Barotseland Post, Mongu (2025)

The Barotseland Post: https://www.barotselandpost.com/ for developing stories around Barotseland and beyond, defending Barotseland Self-Determination, Promoting Royal Barotseland Government in Transition and beyond!

08/02/2024

SELF-DETERMINATION: THE CASE OF BAROTSELAND IN ZAMBIA!

Thursday, 8th February 2024 | Barotseland Post Exclusive.

1. WHAT IS THE REAL ISSUE CONCERNING BAROTSELAND?

While general underdevelopment and systemic neglect may be among the main triggers for the perpetual discontent around Barotseland, the main issue, however, is about the territory’s legitimate right to self-determination.

Successive Zambian governments know this but have chosen to keep the rest of the country ignorant, while they continue to treat Barotseland, now renamed Western Province, the same way they treat Eastern, Northern, Luapula, or all the other provinces as if it were the same with them.

No. Barotseland is incomparable to all the provinces of Zambia because it has an internationally acclaimed protectorate status.

The territory that comprises Barotseland has a unique right to self-determination that no other region or province can claim to have within Zambia’s borders. For example, through the 1963 ‘referendum’ the people of Barotseland exercised their right of self-determination to choose to belong to Zambia.

They can also choose to disengage from Zambia by exercising the same right.

Recently, a feeble defense emerged on the Zambian Watchdog social media alleging that the Barotse gave away their right to be a nation through a 'referendum' vote in 1962/1963. Contrary to this lie, however, the 1963 referendum is, in fact, proof and validation of the Barotse people's inalienable right to self-determination.

It shows that the state can never make changes to Barotseland's political status without seeking the Barotse people's consent through a referendum, commission of inquiry, a Barotse National Council, which is a Barotse People's PIZO or voice, or any such tools that would qualify as a voice of the Barotse.

With this right, the Barotse can decide to unite with or separate from any state as they choose, and this right is not a one-time-only chance card. No. It is an indefinite perpetual right they can use over and over again.

The 1963 Barotse vote was not a vote to give away their right of self-determination but rather it was an exercise of it, and they decided, at the time, to use their right of self-determination to stay part of Zambia on the terms and conditions of the Barotseland Agreement 1964.

So, all those using the 1963 referendum to lie and imply that Barotseland no longer exists because the Barotse voted in 1963 to stay part of Zambia are grossly mistaken and also note that no other region in Northern Rhodesia was given that vote because none else had it.

2. THE PRINCIPLE OF SELF-DETERMINATION

Self-determination is the process by which a group of people, usually possessing a certain degree of national consciousness, form their state and choose their government. Self-determination is not a crime under international laws and politics. It is a right - an inalienable human right under the United Nations Charter!

As a political principle, the idea of self-determination evolved at first as a by-product of the doctrine of nationalism, to which early expression was given by the French and American revolutions.

During World War I, the Allies accepted self-determination as a peace aim.

For example, in his 'Fourteen Points - The Essential Terms for Peace' delivered to Congress on January 8, 1918, US President Woodrow Wilson listed self-determination as an important objective for the postwar world, the result of which was the fragmentation of the old Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires and Russia’s former Baltic territories into several new states.

3. SELF-DETERMINATION UNDER THE UNITED NATIONS

After World War II, the promotion of self-determination among 'subject peoples' became one of the chief goals of the United Nations (UN). The UN’s predecessor, the League of Nations, had also recognized the principle, but it was in the UN that the idea received its clearest statement and affirmation.

4. THE UNITED NATIONS CHARTER ON SELF-DETERMINATION

The UN Charter clarifies two meanings of the term self-determination.

i) A state is said to have the right of self-determination in the sense of having the right to choose freely its political, economic, social, and cultural systems.

ii) the right to self-determination is defined as the right of a 'people' to constitute themselves in a state or otherwise freely determine the form of its association with an existing state.

Both meanings have their basis in the charter (Article 1, paragraph 2; and Article 55, paragraph 1).

