Vice President Inonge Wina (r) interacts with Barotse Royal Establishment (BRE) Indunas shortly after the burial of His Royal Highness the late Chief Lukama Meebelo Sekeld of Sioma and Shangombo Districts at Ibolokwa area of Nalolo District in Western Province
FILE: Vice President Inonge Wina (r) interacts with Barotse Royal Establishment (BRE) Indunas shortly after the burial of His Royal Highness the late Chief Lukama Meebelo Sekeld of Sioma and Shangombo Districts at Ibolokwa area of Nalolo District in Western Province

Submissions of the Barotse Royal Establishment (BRE) to the Parliamentary Select Committee to Scrutinise the Constitution of Zambia Amendment bill no. 10 of 2019

The United Liberal Party would like to thank the Chairman of the Select Committee and the Committee for according the party an opportunity to submit a memorandum on ramifications of the proposed amendments on behalf of the BRE.

We wish from the onset to state that the BRE have only issue with three articles in the bill namely, articles 149, 165 and article 4(3).

On August 27, 2019, the Barotse Royal Establishment requested the United Liberal Party to present on its (BRE’s) behalf to the parliamentary select committee various concerns on proposed amendments to articles in the constitution of Zambia as contained in the constitution of Zambia (amendment) bill no. 10 of 2019.

Article 149

The Barotse Royal Establishment (BRE) is of the view that the proposed amendments to this Article could give the President excessive and unilateral powers to create, divide or merge provinces with recourse to and approval or consultations with the traditional stakeholders and parliament. The excessive power may be used for the alienation of parts of Barotseland and merge them with lands outside the jurisdiction of His Majesty the Litunga. The BRE considers the proposed amendment unconstitutional and a threat to the integrity of Barotseland and direct affront to the authority of the Litunga;

Article 165

The BRE considers the proposed repeal of this article and its substitution with a provision that effectively requires ‘chiefs’ to be recognized by someone or some entity under an Act of Parliament the President and in turn empowering the person or entity to withdraw that recognition as unsuitable to the values and norms of Barotseland. The contention in this article is that it does not recognize or support the traditional structures of Barotseland, as there is no uniformity among traditional societies in Zambia; it denigrates the supremacy of His Majesty the Litunga of Barotseland of his territory. The provision would engender confusion, insubordination and lawlessness among some ethnic peoples that seek to rebel against established authority by declaring oneself as ‘chiefs’ when not a ‘chief’; thus creating and promoting insecurity.

The BRE feels that this Article even in its present state offends, violates and undermines the customary, traditional, legal rights and authority of the Litunga and National Council. The BRE resolved to advise strongly that this provision be withdrawn.

Article 4 (3)

This Article proposes to state that ‘the Republic of Zambia is a Christian, unitary, indivisible, multi – ethnic, multi – racial and multi – party democratic state. The BRE believes that the word indivisible defeats the spirit and purpose of a unitary state. The BRE wishes that this Parliamentary Committee will ensure that Bill No. 10 of 2019 includes Articles that acknowledge the fact that Zambia is a creation of two nations that agreed to unite into one nation and one people under the Barotseland Agreement of 1964. In this regard the BRE feel that the word “indivisible” be deleted.

The BRE also wants to bring to the attention of this committee the centuries long traditional government system of Barotseland, were the Litunga is an institutionalized symbol of authority and unity among the 38 ethnic groups and is the established medium of preserving the diverse cultural heritage. Traditions, customs and the cultural values of all the ethnic groups comprised in Barotseland revolve around the Litungaship.

The Litunga ensures that people in Barotseland choose their chiefs in accordance with their peculiar hereditary succession systems. Once correctly selected and chosen, chiefs are brought before the Litunga to be installed and given the instruments of power. Anything to the contrary constitutes a serious breach of our traditional values and cultural norms.

Arising from this background the position of the Barotse Royal Establishment and the people is that Barotseland shall remain united and all its thirty – eight (38) ethnic peoples remain one people under the leadership and direction of His Majesty the Litunga.

The Barotse Royal Establishment, further wishes to present to the Parliamentary Committee that it upholds and reminds the Government of Zambia of the provisions of Article 8 of the Barotseland Agreement 1964. This Article, inter alia, states unequivocally that; “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 the Barotseland Agreement 1964”.

