concerned with the restrictive and reduced hold on to power. But then the British native authority kept reminding King Lewanika that he risked being defeated if he became funny like other chiefdoms, which formed North Eastern Rhodesia after their defeat.

1907- 1957 Barotseland National School was built the only one in the two protectorate NER & NWR which would later be called Northern Rhodesia after its almalgamation in 1911.

1911: The British merged NER with NWR into One now to be known as Northern Rhodesia, having in mind that there was Southern Rhodesia, which later became Zimbabwe and Northern Rhodesia to become Zambia. However, after the merger It is important to note that at this time of the merger, Barotseland native authority was given autonomy over Northern Rhodesia rule.

1928: Lambaland became Copperbelt.

1936: Barotseland native authority was formed to manage its own natural resources and internal reinforcement.

1941: Here something important happened that changed the native authority of Barotseland which reduced the borders of Barotseland from where it extended to Lambaland , Balovale Lundaland etc through a government gazette of 1941 in which the government of Northern Rhodesia carried a research to find out whether the other chiefdoms which were an extension of borders forced on them through the extensions of borders at a treaty or concession signed between King Lewanika and Captain Arthur Lawley in 1898 and through an order council at Windsor in 1899 which included even areas in Angola, Namibia and Congo DRC. This government of Northern Rhodesia read in part to reduce the borders of Barotseland to the current geographical map as it is known today.

I quote in part:

NORTHERN RHODESIA.
GOVERNMENT GAZETTE:
[ No. 1041 ] Lusaka,Wednesday 9th July 1941 [ Vol. XXXI,No. 38.

GENERAL NOTICE No.398 of 1941

BALOVALE DISPUTE :

The announcement made by His Excellency the Acting Governor at Mongu and Balovale on the 16th June concerning the settlement of the dispute between the Barotse Native Government and the chiefs of Balovale and the consequent agreement together with the addresses of welcome to His Excellency by the Barotse Kuta (Parliament)and the Luvale and Lunda chiefs are published here under for general information.
KEITH TUCKER, Acting Chief Secretary to the government;8th July 1941:

ANNOUNCEMENT.

1. I have come here to tell you about the decision which has been reached in regard to the dispute about the Balovale district.
2. You will remember that this dispute was brought to the attention of Sir Herbert Young when he visited Balovale in the year 1936. He visited Mongu and discussed the matter with the paramount chief and the Kuta (By the way the British through their representative Lawrence Aubrey Wallace that King title to Lewanika be stripped and be outlawed to paramount and he resists he risked being conquered this was done between 1911 – 1928 ). After that an agreement was drawn up and signed regard to the setting up of native courts in the whole of Barotseland and including Balovale, and the Barotse native courts and Native Authorities ordinances were accepted by the Kuta (Barotse parliament).
3. That and Lunda and Luvale were not prepared to accept the jurisdiction of the Malozi courts and claimed that they should have been consulted before this agreement was made. Further effort was made, where in 1937, the Paramount chief and the Lunda and the Luvale leaders attended as a way of reaching a settlement.

“It must be reported here that the two parties could not reach settlement, and it was agreed that a commission should be set up to deal with this stand-off.”
Let’s go to Paragraph 6 of the Gazette, and it reads;

The Kings commissioner has found that the land in the Balovale District does not belong to the Malozi, and in accordance with the finding His Majesty the King has decided that the Lunda and Luvale tribes are entitled to be free from Barotse rule and that most of the Balovale district should no longer be part of Barotse province or under the provincial commissioner,Mongu. The tribes in Balovale district will have their own native courts, Native authorities and native treasuries and rule themselves like other tribes subject to the supervision of the British overseas management authority (BOMA)and the central government in Lusaka. The Nawinda Kuta ceases to be the native authority for the Balovale district from June 30th, 1941, and the indunas of the Kuta must be recalled back to Mongu without delay. Reads part of gazette.

1947: King George VI visited Northern Rhodesia in Livingstone and met Litunga Litiya there.

1948: Mwanawina ascends to the throne of Barotseland, and his brother Godwin Mbikusita Lewanika formed a political party called Northern Rhodesia Congress (NRC).

1948: Barotse native government petitioned the Northern Rhodesia government to grant them their full powers, but the Northern Rhodesia government declined .

