(A PAPER TO THE ACCOUNTANTS FORUM ORGANIZED BY THE ZICA AT 18.000 HOURS ON FRIDAY 30 MARCH, 2012 AT ACCOUNTANTS PARK, LUSAKA)
BY: Dr. Mbita Chitala, Executive Director, Zambia Research Foundation
Introduction
I was invited to offer my insight into this question which I think is quite topical now. A few weeks ago I caused to be published an article in the Post Newspaper which attracted some review from many people. The Zambian Economist also published it on their website and sent it to many policy makers. I also posted it on my blog www.mbitachitala.blogspot.com . I suspect Mr. Kabeta must have read the article as he inundated me with telephone calls in which I reluctantly agreed to come and give this talk. I truly believe that there are other people more knowledgeable of this topic than me who can really help us understand the BA 1964. I have in mind people like H.E Dr. Kenneth Kaunda who signed the agreement, Mr. Sikota Wina who was a member of cabinet then. Others such as Dr. Mutumba Bull have published extensively on this. I am steeled however by the words of the old philosopher Pericles of Athens who died in 429 BC who said “ we hold as useless , a man who does not participate in public affairs. This, I think, cannot be me.
The organization of my presentation will therefore focus on the following:
1. Introduction
2. Bantu Occupation of Zambia
3. Creation of Barotseland
4. The Barotse Question
5. What should be done? Secession, Status Quo or Devolution
6. Proposal for Devolution of Power in Zambia
7. Conclusion
Bantu Occupation of Zambia
There is generally little debate on the colonial history of Zambia. Between 1600-1800 when Bantu speaking peoples from the citadel of Bantu civilization in the Congo occupied Southern/Central and Eastern Africa displacing pre-historical peoples such as the Bushmen, Twa, and Hottentots. They came to Zambia in three different directions, namely, from Congo and Angola; from Congo through Uganda along lake Tanganyika in the 15th century and from Southern Africa escaping from Shaka’s Mfecane wars. The latter is true for the Ngoni’s who crossed the Zambezi into Zambia in 1838 and the Kololo of Sebetwani who settled in the Barotse plains around the same time. As there was no writing then, the people were scantly scattered and one could not reasonably define the boundaries that different Bantu nationalities occupied. This only became possible with European colonization which was completed during the late 1800s as major European powers claimed territories of influence. This scramble for Africa culminated in the Berlin Conference of 1884-6, when the whole of Africa was formally divided and shared by the colonial powers. The territory we started calling Zambia in 1964, was part of Land in Central Africa ceded to the British on 19th September, 1893 in a Land and Mineral Concession Certificate of claim signed by Henry Hamilton Johnson - the Commissioner and Consul General for the territories under British influence on behalf of British Government and witnessed by James Francis Cunningham - Manager of the African Lakes Company Limited and Lord Monteith Fortherington - the Manager of the African Lakes Company Limited. The whole Region was then known as British Central Africa.
The name Barotseland was formulated by the British to distinguish the land where the Litunga Lubosi Lewanika I, rather than go to war like they did with other Bantu ethnicities/tribes to defend his area of influence, chose to sign an agreement with the British in which he ceded the land rights of his nationality peacefully.
Creation of Barotseland
The creation of the entity which came to be known as Barotseland has its origin with the Lochner Concession of 1887 and later the signing of the treaty in June 1890 when Frank Elliot Lochner as the representative of the British South Africa company (BSA co) signed a treaty with the Litunga of the Barotse people for protection against slave traders and in turn gave mineral exploration and mining rights in the land he claimed to control to the BSA company. These were the rights which the BSA company kept enjoying and extending at their will until they were revoked by the new Zambian government after independence.
The land of the Litunga where the Barotse – the Luyana people had sovereighnty was first defined in 1878 by Litunga Lewanika (who ruled from 1878-1916 with one break in 1884-5). In describing the Barotse Nation, he described true Barotseland as the Land in the Zambezi River Flood plain and about 40km East of Limulunga and Senanga (Gann, Rotberg). The capital of their territory was first at Naliele and later at Lealui.This characterization is historically correct as it agrees with the fact which affirms that from 1864 when the Basotho led by Sebitwane and who spoke kololo and had ruled Baroseland since 1838 were defeated and expelled by the Barotse (who now spoke a lingua franca known as Lozi and in some quarters came to be referred to as the Lozi people), the Boundary of the Lozi Nationality was restricted to the Zambezi valley. It was an enclave on the Barotse plains.