The BRE states that it shall not accept any constitutional provisions, which are inconsistent with the letter and spirit of the Barotseland Agreement 1964, more so that we are in the process of healing the wounds that Barotseland suffered in the past by acknowledging its constitutional status within a United Zambia.

The United Liberal Party believes that the concerns raised by the Barotse Royal Establishment are genuine and requires the serious attention of the Chairman and the Parliamentary Committee.
We would propose on behalf of the BRE that in order to take into account the concerns of the BRE, a Proviso be put to Article 149 that will make it clear that Political boundaries of districts and provinces do not affect customary and tradition boundaries and jurisdictions.

We therefore propose inclusion of a proviso with wording to the effect,

“Provided that no creation or merger of a district or province shall affect the traditional or customary authority or jurisdiction of existing customary traditional Paramount Chiefs, Senior Chiefs and Chiefs authorities’ existing jurisdiction or physical boundaries”.

We further suggest that upon creation, merger or division of a province or district the traditional and customary authorities be consulted to take into account and peculiar local issues that may be relevant.

With regards to the preamble Article 4(3) the BRE seek to have recognition of the unitary status of Zambia being based upon the BAROTSELAND Agreement of 1964. For this reason the BRE would propose that the Barotseland Agreement be recognized in the Constitution as the basis for Zambia being a unitary state

We feel that these proposals will enhance the Bill which is before your committee.

[Read 2,564 times, 1 reads today]
Loading...

19 COMMENTS

  1. At the end of the process bill 10 will just remain a shell of itself. BOZ, ZCTU, PF, NGOCC, LAZ and other are all but rejected different clauses.

    4

    1
    • Interesting iwe let keep submitting patriots – iyi iliko hot: Bravo BRE

      After reading this article, I quickly ran to BRE imaginary map just to ensure knowledge of where I am actually standing, in Barotseland or Northern Rhodesia – Cecil Rhodes land.

      So Northern Rhodesia + Barotseland = Zambia.

      Thank God there can not be Zambia without Northern Cecil Rhodes land and Barotseland. Zambia was conceived and given birth to by these two now inseparable regions.

      ONE ZAMBIA, ONE NATION

      I am awaiting double K’s submission on this issue.

      Progressives will not wait for timid characters suffering from severe emotional problems.

      2

      2
    • I can see this as paving way and charting a territory for a future cessation attempt. Do not make provisional acquisition of sovereignty of any parts of Zambia by any political, monarchy or ethnic makeup.
      Ameding a Constitution is a fragile undertaking but we can as well dare not stand aloof and not update it.
      Interesting comment thorn.

      4

      0
  2. Kingdoms are a fallacy. We do not want a class society where the accident of birth becomes a guiding principle to leadership. We also need to clean up the act so that fo.ols do not ascend to higher office. Enough said.

    5

    1
  3. Every civilized society preserves its culture, traditions and norms. You can’t just boast of being progressive without your background and past, even while you seek to modernize and move with times. Europeans; Arabs; Asians all have preserved their centuries old values and traditions while also embracing the future with modern technology. Simply put the past and the future are not incompatible with one another, rather they co-exist and match in unison while remaining steadfast to inform future generations of past mistakes in order to strive to not to repeat them; but also cherishing and embracing achievements.

    Barotseland was and will always remain a nation of strong traditions and cultural values that you can’t just seek to bury for political expediency.

    Great submission but who…

    5

    0
  4. Boring article. Anyway I have a serious question you people. So as you know I am married to a beautiful white woman who I love so much. Yesterday the ex from Zambian who I blocked on social media seem to have found a way to contact me. She is still in love with me and not over me from an old relationship with we were kids. She says that my white woman can’t give me what I need both in bed and life. She is now threaten to contact my white wife. What should I do ?