1951: The Litunga and the Ngambela visited Lusaka state house where the governor refused to grant them their grievance but still affirmed the concession status Barotse with the British government intact.

1953: The federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland was enforced where Northern , Southern Rhodesia, and Nyasaland became one federal state with its headquarters in Salisbury today Harare. However, the Litunga was happy because Barotseland native government remained with autonomy. Meaning she continued administrating herself, and the concession remained in force.

1958: Governor of Northern Rhodesia Sir Arthur Benson met Zambia African National Congress (ZANC) leaders and offered ZANC 8 SEATS where the white party was going to retain 14 seats total of 22 seats in the legislative council without going for an election, but ZANC declined the seats instead they launched an attack on voter registration.

1959: ZANC was banned, and its leaders were arrested.
However,Barotse Native Government, through a Litunga sponsored party, Sicaba participated in that election and won 2 seats.

1960: Kenneth David Kaunda of Northern Rhodesia, Joshua Nkomo of Southern Rhodesia and Dr. Hastings Kamuzu Banda went to London to negotiate to break the federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland.

VERY IMPORTANT PART OF THE HISTORY OF THE BAROTSELAND WHICH ANY GOVERNMENT IN ZAMBIA MUST PAY EXTRA ATTENTION TO.

The events after 1960 were too critical to both the Barotseland royal establishment and to the Zambian government and to citizens of Zambia. These are historical facts captured as they happened.

1960: After the return of Kaunda from London where together with other leaders went to negotiate for the breaking of the federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland he tried to visit the Litunga of Barotseland but the Litunga refused to meet him and his team exact behavior exhibited by the current Litunga Imwiko III when he refused to meet a delegation with a message from president of the republic of Zambia His Excelliency HAKAINDE HICHILEMA. As though refusing to meet Kenneth Kaunda was not enough the Litunga further banned any other political party activism in Barotseland except a Litunga and white settlers sponsored political party called Sicaba party which was a Malozi party sponsored by the Litunga and white settlers who wanted to prevent a wind of change for independence of Northern Rhodesia , a wind of change that was going to usher in a black rule in Northern Rhodesia to gain independence from Britain to a black self rule exactly like what had already happened in Ghana which attained her independence in 1957, 7 years earlier than Zambia.

1961 April : Then, later in April 1961, the Litunga of Barotseland, Sir Mwanawina, and the Ngambela demanded to secede from Northern Rhodesia to an independent Barotse nation but this was declined by the British colonial secretary Ian Macloud Sir Roy Welensky was governor of Northern Rhodesia at the time and the last governor .This did not go well with the Litunga. Then Litunga and his ruling class unleashed violence on nationalist political parties UNIP and ANC political activists and banned them from campaigning within Barotseland. The Litunga demanded that UNIP and ANC, the two Nationalistic Independence movement parties, must not field candidates in Barotseland because they could never win against the Sicaba Party!

The Governor of Northern Rhodesia told the Litunga that since he was so sure that UNIP and ANC could not win, he should let them contest the elections in preparation for Independence.

Litunga Mwanawina Lubosi told the governor that if the Nationalist Movements would lose the elections in Barotseland, then He would have the right to secede it from Northern Rhodesia before independence takes place.

Barotseland had two Parliament seats already, which they won during the election boycotted by ZANC in 1959. However, UNIP and ANC political activists were banned from campaigning mwa Bulozi, and they had to campaign at night to avoid being lynched by the Litunga’s sponsored cadres The Sicaba Party, on the other hand were bought a land rover and funded the tune of £240, which was a lot of money back then for campaigns!
Despite the fact that the Litunga”s preferred Sicaba Party was campaigning freely throughout Barotseland in a Land Rover and had money to buy voters with, while UNIP and ANC were banned from holding any campaign meetings in the Barotse Province, the two UNIP candidates, Mubiana Nalilungwe and Arthur Ñututluti Wina won with massive landslide victories.

1963: The Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland ended, and Kenneth David Kaunda with his UNIP and Harry Mwaanga Nkhumbula with his ANC preparing for elections for the independence of Northern Rhodesia.