Concerning dependent territories, the charter asserts that administering authorities should undertake to ensure political advancement and the development of Self-government (Article 73, paragraphs a and b; and Article 76, paragraph b).

5. WHAT IS A DEPENDENT TERRITORY?

A dependent territory or 'Dependency' in international relations is a weak state dominated by or under the jurisdiction of a more powerful state but not formally annexed by it. Protectorates, fall under this relationship.

6. WHAT IS A PROTECTORATE?

Protectorate, in international relations, is the relationship between two states one of which exercises some decisive control over the other. The degree of control may vary; however, the protecting state guarantees and protects the safety of the other.

Barotseland, for example, was a protectorate of Britain throughout its relationship with the British Empire. Explicitly, however, Barotseland officially became a British Protectorate within Northern Rhodesia through 'The Northern Rhodesia (Barotseland) Order in Council 1953' which declared Barotseland a 'protectorate within a protectorate' in writing.

Consequently, Barotseland's British Provincial Commissioner’s status was officially upgraded to that of 'Resident Commissioner' in line with all British Protectorates elsewhere!

So, Barotseland explicitly became a British Protectorate on 2nd May 1953, although its relationship with Britain was always that of a protectorate from the late 1800s.

7. WHERE IS BAROTSELAND TODAY?

In 1964, all rights and obligations that Britain had with Barotseland were transferred to Zambia which became Barotseland's quasi-protector legally. Barotseland was never to vanish within Zambia’s borders but to thrive in it as spelled out in the pre-independence treaty known as 'The Barotseland Agreement 1964', which they together signed.

The Commonwealth and Britain also co-signed the 1964 agreement, making it an international treaty recognized under international law and politics.

Some Zambians argue that the 1964 agreement did not constitute a treaty because the term 'agreement' was used for its name rather than the word treaty!

That assertion is baseless because the word ‘agreement’ is interchangeable with the word treaty in this case. Britain used it in many similar cases such as in 'The Malaysia Agreement 1963' signed between the British government, Federation of Malaya, North Borneo, Sarawak on one hand and Singapore on the other, shortly before signing the Barotseland Agreement 1964 which Britain entered with Northern Rhodesia and Barotseland.

When disagreements arose in the case of The Malaysia Agreement of 1963, Singapore reverted to its original separate existence as an independent state, and today Malaysia and Singapore thrive as separate republics.

However, unlike Malaysia which gave independence to Singapore, the Zambian state, opted for the gradual annexation of Barotseland in the period 1965 to 1969. They purportedly used several ‘legal’ changes to their national constitution to annul the 1964 agreement and completely take over the sovereignty of Barotseland protectorate and went on to administrate Barotseland as a mere province, Western Province, with no special political status from the rest of Zambia.

Zambia’s action against Barotseland’s sovereignty was outright annexation because Barotseland never consented to these constitutional changes which the state undertook unilaterally using the arrogance of numbers in the Zambian parliament or mere presidential decrees in some cases.

8. WHAT IS ANNEXATION?

Annexation is a formal act whereby a state proclaims its sovereignty over another territory. Unlike ‘cession’, whereby territory is given or sold willingly through treaty, annexation is a unilateral act made effective by actual possession and is legitimized by general recognition.

Annexation is frequently preceded by conquest or military occupation of the conquered territory. However, it could also be accomplished, as in the case of Barotseland so far, by the mere threat of military/police force without active military hostilities.

The subsequent recognition of annexation by other states may be explicit or implied. Therefore, whether the other states of the world recognize Zambia’s annexation of Barotseland or not, it is still annexation nonetheless!

The United Nations usually recognizes Annexation only if it is based on the illegal use of military force, and so because Zambia did not use visible military force to be condemned under the UN charters, it does not negate the fact that annexation did occur.

The formalities of annexation are not defined by international law; whether it is done by one authority or another within the state is a matter of constitutional law.

