Lungu and PF cannot constitute a platform for Barotseland Agreement 1964 restoration

by Saleya Kwalombota

Lungu and his PF have neither the legal nor moral right to constitute a platform for Barotseland Agreement 1964 restoration, for they are an illegal entity in Barotseland. Further, a failed and bankrupt state of Zambia lacks both political will and economic resources to recompense Barotseland. Nevertheless, a day is coming when the aspirations of Barotseland people will be fulfilled. This shall be done through actualization of Barotseland statehood, which is around the corner.

It has come to the attention of many patriotic Barotse that every year as the Month of Kuomboka ceremony (April) nears, a rambling message of BA’64 restoration and accusations of perceived traitors of Barotseland aspirations become the theme of certain online media platforms, especially those managed by anti-Barotseland independence advocates.

Perhaps this animosity is as a result of misinformation over the now defunct BA’64 and none appreciation of efforts of "other individuals" who are simply in disagreement in ideology with a movement the Managers of the online media are affiliated to. This clearly poses a danger in our resolve to regain our country. It is clear that the deception and misinformation surrounding Barotseland issues has consummated to unpleasant levels where it is even depicted that the whole independence struggle is an act of a few individuals.

The high level of deception and misinformation on Barotseland's quest for political and economic independence needs urgent correction. Otherwise, we may be a house at war. Nevertheless, any sane person cannot buy cheap misinformation aimed at derailing the noble issue of political emancipation of our motherland. As a nation we voted for independence and this is a standing order for every Mulozi.

Having understanding of the historical facts surrounding the formation of the present day Zambia and Barotseland—the former British protectorate, is imperative as it will arm us with the required knowledge against the enemies of Barotseland independence and envoys of misinformation aimed at frustrating the noble cause.

By comparison of the past presidents and political parties in power in Zambia, the national politics remain pervaded by tribal-type lexicon, such “imagined identities” as Bembas or Nyanjas (Chewa/Ngoni), but afforded only a hint of reality to other tribes through the geography of provincial nomenclature while the politics of divide and rule, and the perception that one region of former North East Rhodesia has overstayed its welcome in State House remain ignored. As such, dialects in public offices and business adverts are rendered almost synonymous with ethnicity of Eastern, Northern, Muchinga and Luapula provinces, a purely political phenomenon in Zambia today. Sadly, such pitfalls of national unconsciousness by the failed state of Zambia cannot be noticed by some Barotse living in towns as an act of enslavement and in fact are the most loyal to government programs aimed at depriving their relatives in Barotseland.

It is a pity that a Barotse can succumb to lies of restoration and labelling fellow compatriots--focused and serious minded people--as traitors when correct information about their achievements in liberating Barotseland has been given on many platforms. Do people advocating BA’64 restoration understand the legal interpretation of the 2012 BNC resolutions? Or that they have no mandate to advocate the restoration of the BA’64? Or that you cannot even talk about restoring a defunct agreement? Or the opportunity cost of restoring abrogated treaties like the BA’64? Furthermore, I doubt whether the Zambian legal fraternity can fold arms without advising the government of the implications that goes with restoration than letting the territory go alone as an independent state? Or that this is but an old tactic since deployed by Kaunda, which can no longer work.

As history has informed us, the principal agent in the political destruction of the affairs of Barotseland government was Kenneth Kaunda who inherited state power from the colonial government. The colonial government defined the new territorial and even economic parameters of the nation-state-in-the-making of Zambia incorporating Barotseland through the BA’64, It protected the rights of the people of Barotseland to self-determination or state sovereignty vis-a-vis other nation-state of North Eastern Rhodesia, and promotive of the growth of nationhood, national identity and nationalism. This led Kaunda to willfully and unilaterally abrogate the BA’64 and consolidate his powers through undemocratic means of one party state up to 1991 when multiparty was reintroduced, which ended his tyrannical governance.

Even after reintroduction of multiparty in Zambia, the sovereignty issue of Barotseland remained unresolved and ignored. This is evident enough that the onus is on Barotseland people to do what is right at hand and accomplish the aspirations of the people. No Zambian President can ever face the Barotseland question genuinely for the simple reason that there are the culprits themselves, therefore, in dire need of ignoring the thorny issue, GRZ opts for the use of uncivilized methods such as deception, ethnicity through divide and rule and arbitrary arrests of advocates for Barotseland independence.