In 1963, demands were made that the Katengo should be made an elective body instead of having appointed representatives! Elections were organized and planned for January 1964. Again, the Litunga and his ruling class at Namuso (Lealui ) backed the Sicaba regionalist party and demanded that if it won those Katengo Élections, then Barotseland would march to independence as a separate country! Again, the results were a disaster for the Litunga Mwanawina III.
UNIP, which was banned from campaigning within Barotseland again, scooped all the 25 Katengo seats!

That UNIP victory is what killed the Litunga Mwanawina’s secession wishes. The people of Bulozi had spoken through the Ballot that they wanted to be part of the Nation of Zambia. The people of Bulozi outright rejected their Litunga’s motivé and wish to be a separate state by voting against Litunga’s party and his wish.
Because the Sicaba Party failed to win even a single seat in the Katengo, Litunga Mwanawina had no moral standing to demand for secession. Mwanawina was using those elections as a referendum for him to secede if the Nationalist Movements lost against his preferred Sicaba party! To his disappointment, the United National Independence Party (UNIP), which was the party he hated the most, won both the Katengo and Parliamentary Elections with landslides.

The Malozi had stabbed their Litunga in the back. Mwanawina was stranded because his desire was thwarted by his own people through the ballot. Following this disappointment, Mwanawina appealed to the Secretary for the Colonies Ian Macloud on how to preserve his rights and privileges under the new government! The newly elected near future Prime Minister of soon to be independent Northern Rhodesia, Kenneth Kaunda, and Litunga Sir Mwanawina were invited to England where the Barotseland greement was signed.

Contrary to what the Secession promoters have told the nation and the world at large, Barotseland Agreement was not a marriage certificate between Barotseland and Zambia. At the signing of the agreement on 18th May 1964, Barotseland was already an integral part of Zambia (Former Northern Rhodesia), and the Barotse Agreement was an INDEPENDENCE ORDER. What the Barotseland Agreement did was to safeguard the Litunga Mwanawina’s interests which he failed to secure through his Sicaba Party during the last election his party lost all the 25 seats to United National Independence Party (UNIP) led by Kenneth David Kaunda.
That Barotse agreement of 1964 gave the Litunga Mwanawina powers to have his own taxation system, powers over management of forests, and other natural resources, etc.

*“It must also be made very clear here without fear or favour that the Barotse Agreement 1964 did not create Zambia. Zambia already existed as Northern Rhodesia – one entity that was governed by one governor representing the British colonial power. Barotseland was simply a Protectorate within that Colony of Northern Rhodesia and upon attaining independence Britain made it clear that the protection ended at the independence of Zambia and Barotseland ceased to be a protectorate of Britain especially so that Barotseland had 25 seats in the National Assembly of Zambia to represent it!*

A lot of people may be wondering why the MaLozi voted against the wishes of their Litunga and chose to back one of the Nationalist Movements instead of the Sicaba party, which was a malozi party. The reason is simple, my investigative journalism has revealed that the MaLozi people;

” DID NOT WANT TO BE INDIRECTLY COLONISED BY WHITE SETTLERS FROM SOUTHERN RHODESIA NOW ZIMBABWE “

Those white settlers are the ones who bought the Land Rover and provided the £240 for the Sicaba Party. By voting for the Sicaba Party, the MaLozi people would have sold Barotseland to the financiers of that regionalist party who would obviously want to reap some benefits from the victory of the party they sponsored! The other reason was that the majority of MaLozi never ascribed to Litunga Mwanawina’s desire to secede Barotseland from the rest of the country.

Third, the Litunga received massive financial support from the UK government, which benefited only the Litungas and their immediate families and dependants and not the majority MaLozi people . This is the most important part of history the government of Zambia needs to understand in an engagement with the Litunga and the Ngambela any time soon.

EMPHASIS OF FACTS. THE MAIN REASON THAT THE BA 1964 SERVED.

The BA 1964 was not a marriage between Zambia and Barotse ! The BA 1964 was a diplomatic way by the Litunga who had lost the support of his people to salvage some economic authority. This must be clearly under pinned without fear or favours !

People may be wondering why Kaunda signed it. UNIP was in a hurry to free this country from colonial rule. The Litunga’s manœuvres and reluctance to let go of Northern Rhodesia to independence because of obvious reasons was delaying the march towards independence. Hence, he signed it, knowing that he would constitutionally and technically get rid of it through the ACT of parliament of 1969! He was properly advised by the British colonial government of Sir Roy Welensky and secretary Ian Macloud who advised that since Barotse was well represented in the National Assembly a bill to do away with the BA 1964 would be thrown into parliament and members would debate it over and once successful which was going to be the case, since in Barotseland the malozi rejected the move for the Litunga to secede that treaty would be terminated by parliament.