In subsequent years, the boundary of what the British Colonialists named as Barotseland kept shifting and was extended unilaterally by conquest or request for protection as other Bantu tribes were brought and made subject peoples of the Barotse Nationality.
Other references from where the boundary of Barotseland could be infered includes such documentation as the 11 June 1891 Treaty between Britain and Portugal, the Anglo – Portuguese Protocol of 1893, other records made by Major Goold Adams who in 1896 attempted to define the boundaries on behalf of the British,and Major Robert Coryndon who was appointed in 1897 as the first BSA representative in Barotseland.
More profoundly, the boundary of Barotseland is clearly described by the Litunga himself. On 25thJune, 1898 at a meeting held at Victoria Falls, the Litunga Lawenika together with 7 of his Counselors and witnessed by 5 other people on behalf of the Barotse Nationality, signed with R.T Coryndon - representing the British South Africa Company - a concession in which he ceded Land to the BSA Company that included “the whole territory of the Nation or any future extension there of including all subject and dependent territory.” (Rotberg, Gann) . The boundary of Barotseland defined as follows:
a) Northern Boundary – from the Headwaters of the Dongwe along Kabompo Rivers to the junction of the Kabompo and Zambezi rivers.
b) Western Boundary – from the junction of the Kabompo and Zambezi Rivers along the Zambezi River to its Junction with the Majili River.
c) Eastern Boundaries – from the Junction of Zambezi and Majili Rivers along the Majili River to its head water hence Northward along the line of the watershed at the Headwaters of the Dongwe River.
On the basis of the above description of Barotseland, in 1899, the British colonialists through an Order in Council created a new territory with new boundaries and called it “Barotseland-North Western Rhodesia”. At the same time in May, 1900, through the North Eastern Order in Council created a new territory known as North Eastern Rhodesia under the North Chartereland Company made of lands of the Ushi, Ngumbo, Mukulu, Chishinga, Bwile, Tabwa, Eastern Lunda, Bemba, Lungu, Mambwe, Bisa,. Namwanga, Tumbuka, Chewa, Nsenga, and Ngoni. The control of these areas was achieved by forcing Bantu Chiefs to sign concessions or by force of arms as happened to the Ngoni of Mpezeni, the Lunda of Kazambe and the Bembas. This territory was administered from Fort Jameson , now Chipata, up to 1911.
On the other hand, the British North Western Rhodesia comprised of the lands of the lands of the Lunda, Kaonde, Mushukulumbwe, Toka, Lamba, Lenje, Swaka, Lala, Soli. The territory was first administered from Lealui by Robert Coryndon but shifted later to Kalomo in 1902 and to Livingstone in 1907.
In 1900, Lewanika signed a concession with the BSA co. which gave him certain powers over Barotseland. According to Katenekwa, Lewanika “retained Barotseland proper (excluding the Portuguese claim) whose boundaries ran from the junction of the Machili and Zambezi rivers northwards along the Machili river to its headwaters hence north ward along the line of the waterhead at the headwaters of the Dongwe river onwards to the headwaters of the Kabompo river, then along the Kabompo river, then along the Kabompo river to its junction with the Zambezi river river thence along the Zambezi river to its junction with the Machili river – for the exclusive use of the Lozi and to be reserved from prospecting and white settlement.” At the same time according to Katanekwa, Lewanika “ceded the rest which had earlier been claimed as part of Barotseland in the East from the Machili river to the Kafue river in the lands of the Kaonde, Mashukulumbwe, and Toka to the Queen and Her Majesty’s government through the BSA company.” In other words, in 1900, Britain formally annexed Barotseland and governed it as part of North Western Rhodersia. The people of Barotseland enjoyed equal rights as all other peoples of the territory as the British declined to give any special status to Barotseland.
The issue of the exact boundary of Barotseland continued to be controversial and appeared unsettled even after the 1900 claims by Lewanika.In a letter of complaint by Lewanika to Coryndon dated 23 January, 1906 Lewanika reiterated what he had conceded to the BSA Company in the concession of 1900. In defining the territory where he had jurisdiction, that is to say, the boundaries of his Nationality “Baroseland”, he noted that his nationality comprised of “Barotse Valley and round Sesheke”. The letter acknowledging this fact was signed by Lewanika and witnessed by his Ngambela – Masika and Ford Aitkens.
Later in another concession dated 11th Angust, 1909, Lewanika extended his anthority to include
a) The Country on the West lying between the Zambezi River and the Anglo Portuguese Boundary
b) The Boundaries of Barotseland as defined in 1900
c) North Western Rhodesia as defined by the BSA Company particulary the areas of Batoka and Mushukulumbwe countries in which according to Art 3 of the concession , Lewanika retained right to graze Cattle in unoccupied Lands.