The other term for annexation is colonization or illegal occupation! Therefore, Barotseland today is technically an illegally occupied territory or a colony of Zambia, one African state colonizing another African state!

Consequently, the Zambian state must be roundly condemned by the rest of the world for colonizing or illegally occupying Barotseland without any treaty, having unilaterally abrogated The Barotseland Agreement of 1964!

Since 2011-2012, however, The Kingdom of Barotseland has been taking peaceful steps for the restoration of its sovereignty that began with the Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) which the Zambian state has not challenged in any reputable impartial international court of arbitration!

This peaceful initiative by Barotseland must be supported by all peace-loving states of the world!

SOURCES: United Nations (UN), Encyclopedia Britannica, inc.

03/02/2024

WITHOUT THE BAROTSELAND AGREEMENT, ZAMBIA'S STATE POLICY AMOUNTS TO FORCED ASSIMILATION!

By SIBETA MUNDIA, Barotseland Post | 3rd February 2024

To establish post-colonial Zambia, two laws were enacted: the Northern Rhodesia Independence Act of 1964 and the Zambia Independence Act of 1964. These laws stipulated that two separate territories, i.e. the Protectorate of Barotseland and the Protectorate of Northern Rhodesia, signed The Barotseland Agreement of 1964 to become one independent sovereign republic. This agreement was the basis for the unitary nature of Zambia, and not the mere presence of 72 tribes or their intermarriage as is often deceitfully parroted by some State officials.

Although the two separate territories agreed to become one sovereign state under the above treaty, the Northern Rhodesia Independence Order 1964 and the Zambia Independence Act 1964 ensured Barotseland’s autonomous existence within the republic was preserved and promoted in line with the principles of the 1964 Barotseland Agreement. Barotseland was neither dismantled nor obliterated by Zambia’s independence.

The principle of oneness enshrined in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Preamble to the 1964 Barotseland Agreement was reflected in Article 125 (1) of the Northern Rhodesia Independence Order 1964, which promulgated the Independence Constitution, and Section 1 of the Zambian Independence Act of 1964.

This is a brief introduction to the constitution and history of the post-colonial state of Zambia, created through an agreement between two separate British protectorates, Barotseland and Northern Rhodesia! Anything to the contrary is mere conjecture!

If Barotseland did not vanish when the two separate territories agreed to exist as one sovereign republic, where is Barotseland and what are its borders?

Barotseland and its boundaries as defined in the Northern Rhodesia (Barotseland) Council Order of 1953, signed by the British Crown at Windsor Castle Court on 30th April that year, exist even today.

Although the Order in Council of 1953 granted Barotseland a separate British protectorate status, the British Crown maintained its administration with Northern Rhodesia, making Barotseland a protectorate within another protectorate. The Order in Council also determined the parameters of the boundaries of this Barotseland Protectorate. So, anything outside the 1953 Barotseland Protectorate boundary is either fictitious or at best aspirational and must be claimed under other circumstances.

Therefore, the current borders of Barotseland should exclude all areas in present-day Zimbabwe, Namibia, Botswana, and Angola. Similarly, the 1953 delineation of Barotseland does not include the Copperbelt, North-Western, Central, and Southern Provinces of Zambia.

The territory that signed the 1964 Barotseland Agreement to join Zambia is the 1953 Barotseland Protectorate. Zambia has no legal CLAIM to any of this territory without the Barotseland Agreement of 1964.

Since Barotseland's current claim is based on the 1964 Barotseland Agreement and its purported repeal, only the Barotseland that signed the 1964 Barotseland Agreement could revert to its pre-agreement status if the 1964 agreement is indeed dead.

Any other territory outside the 1953 Barotseland, must be CLAIMED or reclaimed under separate circumstances different from those related to the Barotseland Agreement 1964.

Some people have tried to undermine the 1953 designation of Barotseland as a protectorate. However, as with all Northern Rhodesian Orders in Council signed between 1924 and 1951, due process was taken in signing it. Therefore, invalidating it would consequently invalidate all other Orders before it, and Zambia would simply not exist.