    1

    4
  5. Quite correct BRE. If the Barotse Agreement of 1964 created Zambia from two separate countries Barotseland and Zambia, then if one party has issues with that Agreement to the extent that he elements of that Agreement are not respected by either party, let them bring it out to the other party. In the extreme the option of pulling out of the Agreement remains available to the other party. On the other hand, no party is allowed to pull out of that Agreement on flimsy grounds if its elements are still intact and respected. I hope that the Agreement had sufficient foresight to demand compensation from one party to the other for abrogation. This is because abrogation or breaking up is seriously disruptive to the economic, political, cultural and social well being of the whole or the part.
    The…

    0

    0
  6. …The trend where successive political leaders in Zambia try to amass as much power as they can for personal aggrandisement and pride at the expense of the people is the source of such conflict.
    More so under PF where cadres and their leaders somehow think that they and they alone are Zambia.
    The BRE submission is also important partly because of its foresight. For example, at their “convention” in Choma in 2006, UPND said it was time for one of their own to rule Zambia. This is not in the constitution of Zambia and they are basically too shy to submit an amendment to that effect. Now imagine that HH and UPND somehow came to power, you can rest assured that they will try to centralise power in their trible to the threat of BRE/Litunga, Chitimukulu, Undi, Mwata, Mpezeni etc – a…

    1

    2
  7. …this is a source of potential conflict in Zambia,. Please do not allow power to be entrenched in ANY President of Zambia,especially PF and UPND. This is an established and well known and common source of conflict and wars in Africa, God forbid for Zambia.
    I therefore submit to the Parliamentary Select Committee on Amendment Bill No. 10 to respect the BRE submission to the letter, and not entertain any greed for power by political individuals, for posterity will judge and Zambia harshly, if at all there will be any Zambia left if such blatant greed for power is entertained today.

    1

    0
  8. I support the BRE submission. Note that secession would not be good for Zambia or the BRE at this point in history. The wise Litunga and many Lozis know this. There are so many intermarriages and other links at this point. But recognizing that Zambia is a unitary state shows respect to all of us.

    2

    1
  9. It’s demeaning for the BRE to request a 1-man Party to make submissions on its behalf. I hope Sakwiba Sikota has just misled himself. Saki isn’t the Ngambela or even an Induna so what’s he talking about? Very styopet! His hands are not clean because he supports styopet NDF resolutions. We can’t listen to Saki. May be he’s still confused with Tonga beatings he suffered at the hands of Hichilema

    0

    2
    • @Junior jj, Saki is just another jemasoni guzzler so what difference could have he made? State House could’ve been turned into a skokiyani den

      0

      2
  10. #9 Ayatollah, the BRE is at liberty to make their representation through the ULP leader. They have given him authority to do so on their behalf. Find something to keep yourself busy and leave Saki alone.
    Come to think of it, but for a trible coup in 2006 which installed HH, Saki would have been leader of UPND and maybe President of Zambia in 2011 instead of Mr Michael Sata and his PF.

    2

    0
    • @Junior jj, Saki is a liar. The BRE can’t choose him over Charles Milupi neither can they align themselves to a Political Party. There’s nothing wrong in asking Saki as an individual or a lawyer but there’s everything wrong in asking the ULP

      0

      0
    • I have to agree with some of Ayatollah’s comments about the choice of ULP to make submissions on behalf of BRE. It is weird and baffling to me too that they chose ULP to make submissions on their behalf… Saki as an individual Lozi yes, I agree.

      For the record I don’t agree with Ayatollah’s his accusations of Saki being a liar. But I’m also disappointed in Saki’s support of this corrupt government of Lungu. The man has disappointed me in many ways than not since his joint politics. I didn’t think he would sacrifice some of his his principles that made him one of the best lawyers back in the days.

      0

      0
  11. Ayatollah is very wrong, you are clearly a UPND mislead chap. And as for you Mukula trees, your comments sound very tribal or I mean UPND, there is nothing wrong with Sakiba Sikota or the ULP making submissions. There is nothing wrong with The Barotse Royal Establishment choosing the United Liberal Party, several people from the ULP were present during the submissions including from other provinces. The Barotseland Agreement of 1964 IS A NATIONAL issue, every Zambian is free to make presentations. Well done bo Sakwiba and ULP. It is time the BA 1964 is respected and recognized. There is nothing wrong with a Lozi submitting to the Parliamentary Committee of Barotseland Agreement 1964, we need mo from Saki on this matter. Ponda. We support the BRE submissions on this matter, truth be told,…

    0

    0

Comments are closed.