It should be noted that Lewanika as ruler of the Luyana people, was the most powerful traditional ruler in what came to be known as Barotseland. Over the years, particulary after the defeat of the Kololo, the Barotse people as the Luyana became known overwhelmed by conquest or domination, many surrounding nationalities/tribes such as the Kuanga, Kuandi, Nkoya, Totela, Shanjo, Subiya, Toka, Leya Lumbu, Mashi, Kwandi, Nkoya, Totela, Subiya, Simaa, Ndundulu, Mbunda Nyengo, Mwenji, Makoma, Mbewe, Lovale, Lukolwe, Lushange. It would be interesting to know whether these tribes or nationalities would today want to revert to the rule of the Luyana Kings whose method of rule was quasi feudal or choose other more modern forms of government such as liberal democracy.
What is historically factual is that Lewanika and the Barotse people in general, having defeated the Kololo and who were now enjoying British protection, were concerned with keeping their original home as described in the 1900 concession inviolate. The Litunga and his people realized that with the advance of colonialism, they would no longer be able to retain any influence outside those initial boundaries. They wanted to protect the Barotse Reserve from European settlement. And this, they succeeded as, unlike the other areas under British rule, no European or Indian settlement was allowed and no private ownership of Land was ever permitted.
Whereas (a) and (b) in Lewanika’s letter is factual, the claim by Lewanika in his letter dated 11th August, 1909 that his authority included North Western Rhodesia , is not borne by historical evidence. At the time Lockner signed a concession with Lewanika in 1900, other Chiefs of other tribes of the British Central African Protectorate also signed concessions with another envoy of the BSA Company named Joseph Tomson. The concessions were so numerous that the British Government decided to issue to the BSA Company “Certificate of claim” for each area where Tomson had signed concessions with chiefs who could not be identified . The areas were identified as A,B,C,D etc and the Company built forts in those areas such as Fort Rosebury and Fort Abercon representing present day Mansa and Mbala respectively.
As for the area covered by certificate of claim ‘’A’’ which included present day Copperbelt, Central and parts of Eastern, Southern Provinces, the BSA Company decided to transfer for administrative reasons, to the “suvereinty of Lewanika as the Land was inaccessible from Fort Jameson. The Administrative move effected on 30th March, 1905 by the BSA Company enabled Lewanika to benefit as he was now entitled to the share of the Tax Money that other Tribes people paid to the BSA Company. Lewanika never claimed ownership of the Copperbelt or any other Lands outside Baroseland.
In 1911, the two territories (Barotseland-North Western Rhodesia and North Eastern Rhodesia) merged into the Protectorate of Northern Rhodesia. The name “Barotseland” was not featured in the new entity. The 1911 Order in Council defined the new amalgamated entity of Northern Rhodesia as land:
“ WHOSE LIMITS WERE DEFINED AS “THE PARTS OF AFRICA BOUNDED BY SOUTHERN RHODESIA(ZIMBABWE),GERMAN SOUTH WEST AFRICA(NAMIBIA),PORTUGUESE WEST AFRICA(ANGOLA),THE CONGO FREE STATE(CONGO DR),GERMAN EAST AFRICA(TANZANIA),NYASALAND(MALAWI) AND PORTUGUESE EAST AFRICA(MOZAMBIQUE). THIS ORDER VESTED POWER IN THE HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR NORTHERN RHODESIA WHO WAS BASED IN SOUTH AFRICA TO MAKE LAWS FOR THE PEACE, ORDER AND GOOD GOVERNMENT OF THE COUNTRY..” Katanekwa.
In 1942, the boundary of Barotseland was further altered when the Luvale and the Lunda to the north were excluded from being part of Barotseland by the colonial government as a settlement of the dispute between the Luvale/Lunda chiefs and the Barotse NativeGovernment.
It should be noted that during colonial rule and up to this day, Barotseland comprised comprised of many tribes/nationalities and was always ruled as part of Northern Rhodesia. Even during the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland (1853 – 1963), Barotseland was governed as a Province within the Protectorate of Northern Rhodesia. Barotseland comprised of five districts, namely, Kalabo, Mongu, Mankoya, Senanga and Sesheke. It excluded Balovale, Kabompo, Kasempa, Mumbwa, Namwala and Kalomo. The Litunga enjoyed the same rights and priveleges that all other chief enjoyed. The Litunga did not have those rights and powers as were expressed in the BA 1964 agreement. All chiefs of the territory were equal. This was the state of affairs up to 1964.