“Now, therefore, Her Majesty, by virtue and in exercise of the powers in that behalf by the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, 1890, or otherwise in her Majesty vested, is pleased, by and with the advice of Her Privy Council, to order, and it is hereby ordered as follows:

“1. (1) This order may be cited as the Northern Rhodesia (Barotseland) Order in Council, 1953, and shall be read as one with the Northern Rhodesia Orders in Council, 1924 to 1951,

(2) this order shall come into operation on the second day of May 1953, and shall be published in the Gazette,

“2. That part of Northern Rhodesia the bounds of which are set out in the schedule to this order and which is known as Barotseland is hereby declared to be, and shall from the commencement of this order be styled, The Barotseland Protectorate.

“3. The Barotseland protectorate shall continue to be part of Northern Rhodesia and nothing in this order shall affect the operation of the Northern Rhodesia Orders in council, 1924 to 1951, or any other law.” - Ends the extract from the Northern Rhodesia (Barotseland) Order in Council, 1953.

With its new protectorate status, Barotseland required a British Resident Commissioner. In 1958, Gervas Clay, then the Provincial Commissioner for Southern Province in Livingstone, was appointed as Her Majesty's Resident Commissioner of the Barotseland Protectorate.

Although evidence exists to show that Barotseland already enjoyed the special treatment of a British protectorate, it was only formally styled so in 1953.

In 1969, the Zambian state repealed the Zambian Independence Act of 1964 through the Constitution (Amendment) (Act. 5) Act, 1969. They specifically removed all sections of the constitution that guaranteed Barotseland's autonomous existence within the Republic of Zambia and added that the Barotseland Agreement 1964 ceases to exist with all its rights and obligations.

Notwithstanding, CLAUSE 8 of the Barotseland Agreement of 1964 prohibits the Zambian Government from enacting laws that contravene the agreement, cautioning further that all future national laws, must never conflict with the 1964 Barotseland Agreement.

Consequently, The Barotseland Agreement 1964 was ANNULLED unilaterally, with all rights vested to Barotseland under the 1964 agreement purportedly TERMINATED!

Legally, if Barotseland’s voluntary membership to Zambia’s sovereignty was terminated by the cited 1969 Act, Barotseland should immediately attain independence as the termination of the Barotseland Agreement of 1964 would free Barotseland from the AGREEMENT to be a part of Zambia.

Instead, the Zambian government implemented policies that forced Barotseland (now renamed Western Province) to become an integral part of Zambia without consent or agreement. Therefore, whether one agrees or not, Barotseland is now part of Zambia, under the mere slogan of "One Zambia, One Nation", as all laws relating to Barotseland's autonomous existence have been abolished since the repeal of the Zambia Independence Act 1964.

Legal and administrative assimilation is defined as imposing one’s own legal and administrative system on a foreign territory, eg a colony or an occupied territory, and this is what Zambia has done to Barotseland. It is an infringement of Barotseland's human rights, among them the right to self-determination.

However, this Zambian state policy on Barotseland is not only a travesty of justice but also amounts to forced assimilation, as any person of Barotse descent who disagrees with or peacefully protests what the state did in 1969 is now considered a secessionist deserving arrest, jail, or silencing by any means necessary, including extrajudicial killing.

The State impunity in Barotseland has only succeeded because they possess military guns and presently control the courts and all military and security wings.

Unsurprisingly, only disgraced lawyers like Winter Kabimba can publicly align themselves with this repressive Zambian policy on Barotseland in the manner he has so far done, and as he is likely to promulgate this Sunday, 4th February 2024, on national television to be broadcast by ZNBC, if the attached advertisement by the national broadcaster is anything to go by.

22/01/2024

WHICH CLAUSE IN THE BAROTSELAND AGREEMENT 1964 PROVIDES FOR SECESSION?

