The Barotseland Agreement Issue Requires Implementation Of Constitution, Dialogue To Resolve, Not Threats- Peter Sinkamba

Peter Sinkamba
Peter Sinkamba

By Peter Sinkamba


The issue of the Barotseland Agreement of 1964 is very much straight forward and can be resolved if we politicians honestly dedicate ourselves to amicably resolve the issue.

The key issue concerning the agreement is that it recognised the Litunga of Barotseland (Bulozi) as the principal local authority for the government and administration of Barotseland, with powers to make laws of Barotseland in respect to matters such as land, natural resources and taxation. To me, this issue is straight forward; can be resolved; or has already been resolved except that we the politicians are reluctant to implement the solutions that have already been lawfully put in place.

The lame excuse that has been advanced by we the politicians is that the Barotseland Agreement 1964 was cancelled by Government (GRZ) through the Constitutional (Amendment) Act of October 1969.

This laissez faire leadership attitude, by we the politicians, has led to some aggrived groups among the Lozi demand for the restoration of the Barotseland Agreement 1964 for more than five decades now. Some extreme groups have even called for separation and secession. Among the activist groups for the Barotseland Agreement are the Movement of the Restoration of Barotseland Agreement (MOREBA), the Barotse Patriotic Front (BPF) and Linyunga Ndambo.

Inaction by successive government to amicably resolve the key issue stated above led to violent fights between government troops and the activists on 23rd October 2010 and 14th January 2011in Mongu and surrounding areas.

The fights resulted in fatalities, serious injuries, arrests and detentions. About twenty-four of the detainees were charged with treason for seeking to secession of Barotseland, now Western Province while others were charged with riotous behaviour or conduct likely to cause a breach of peace. Some of them were convicted of treason but later pardoned by former President Edgar Lungu.

In my view, inaction by the PF and UPND governments, to fully implement Articles 147 and 148 of the Constitution of Zambia Amendment 2016, and lack of sensible dialogue, are the main reason why the activists, in frustration, are calling for separation, sessetion, and what not. I do not think that threats of charges of treason, imprisonment etc are sustainable. Such threats failed to work before, and will never work at all.

In my view, the basis of the Litunga’s power as espoused in the Barotseland Agreement have already been provided for in the Constitution. The trouble is “luna ma politian”. We are selfish and dishonest.

Otherwise, the Barotseland Agreement issue is no issue at all. The people of Zambia have already spoken on what must be done on issues like the Barotseland Agreement, through Articles 147 and 148 of the Constitution of Zambia Amendment 2016.


  1. For the first time I realise that there are some people who are honest and NOT afraid to state the truth though this may cause him to be attached. What he said is the truth but NOT popular. Mr Sinkamba, you are NOT a Lozi but like Roger Chongwe SC just stated the truth without fear or favour. My wish for such people is for them to find favour in God’s eyes to be leaders like Solomon. Mr Sinkamba, this is my wish and prayer for you.

  2. Ba Sinkamba, it’s not right for us to be going forward and backward. This issue was already resolved following the procedures we’ve been told about in all literature about the BA availed so far. We’ve even known of situations the Litunga would not have wanted the public to know, that the Malozi rejected the idea through two elections held where the BRE used a party they created known as Sichaba. The idea remains rejected and even now if the issue was subjected to a third vote. The Litunga remains a loser because of selfishness.

  3. Nelson Mandela once said that Leaders must lead the people and provide solutions to the challenges that directly affect the people. When leaders fail on this noble cause the people die. On a matter of providing leadership Zambian politicians have lamentably failed. What we have seen in the last 60 years is a lamentation of the problems rather than providing any tangible solutions to the very problems affecting the nation. Peter Sinkamba comes in as the only original politician who is sober, honest , well meaning and always tries to offer possible solutions to the challenges affecting the Nation. In doing this he will never fear of being misunderstood. The Man is forthrightly Sincere and truly loves his Country. Peter you are the only Politician Zambia needs. You never run away from solving the problems, you never resort to violence of threats and abusive words like others , you never deny the existence of the challenges at hand like others. May GOD give you fortitude of heart and favour to one day RULE this country. You are a GOOD MAN.

  4. It’s not as easy as Peter Sinkamba has put it. Decisions have consequences. If the Barotseland Agreement is restored and the Litunga’s government begins to perform functions related to tax administration, land and natural resources administration, other traditional rulers will demand equal treatment . In order to ensure that Zambia does not become a feudal state, we would need a strong constitution to restrain traditional rulers and their blue eyed boys from abusing their positions. It would take us years to agree on such a constitution. We would have to have a federal constitution with provincial assemblies and governments. We would have to spend billions to build provincial assemblies for the political classes to meet and talk, and talk and talk. Are these our priorities given the economic challenges we currently face? There is no government which is elected every five years that would tackle what Sinkamba is suggesting because its mandate would run out before it has delivered a constitutional settlement. If we have to have a go at it, we would need a special arrangement such as an interim administration which would run the country while the other side would be trying to hammer out an acceptable constitutional settlement. Has Peter Sinkamba and those who agree with him thought on these lines?

    • Further to what I have posted above, many people would consider the fancy pieces of real estate to house provincial assemblies as development. They would not be development. After they are built, what follows next is the cost of running them. Should we be spending money on such things given the youth unemployment crisis we are facing right now with junkies all ove the place, Mongu included? Let’s spend money on the real economy so that youths can get jobs.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here