However, during the period of colonial rule, Barotseland had features of a charter colony although the Treaty and the Charter gave the territory protectorate status but not as an official protectorate of the United Kingdom government. Britain granted Barotseland semi autonomous status and made it a Protectorate within a Protectorate of Northern Rhodesia and administered it as part of Northern Rhodesia. Other ethnic groups in the country such as the Bembas, Ngonis or Chewas did not ask for this status from the British. Barotseland was also denied recognition as an independent Kingdom in contrast to Lesotho and Swaziland which were recognized as such. This fate is shared by Zululand and the Baganda . The British refused to recognize the Litunga as a King. The British designated them as simply Paramount Chiefs. The British recognized only one King in their Empire- King George then and later Queen Victoria.
What is evident is that the Barotse Nationality had influences in adjacent areas of its Borders. “From the Tribes which the Barotse subjugated, they exerted tribute in kind but in exchange, their vassals received gifts , loans of Cattle and protection from their enemies and the region remained relatively safe from the Slave Trade. Subject Tribes participated in the system as many had specialized products for exchanges.” ( Ghan ) These Tribes, as was the case with the Barotse, also enjoyed relative autonomy and practiced different Governance systems.
The Barotse Question
As the wind of change which began with the independence from colonialism of Ghana in 1957, it was evident that this wind of change would come to Northern Rhodesia too. The African Welfare Societies first formed by Dauti Yamba in 1920’s at Mwenzo in Nakonde grew in stead and culminated in the formation of the African National Congress (ANC) in 1948 where one Mbikusita Lewanika who was later to become the Litunga of Barotseland was elected as the first President of the nationalist movement.
The Barotseland question, namely, that Barotseland should have relative autonomy as was the case with the British High Commission territories of Bechuanaland, Basutholand and Swaziland has always been the demand of the Litunga and the BREbut was always refused by the British colonialists. They preferred that Barotseland was administered by the Commissioner of North Western Rhodesia at Kalomo and later Livingstone, the Governor of Northern Rhodesia at Lusaka and later the Prime Minister of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland in Salisbury. This demand by the Litunga/BRE for autonomy was rejected by the British and this had merit. Martin Meredith (2006) has observed that in Africa, there were over 10,000 African polities which the European colonialist amalgamated into 40 European colonies and protectorates. Zambia alone had more than 73 ethno linguistic groups. The British were correct in merging Barotseland into Northern Rhodesia to create a viable modern state.
However, in spite of use value of this unity of the people of Northern Rhodesia, the Litunga and the BRE continued to demand for autonomy of Barotseland. This demand became a side event at the independence talks at Lancaster House in London. Ealier in 1963, the Litunga had hired a lawyer named L.K Wilson to prepare the Barotse case for secession. Three records were prepared.
a. A record of quarantees of Barotseland‘s status as set out in various concessions signed and affirmed by constitutions of 1911, 1924 and 1953 .
b. The Barotse case for secession presented along the lines of the High Commission territories of Swaziland, Basutholand and Lesotholand;
c. Barotseland’s existence as a nation prior to the creation of Northern Rhodesia; failure of the colonial government to develop Barotseland;unsuitability for Western democracy for African conditions; and advantages of becoming an independent state of Barotseland.
The British government rejected the Barotse case. The UNIP delegation also refused to entrench rights, privileges and status that the Barotse demanded in the Zambian Constitution. Instead the three parties (UK, Northern Rhodesia and the Litunga representing Barotseland) opted for a separate agreement as an annex to the Independent Constitution. The three parties signed the agreement on 18th May, 1964. The Cabinet of the new Zambian government reaffirmed the agreement at its 63rd meeting on 30th October, 1964 to formally bind it to the Republic of Zambia.
However, despite there being an agreement which provided among others for the Litunga of Barotseland to continue to have power to make laws for Barotseland in relation to the 19 items, namely, Litungaship, Barotse Native Government, Barotse Native Authority, Barotse Native Courts, the Litunga’s Council, local government, Land, Forests, traditional and customary matters of Barotseland, Fishing, control of hunting, game preservation, Control of bush fires, native treasury, supply of beer, reservation of trees for canoes, local taxation, and Barotse local festivals, the agreement was not implemented by the UNIP government.
The UNIP delegation and later its cabinet did not sign the agreement and affirm it in good faith. As soon as Independence was granted and the new leaders were confident of their power, they quickly moved to abrogate the agreement by introducing the Local Government Act of 1965 which abolished the Barotse Government, the Barotse Native Authorities, the Barotse Native Courts, the Barotse Native Treasury and provided that Barotseland would from then on be administered through a uniform local government system applied in all districts and provinces of the country. Barotseland was renamed Western Province. The Barotse National Council was abolished by statutory instrument and five district councils were established.