Author: SIBETA MUNDIA, Barotseland Post | 22nd January, 2024.

Zambia’s ruling United Party for National Development (UPND) Consultant, Mark Simuwe, recently raised the question above. Since we have encountered this question many times before, we think it deserves a public response.

Before we tackle Mark’s question, however, we wish to raise a counter question, which we hope Mark will also answer. Our question is, WHICH CLAUSE IN THE BAROTSELAND AGREEMENT 1964 PROVIDES THE ABROGATION OR ANNULMENT OF THE AGREEMENT?

We ask because CLAUSE 8 of the Barotseland Agreement of 1964 specifically instructs the Zambian Government never to allow the enactment of LAWS that will contravene the agreement, cautioning further that all future laws, including the national constitution, must never conflict with the 1964 Barotseland Agreement.

CLAUSE 8 reads on the implementation of the Barotseland Agreement 1964:

“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.” END.

With that clause in the agreement, we seriously wish to know where the Zambian government got the impetus and temerity to purport to ANNUL the Barotseland Agreement 1964 through the so-called enactment of various laws!

Mark further claims that ‘the Barotseland agreement of 1964 is a binding agreement under civil jurisdiction to the extent of the constitution of Zambia which does not recognize it’. But, we ask, why would the constitution of the Republic not recognize the agreement upon which it was founded?

Prominent Zambian Constitutional Lawyer, Dr. Ludwig Sanday Sondashi (Bachelor of Laws LLB, Masters of Law LLM, and Ph.D. in Philosophy in Law acquired at Warwick University, England) has extensively submitted publicly that “THE BAROTSELAND AGREEMENT 1964 IS SUPERIOR TO THE CONSTITUTION OF ZAMBIA”, and we, like many others, agree with this assertion because it is legally sound!

SO, WHY SECEDE OR BREAKAWAY WHEN THERE IS NO CLAUSE PROVIDING FOR IT IN THE 1964 BAROTSELAND AGREEMENT?

To answer this question, we will use the findings and conclusions of the National Constitution Commission, NCC, which was established by the Republic of Zambia on 17th April 2003.

In their report issued in June of the same year, and in their Executive Summary, the Commission reported the following findings and conclusions on the 1964 Barotseland agreement. Capitalization has been added, in some cases, by us for emphasis.

The Commission Report reads:

1.1 INTENT AND EVOLUTION OF THE AGREEMENT

The Barotseland Agreement 1964 is the successor treaty to the treaties subsisting between the British Crown and the Barotse Monarchy relating to the Protection status of Barotseland, prior to independence. The Agreements incorporates the territory and people of former Protectorate of Barotseland into the nation of Zambia, and transfers all obligations and rights of the British Crown with respect to Barotseland to the Government of Zambia, effective 24th October, 1964. The AUTHORITY of the Zambian Government over Barotseland is, therefore, DERIVED from and LEGITIMIZED by the Agreement. The Agreement further provides TERMS and CONDITIONS on which governance in Barotseland is to be conducted by both the ZAMBIAN GOVERNMENT and the BAROTSE GOVERNMENT.

The UNITARY nature of the Zambian State is derived from the fact that the two CONSTITUENT TERRITORIES, i.e. the Protectorate of Barotseland and the Protectorate of Northern Rhodesia signed this treaty to become one independent Sovereign Republic. This principle is enshrined in paragraph 2 and 3 of the Preamble to the Agreement. This principle was further reflected in the LEGAL INSTRUMENT that gave birth to the new Republic, that is. Article 125 (1) of NORTHERN RHODESIA INDEPENDENCE ORDER 1964 which promulgated the independence CONSTITUTION, and section 1 of the ZAMBIAN INDEPENDENCE ACT OF 1964. Both these legal provisions arose as a direct consequence of the Agreement 1964.