ACT 33 of 1969, WHICH TERMINATED THE BAROTSE AGREEMENT.

From my informed research digging historical facts deeper, it seems likely that the termination of the Barotse agreement of 1964 with an act of Parliament ACT No. 33 of 1969, which was to amend the Zambia independence order,1964, and the constitution was done so in good faith to subject the agreement to parliament by a popular vote.

This amendment which terminates the Treaty between the government of Northern Rhodesia and the Litunga of Barotseland which provides that it may be cited by that title),which agreement shall on and after the ammendment of the constitution (Amendment) (No. 5) Act, 1969, cease to have effect, and all rights ( whether vested or otherwise), liabilities, and all obligations thereunder shall thereupon lapse.

So section 10 of the constitution was repealed and represented by section 18 .

18. (1) Save as hereinafter provided, no property of any description shall be compulsorily acquired, except under the authority of an Act of Parliament which provides for payment for compasation for the property or interests or right to be taken possession of or acquired.

This Act of Parliament ACT. 1969 according to my informed research is the source of problem for Barotse royal establishment in which act power of the Litunga and property that belonged to the royal establishment was reduced (authority/power) and revenue generating and property was also taken away to government of the republic of Zambia .

Without wasting time, this is why the Litunga and the Barotse royal establishment is not calling for succession but separation between her and Zambia. So then, according to international law, what happens when one party to a treaty decides to end it or decide not to be party anymore to a treaty? This is where legal minds need to spend more time to disect. How ever What need to be made clear here is what was the state in which Barotse was left after the British refused to grant it self rule to secede and also after the British terminated its protectorate status and recognized it as paramount chief like the other four(4) paramount chiefs in Zambia except that the Barotse royal establishment had BA 1964 agreement which was later terminated or cancelled?
Here is where I would advise the New Dawn Government to engage with a lot of sincerity and honesty because this conversation has enough evidence that Zambia, being a unitary state, acquired this status quo constitutionally with clear evidence.

CONCLUSION

From my findings, my advice to both the Barotse royal establishment and the new Dawn government and to future government is as follows;

The Litunga is obviously aggrieved that his concession from which was attributed to stead financial benefit to help the Litunga run comfortably the affairs of his palace and that of the royal establishment suddenly got terminated through the fateful Act No. 33 of 1969. This act hit a huge blow to the Litunga in the running of his once powerful Kingdom/Chiefdom which the British themselves not UNIP, reduced it to a mare chiefdom around 1924 and stripped off him of Kingship title to paramount chief which the Litunga has never been happy with ever since.

My advice to both the Litunga and government is to quietly engage each other, especially when the Litunga must now be flexible and allow the government to engage it in a win-win conversation.
■ Let no party from either side show arrogance towards the other because of the sensitive nature of the issue.
■Let each one of the two parties go into that meeting with an open mind prepared with documentation to back their claim as evidence of their side of the argument.
■ Let both of them choose a neural person or bordy like LAW ASSOCIATION OF ZAMBIA LAZ/ AU/ UN/SADC/EU, etc. to arbitrate.

This way this issue will be resolved once for all, otherwise going the way things are, we are likely to have a serious clash in the near future between the two and since Barotse does not have sophisticated weaponry we may end up with many casualties from their side which could be avoided.
The Barotse royal establishment in future must desist from engaging opposition political parties to avoid being promised to grant them their wish to become an independent state because once such parties form government they fail to honor their campaign obligations because of reality they meet once they are finally in government.

Moreover, most of these opposition leaders do not understand what is attainable by a government and what is not for a simple reason. Most of them have never served in government ever since.

I submit.

Without fear or favours.

By: Professor Edgar Ng’oma

The writer is a distinguished visiting professor of philosophy, a pioneer senior lecturer to the American University of Peace and Governance to open at Lorte in Texas USA. He is also a distinguished fellow with the chartered institute of peace and governance Texas USA. The writer has been a political commentator, analyst, and political scientist with master of science degree in political science. He has been a private political consultant to 4 of 7 Zambian presidents since 2005.