By Mungandi wa Muwina Mungandi
Reading through a feature article in one of the Government controlled dailies for 2nd June 2011 written ‘by a correspondent’ gave rise to such a mixed grill of emotions and reactions within me, so much so that in the same instance, I experience a lump on my throat, goose pimples all over me and pangs in my belly. It is nauseating to say the least, how a so called ‘correspondent’ of such a ‘respected’ newspaper can write such an article which is hell-bent on spreading ignorance and get away with it. The Editors of the paper can be so parochial in their anti-Barotse stance that they can allow such an ill-informed mumble-jumble concoctions of anti-Barotse rhetoric, crafted purely to mislead and misinform the masses, to actually go to press.
It is clear that blinded by a mixture of hatred for Michael Sata and envy for the perceived political mileage that he (Sata), is making in Barotseland over the issue of the Barotseland Agreement 1964, the author makes an attempt to discredit him through this article. The Correspondent may dislike or disapprove of Mr. Sata, but on the issue of the Barotseland Agreement 1964 he is as right as can be. He is among a few politician in Zambia who have clearly stated that the Barotseland Agreement 1964 is not a non issue (Others include Charles Milupi, HH, and Elias Chipimo Jnr.) Whether he is just politicking and does not mean what he is saying is beside the point. Let us place credibility where it is due. In the process the Correspondent makes such glaring inconsistencies and sometimes tells blatant lies that should not be allowed to go unchallenged. In any case if these errors are made out of ignorance then I must say I pity the Author of that article and the Editors of the paper for the heavy cargo of ignorance that they carry. May humbly attempt to drastically reduce their excessive load of ignorance herein:
There is a difference between calls for the Restoration of the Barotseland Agreement 1964 and secession, a world of difference. I cannot understand how anyone who claims even a fraction of literacy cannot see this difference. We have said this over and over again and in fact the Litunga’s recent special envoy to State House, HRH Senior Chief Inyambo Yeta went to great pains and lengths to explain that calls for the Restoration of the Barotseland Agreement 1964 should not be equated to or confused with secession.
The issue of secession does not arise in the case of Barotseland because Barotseland and the rest of Zambia were two separate territories which came together at independence by way of a unity treaty (The Barotseland Agreement 1964) to form the Unitary State of Zambia. The breakup of the unitary state of Zambia due to breach of the unity treaty is not secession but simply separation according to international law, in this case the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
To say that the Litunga is not in favour of the restoration of the Barotseland Agreement 1964 is just mind – boggling. I certainly don’t know if this Author and his Editors ever care to check their sources. Well the records speak very loud and clear that both the current Litunga and those before him have made relentless demands for the restoration of the Barotseland Agreement 1964. Please check all the Constitutional Review Commissions reports that this country has had. It is also on record that, apart from their submissions to the CRCs including the just ended NCC, both the current Litunga and those before him have sent delegation after delegation to all successive Zambian Governments, basically demanding the Restoration of the Barotseland Agreement 1964 (The Last delegation being the one led by HRH Senior Chief Inyambo Yeta in Feburary 2011 which clearly demanded for the Restoration of the Barotseland Agreement 1964 and its inclusion in the Zambian Constitution as can be seen from the opening clause of the preamble of the Resolutions presented to state house by that high powered BRE delegation as follows:
“NOTING that the past Governments of the Republic of Zambia had persistently refused to recognize and implement the Barotseland Agreement 1964 despite the receipt of numerous appeals from the Barotse Royal Establishment…”
The Issue of the Barotseland Boundaries is not in contention by any standard. It is clearly documented by both the colonial government of Northern Rhodesia and the Zambian government both in text and diagrammatically. Yes, the Kingdom of Barotseland at its highest pick had influence going far beyond the current boarders of Barotseland and indeed Zambia. Yet when we talk about Barotseland today we are talking about a territory that is clearly defined and internationally undisputed and has been for almost a century from as far back as 1920 and probably beyond. Certainly not the mythical ‘railway line boundary’ that this educated illiterate author is talking about. Please care to look at the maps of Barotseland attached below:
Zambia and Zambians, like this educated illiterate author, should stop playing Ostrich with the Barotseland Agreement 1964 issue. The facts are as clear as the nose on your face. It is wishful thinking for anyone to imagine that it will just fade away. Let us not think like my good friend Mr. Humphrey Siulapwa who thinks because he was not born when the Barotseland Agreement was signed then he cannot recognize it; how naïve, illogical, dull and retrogressive! Siulapwa might as well reject his mother’s roots because she was born before he was.