1.2 CONCLUSION

Barotseland is a part of Zambia and remains so ONLY as a CONSEQUENCE of the BAROTSELAND AGREEMENT 1964. Failure to implement the Agreement amounts to FRUSTRATION OF THE TREATY which gives rise to QUESTIONS ABOUT THE LEGITIMACY of the Zambian Government AUTHORITY OVER BAROTSELAND and JEOPARDIZES THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE of unitary state.

OUR FINAL TAKE

The NCC, which prepared the above report, comprised highly qualified professionals and eminent people of integrity, and some among them were the crème of Zambia’s legal minds. Our understanding of this report is that there is no Zambian leader, irrespective of rank, who can claim to have authority over Barotseland when the Agreement is not in force like the situation is currently.

Therefore, the Zambian Government would be guilty of breaking the unitary state of Zambia themselves, and not the Barotse activists, because one can't TERMINATE an agreement and still claim rights enshrined in the terminated agreement.

For example, a couple that enters marriage, vowing to live together until death separates them, will have the Court’s endorsement – even without any ‘divorce clause’ in their union because the intention is to live together for life.

However, should irreconcilable differences arise in the marriage, or should the terms and conditions of the marriage break irretrievably, the same court that endorsed their happily-ever-after intentions will sanction their unfortunate divorce. No one would claim that separation cannot take place because there was no divorce clause in their union.

Separation, divorce, breakaway, or secession is inherently provided for in every union contract or covenant agreement, even where no separation clause is explicitly stated. Barotseland, therefore, has an inherent right to withdraw from the unitary state, even for no apparent reason, but more especially when the envisioned unity has broken down irreparably. In this case, however, the reprobate Zambian State has purportedly terminated the Barotseland Agreement 1964, but still demands the rights of unity contained in the agreement they claim to have terminated through their parliament!

Therefore, we appeal to sober-minded Zambians of right conscience to prevail over the Zambian government's impunity. A good national constitution promotes the rights of weak minorities rather than suppressing them, and the Barotse people in Zambia have grossly suffered at the hands of the repressive Zambian State that torments them physically, economically, socially, psychologically, and in every way imaginable!

Mark Simuuwe Simon Mwewa Lane Television Emmanuel Mwamba Hakainde Hichilema, Phoenix FM Zambia , Kalemba , Zambian Watchdog , Koswe , Laura Miti , Brebner Changala , Human Rights Commission , UPND IMAGE BUILDERS , Diamond Tv Zambia Top Stories , Daily Revelation Newspaper , News Diggers

21/01/2024

THE MALAYSIA AGREEMENT OF 1963 MADE SINGAPORE AND MALAYSIA ONE COUNTRY BUT THE TWO NOW THRIVE AS SEPARATE STATES AFTER DISAGREEMENTS!

Author: SIBETA MUNDIA, Barotseland Post | 21st January, 2024.

Many Zambians are not aware that the British colonial government pursued a policy of lumping different countries together, granting them independence as one sovereign state wherever it suited them. In Zambia, this happened in May 1964 when Britain granted independence to a country called Zambia by uniting the two separate British protectorates of Northern Rhodesia and Barotseland through the Barotseland Agreement 1964.

However, before the Barotseland Agreement 1964 (BA64), Britain had just concluded another agreement in August of 1963, the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63), which had combined North Borneo, Sarawak, and Singapore with the existing states of the Federation of Malaya, the resulting union being named MALAYSIA.

Briefly, the agreement relating to Malaysia between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Federation of Malaya, North Borneo, Sarawak, and Singapore (MA63) was the agreement that combined North Borneo, Sarawak, and Singapore with the existing states of the Federation of Malaya, the resulting country being named Malaysia.

However, when disagreement arose, Singapore was expelled from Malaysia, becoming an independent state on 9 August 1965. Accordingly, SINGAPORE and MALAYSIA now exist side by side as thriving separate states. No war or animosity currently exists between them.

Although the two agreements, Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA 63) and Barotseland Agreement 1964 (BA64), were not the same, the point being made here is that Zambians and Barotse people must be made aware that such independence agreements were not uncommon under the British colonial government. It would appear that the British preferred this method for granting independence to colonial territories wherever it suited them and wherever possible.

