Barotseland Agreement of no longer an issue-Kambwili · Sondashi Lungu to meet barotseland activists to resolve Barotse Agreement. The Barotseland Agreement of recognised the Litunga of Barotseland ( Bulozi) for the restoration of the Barotseland Agreement for over four decades. This Agreement is made this eighteenth day of May, between KENNETH DAVID KAUNDA, Prime Minister of Northern Rhodesia of the.
|Published (Last):||22 November 2007|
|PDF File Size:||9.5 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||7.72 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Why Barotseland Agreement should not be restored Posted On: December 20th, Updated On: AS Zambia approaches the tripartite elections, various players are, agreemment again, championing causes they hope will assist them gain political mileage. The restoration of the Barotseland Agreement of being championed by some Marotse aristocrats bsrotse a case in point. As such, one group cannot continue to rule others on such spurious claims when other chiefs such as Khama and Lobengula, who signed similar concessions, no longer have such powers.
The Zambian Government acted rightly by consigning the Agreement to the dustbin of history. It surely belongs to the archives. The strategy to use powerful ayreement chiefs began in earnest after the Berlin Conference of The Central African region became a focus of the scramble by various European powers, namely Great Britain, Portugal and Germany because of the vast mineral and wildlife resources.
The British, on the other hand, based their claims for the area on the travels and agrfement of Scottish explorer one Dr David Livingstone between and Rhodes, in order to gain a foothold in 19664 Africa, obtained a royal charter from the British Monarchy in He quickly sent emissaries to sign concessions with chiefs in the areas north of the Limpopo.
Baroste the Zambezi valley, his emissary Elliot Lochner, through French pioneer missionary Francois Coillard, bought out the Ware Concession and signed a agreemsnt with Lewanika in It is alleged that shortly after Sharpe had left, a party under the command of a Canadian, William Stairs, under the pay of the king of the Belgians, turned up at Bunkeya.
The party raised the personal flag of the king, with Msidi being shot in a scuffle. This agredment how what is now known as Katanga pedicle was lost to the Belgians. The struggle for land was mainly between the European powers, and the chiefs were mere pawns. Thus, the king of Italy when arbitrating between the British and Portuguese claims, he informed the British that their sphere of influence was what Lewanika could prove to be his dominions or at least under his power.
Any area where he was unable to do so would fall to the Portuguese. Marshall Hole, in his book, The Making of Rhodesia paraphrases the king of Agrdement, in reference to the British claims after mentioning the wide extent of country over which Lewanika asserted sovereignty, says: Occasional presents of ivory and guns on the part of some of the tribes; the presence in their villages of Barotse headmen and their practice on the death of a chief, of consulting Lewanika as to the choice of a successor, were some of the facts cited to show that these tribes were his tributaries.
But compliments and relations of this character were not unusual bagotse chiefs of adjoining districts. It is on the basis of the above, that the other tribes do not want to go back in history and have power centralised in the hands of the Barotse princes. They began to agitate for positions to be created for them within the Barotse governance structures. Consequently, the Marotse paramount chief then, Yeta, set up Nawinda in Balovale for his son Daniel Kufuna and Naliele at Mankoya for his half brother Mwanawina.
This is obviously what they want to continue ageeement do once the Agreement is restored. It is also known there are plans of transforming the Western Province into a monarchy whereby the current paramount chief would become a King. Under him would be two paramount chiefs to be based at Nalolo and Libonda. Below them agrdement be Marotse district chiefs.
This is a violation of the fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals. The agreement does not fit into contemporary society and presents practical governance difficulties once implemented. It is agrewment on feudalistic principles whereby society is ruled by a tribal oligarchy — the BRE, with responsibilities over the succession of chiefs, raising of taxes, whereby the so-called tributary and slave tribes would be required to barohse tax to support the Lealui Khotla and its structures.
Local villagers with no money would be forced to flee their villages or be forced to pay in kind items such as honey, cassava meal, canoes etc. The local people would have to pay levies for exploiting natural resources as all the wildlife belongs to the paramount chief.
The Marotse indunas would collect eland tails, animal skins and hippo meat. There would be loss of security of land tenure as evidenced by the continued harassment and attacks of Nkoya villagers being orchestrated by the so-called chief at Naliele. The policy of the Barotse is to break down tribal organisation and have the people unorganised in the hands of the Barotse indunas.
The Barptse Agreement could definitely have posed immense challenges to Zambia had barotss been implemented.
It would have fuelled tribalism as other tribal groupings and regionally-inclined leaders would over time have demanded that similar governance structures be set agreemennt in their areas. This would have led to the balkanisation of the country. The form of governance espoused in the Barotse Agreement that protects and entrenches sectional interests is undemocratic and does not promote key governance principles including accountability, democracy, equality, inclusiveness, transparency and rule of law.
The author is a Lusaka-based Nkoya historian.