They tried to put Bechuanaland, now Botswana, under South Africa but the Batswana rejected the ploy. They left Zanzibar under Tanganyika to form what we all know as the United Republic of Tanzania. These are just a few examples. We could list many more.

However, Zambians are always given gloomy pictures of war as in the Sudan – South Sudan affair or Rwanda, and Burundi wars, as a scarecrow for those peacefully advocating for Barotseland's self-determination.

The major differences in handling disagreements arising from the Malaysia Agreement 1963 and the Barotseland Agreement 1964 respectively, is that when disagreements arose in executing their agreements, Malaysia decided to grant Singapore independence in 1965, while Zambia in 1965, decided to start changing its national and domestic laws to forcefully assimilate Barotseland.

By 1969, Kenneth Kaunda and Zambia, using an ACT of Parliament, had decided to declare that the Barotseland Agreement 1964 was NULL and VOID, without consulting the people of Barotseland through a referendum! The territory was also unilaterally renamed Western Province from Barotseland.

Since then, any Barotse person openly talking about the rights of Barotseland to self-determination has been arrested, killed, imprisoned, or detained without trial. While other Zambians can freely and openly talk about Barotseland on print and electronic media without fear, Zambians of Barotse descent will be dealt with severely as secessionists, treason felons, or seditious individuals who are a threat to national unity!

PICTURE FILE: The Litunga, King of Barotseland, Imwiko II (RIGHT) and 7th Zambian President Hakainde Hichilema, walk side by side during the Kuomboka ceremony in Limunga, Royal Barotseland Kingdom

21/01/2024

DOES THE TERM ‘BAROTSE PROVINCE’ IN RECORDED HISTORY PROVE BAROTSELAND WAS NEVER A COUNTRY?

Author: SIBETA MUNDIA, Barotseland Post | 21st January, 2024.

NO! The term PROVINCE, even by simple dictionary definition can be used to not only denote an administrative district or division of a country but also it can be applied to denote a country or region brought under the control of another country’s government.

Some countries under colonial governments could even be denoted as DISTRICTS. Countries have a choice of what to call their different administrative units.
Examples are plenty in history, past and recent.

For example, countries colonized by the ancient Roman government were always governed as provinces, when in fact these were colonized territories or countries. By 200 BC, the Roman Republic had conquered present-day Italy, and over the following two centuries, it conquered Greece and Spain, the North African coast, much of the Middle East, modern-day France, and even the remote island of Britain. Guess what, most of these were administered under the designation of the term PROVINCE!

Even now, countries that themselves could qualify for separate statehood in Canada, such as Quebec, are still governed as PROVINCES. Quebec Province very recently had an independence referendum. What this means is that Quebec is essentially a country whose citizens still want to be ruled as a PROVINCE under the sovereign state of CANADA.

So, QUEBEC is a PROVINCE, yes, but also a COUNTRY!

So, Province, District, Territory, Region, or even State are all terms that can be used to denote the various administrative partitions of any one sovereign country, colony, or continent.

Imagine if Africa became one sovereign country or state. We could call the current countries as STATES, PROVINCES, or DISTRICTS. The choice will be up to us, and any of the above classifications will not diminish the fact that the separate components are still COUNTRIES and STATES within the larger country or state of Africa.

A further example, the Vatican City State and the Holy See is a sovereign, independent territory or COUNTRY or STATE, with DIPLOMATIC recognition as such, and yet it exists and thrives within the city of ROME, not even a PROVINCE but a CITY! This is why it is called the Vatican City State! It is a city but also it is a thriving STATE with diplomatic recognition and status!

So, there is nothing strange in the use of the term Barotse Province in Northern Rhodesia or Zambia.

Barotseland Protectorate can be or could be termed as a PROVINCE because it was a protectorate (country) governed by or governed within another protectorate (country), and both were under the same colonial country or PROTECTOR Britain.