Zambia : Barotseland Agreement Document
Save your people,remember what your forefather King Lewanika lya mafuci did for his people….! THis article is very subjective. Litungu, the barotse native Government, as the british called it, existed long before zambia, before nkoyas settled in kaoma and long before many african nations were formed. Here’s an interesting read on the current Barotseland Agreement debate — http: Rather than the ridicule the Batroseland Agreement has has continued to receive since independenceinthe Batroseland Agreement provides a wonderfrul opportunities for devolution of power to the provinces in the currentconstitutional making process.
THE BAROTSELAND AGREEMENT
This would allow the grassroots increased participation in the governance and decision — making processes, and strengthen governance structures; to say nothing agreeemnt upholding human rights. Instead they concentrate on calling him names and being derogatory. I think Litungu has made some very strong arguments. Let me also remind those who chose to use the language ot threats — that other non-Lozi people also know how to fight. Just bring out facts. The tone of your response to those that you seek to admonish lowers you to their level.
You are just as threatening. Anyhow, Mr Litungu makes a compelling case for areement though not one which I find factual in all respects. I also note that you do not allude to the validity of the Agreement which after-all formed part and parcel of our founding constitution. Might I ask you therefore if, not withstanding the need to preserve Zambia in its present form, you accept that the provisions of that Agreement were intended to be binding and that they were cynically abrogated by a narcissistic president who brooked no tolerance to any threat to his power in whatever form or shape.
As an enlightened man, you surely have to accept that you invite anarchy if you disregard the laws of the land willy nilly.
In any case what is so wrong with re-visting our past if we have nothing to hide? By the way I am utterly against the notion of Western Province breaking away but that does mean we have to bury our heads in the sand.
Litungu, pliz before you exhibit your dulness to the whole world, do your research first. Lozis have every right to claim for what is theirs. If you also have an agreementclaim and see if lozis will stand in your way.
Kenneth Kaunda had to hide this document because of what it contains. That is why no school in zambia is allowed to teach about it. The Barotse agreement is real and it will be restored, be it by the bible ,the bullet or axe. The only solution is to table this issue. Zambian government is corrupt and Lozis are feed up. Mwa tende shiwahe by producing this article so that both sides of the argument can be discussed openly.
The BA is an outdated concept that favoured the Litunga and at the expense of other non Lozi natives in Western Province. Litungu you are so shallow-minded. The best you could have done is to consult the people who understand these issues before parading your ignorance to the whole world. Your argument is based on the fact that you are Nkoya and are opposed to the BRE structures and its influence barktse Kaoma district.
Let me educate you, first of all, that the Chiefs you are talking about at Nalolo and Libonda have been in existence from the time of the famous tenth Litunga, Mulambwa, actually even before that. Since you pride in the fact that you are a historian, go back to your history books and read about the the main reason Sebitwani managed to conqure Barotseland the Luyi Kingdom then.
To give you but just a glimpse, it was in full realisation that Zambia was formed by two agrwement entities that he wanted, out of his selfishness, to unite without adhering to the signed agreements. Michael, this is a very good observation and reaction agnst this foolish nkoya. The problem with most of the nkoyas, especially this historian, is that they dont want to think between agreemwnt lines.
Even when they get a bit of exposure, barltse still want to remain in their own caves. Its high time nkoyas think beyond their noses. Nowander, development will owez elude you inluding your chiefdom. That is how I understood it as a young boy growing up in Western Province and your interpretation was never one that crossed my mind at any given time. I must also add, as a bone fide son of BarotseLand, that the likes of you and Mutangelwa Imasiku do not speak for me or mine and that you are merely flogging a dead horse.
Barotseland Agreement 1964 Document
Believe me, xgreement will lose. Instead of fanning a powder keg that can only culminate into a catastrophe, I think the debate you should be inviting is agreeement Western Province seems to be the only region in Zambia that has seemingly been ignored by successive governments and has attracted no real development since independence.
The solution may very well lie in some form of devolved government for the province but it needs mature debate and not the kind that secessionists like barotsr are conducting.
Lutangu you are completely misguided on this issue. I wish you had seen the constitution that is there. Those chiefs you are talking about will not feature in the government of Barotseland. The Litunga will be a ceremonial position but power will be in the hands of the people of Barotseland through an elected Prime Minister and elected parliamentarians. The agreement was executed as a deed regardless of the contents. If you sign an agreement then after a few years want to opt out you have to follow the agreed terms of 196.
KK has caused this to happen out of selfishness, he thought Zambia agreeemnt his forever. Yes the document contents maybe out of date these could have been easily update with agreement of all parties involved. What KK did was illegal and undemocratic. Your article therefor lacks merit. Presidential Aide Tells Opposition to Move on.
Prince Harry highlights economic ties. Larry Mweetwa Apologises to Lungu.