So, even presently, Barotseland country or protectorate could be designated as a PROVINCE because it is still governed under another SOVEREIGN state of ZAMBIA, which started as its PROTECTOR in 1964, but has sadly TURNED OUT to be its COLONIZER!

Barotseland has been under FORCED ASSIMILATION ever since the Barotseland Agreement 1964 was unilaterally abrogated! Therefore, we should all PEACEFULLY advocate for the rights of the people of Barotseland to decide whether to exercise their self-determination within Zambia or outside Zambia. This will prevent the matter from escalating into a volatile position that has engulfed other occupied territories such as Palestine.

By the way, Barotseland could even be classified as an administrative DISTRICT, but that would still not change that it was and still is a separate distinct PROTECTORATE or COUNTRY within another country.

Even Kenneth Kaunda, in justifying his abrogation of the Barotseland Agreement 1964, said that Zambia could not have a STATE within a STATE!

This is what Barotseland was, and still is, a ‘state within a state’, and civilized people KNOW and ACCEPT that this is not ANOMALY, as there are so many states striving within other states!

So, let us not play semantics by appealing to the current popular use of the term PROVINCE to try to dismiss the HISTORICAL status of Barotseland within Northern Rhodesia.

We all understand the history that the country of Barotseland was never granted independent political sovereign existence outside of Northern Rhodesia or later Zambia, but that is not to say Barotseland does not have that right to independent existence either within or outside Zambia!

Barotseland has this inviolable right should its people decide so!

This is what a protectorate status means - a weak state under another state. In Barotseland's case, it was a weak state put within or under another weak state of Northern Rhodesia.
Whether one thinks this was for convenience's sake only, is beside the point!

However, the current problem exists because when Zambia became the successor protector of Barotseland from Britain, by the Barotseland Agreement of 1964, Zambia decided to assimilate Barotseland unilaterally or forcefully by abrogating that 1964 agreement.

So, it is not what administrative term was designated to Barotseland then that matters but rather the FACT that Barotseland was officially, and more clearly, accorded the PROTECTORATE Status by the British in the Northern Rhodesia (Barotseland) Order in Council, 1953 - signed on the 30th of April at the Court at Windsor Castle, which states briefly;
“AND WHEREAS it is expedient that the said territory of Barotseland should be declared to be, and should be styled, the Barotseland Protectorate:

“Now, THEREFORE, Her Majesty, by virtue and in exercise of the powers in that behalf by the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, 1890, or otherwise in Her Majesty vested, is pleased, by and with the advice of Her Privy Council, to order, and it is hereby ordered as follows:

“1. (1) this order may be cited as the Northern Rhodesia (Barotseland) Order in Council, 1953, and shall be read as one with the Northern Rhodesia Orders in Council, 1924 to 1951,
(2) This order shall come into operation on the second day of May, 1953, and shall be published in the Gazette,

“2. That part of Northern Rhodesia the bounds of which are set out in the Schedule to this Order and which is known as Barotseland is hereby declared to be, and shall from the commencement of this Order be styled, the Barotseland Protectorate.

“3. The Barotseland Protectorate shall continue to be part of Northern Rhodesia and nothing in this Order shall affect the operation of the Northern Rhodesia Orders in Council, 1924 to 1951, or any other law.” END.

This is the recorded HISTORY. Whether one likes it or not, should not be the issue here! It is a historical FACT.

PICTURE FILE: Zambian President (left) and the Litunga, King of Barotseland, walk side by side during the Kuomboka ceremony in Limunga, Royal Barotseland Kingdom.

Address

Mongu

Website

https://www.barotselandpost.com/

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Barotseland Post posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Business

Send a message to Barotseland Post:

Barotseland Post

08/02/2024

03/02/2024

22/01/2024

21/01/2024

21/01/2024

Address

Website

Alerts

Contact The Business

Shortcuts

Share

Category