The Litunga and the Barotse opposed this unilateral move and showed ttheir disapproval in the elections of 1968 when UNIP lost all seats to the ANC in Western Province. In the Referendum of 1969 which removed all entrenched provisions that gave the Litunga rights on land, the people of Western Province gave a 75% NO verdict to allow the UNIP government to wrestle land from the Litunga. To this day, the Commissioner of Lands of Zambia has been prevented from giving titles to land in Western Province with the resultant lack of investment by the private sector in the province. Furthermore, before the one party state was declared by UNIP in 1973, the Litunga and the BRE continued to promote the Sichaba(National) Party or the Barotse National Party (BNP) whose political aims were to lobby for secession.
In July, 1991, just as the MMD was coming into power, in order to entice the votes of the Barotse, the BRE met President Kaunda and demanded that if he won the multi-party elections and formed government, he would accede to their demands to restore the Barotse Agreement and refund UK Sterling 400,000 which Finance Minister Arthur Wina had taken from the Barotse Native Teasury in 1964. President Kaunda agreed and undertook to meet all the demands. (Sichone and Simutanyi, 1996:188). Unfortunately, President Kaunda lost, but the demands of the Litunga and the BRE did not end.
The new government of President Frederick Chiluba viewed the demands of the BRE as unimportant and irrerevant. The Minister Without Portfolio Brig. General Godfrey Miyanda now leader of the Heritage Party, was appointed to negotiate with the BRE. The effort failed and in 1993, President Chiluba threatened that anyone making demands for the restoration of the Barotseland Agreement 1964 would be charged with the high crime of treason.
In the successive governments of President Levy Mwanawasa and President Banda, the National Constitutional Conference which had been set up unilaterally by President Mwanawasa (it was boycotted by the Catholic Church and the PF among others) ignored the submissions of the BRE. The draft Constitution that was made excluded principles of regional autonomy or devolution of power. President Banda’s government had absolutely no time to consider the BA 1964 question. The NCC contemptuously ignored the BRE demands and chose instead to continue with the divisive doctrine of unitary state.
What Should Be Done? Devolution, status quo or secession.
President Michael Chilufya Sata and the PF government have the opportunity to resolve this question of Barotseland. The demands of the Litunga and the BRE cannot be casually dismissed or ignored or wished away as has happened since 1964. However, in trying to resolve the impulse, the following questions must be addressed.
1. Was the Barotseland Agreement ever repealed or revoked? Could the Parliament of Zambia repeal the BA 1964 annexure to the Independent Constitution? Was its abrogation supported by law? If the agreement is alive as observed by the Chongwe Commission, how can it be implemented without destabilizing the country?
2. Is the Litunga and the BRE justified in demanding for the restoration of the BA 1964? If relative autonomy or secession as demanded is granted, what political institution will be in place – multi party democracy or a return to monarchical hegemony? What will be the response of other nationalities in Western Province such as the Nkoya, Mbunda, Nyengo, Luvale and others who are not Barotse/Luyana? What will be the view of other nationalities like the Chewa, Bemba, Tonga, Ngoni, and so on that constitute the totality of the peoples of the Republic of Zambia?
3. What is the consensual view of the BA 1964 in Western Province? Are present demands of the BRE/ Barotse National Council representational of all the people of Western Province including the Nkoya, Luvale, Mbunda Nyengo , non indigenous peoples who have settled there and so on.
4. Should the dispute be taken up by the High Court of Zambia as provided by Art. 9 of the BA 1964 in resolving any disputes on the agreement? What is the dispute and how does it impact the wider Zambia?
5. To what extent should the Right to Self Determination including secession as provided in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights relevant to the BA 1964? Are the Barotse nationality an oppressed people in Zambia?
For sure, valuable lessons can be learnt from the experience of other countries. Some examples include the case of Serbia and Kosovo which ended up with Kosovo declaring UDI in 2009; Sudan in which South Sudan emerged as an independent state after such a long and terrible civil war; Canada and Quebec in which Quebec has been recognized as a nation within a United Canada; Tanzania and Zanzibar in which Zanzibar is relatively autonomous; the example of South Africa where local government has been integrated within federated structures, and so on.
For many observers and analysts, there are three possibilities in resolving the Barotse Question.
1. To dissolve the state of Zambia and allow Barotseland to secede from the former Northern Rhodesia and divide the Zambian people into two or several balkanized separate entities. To divide the people of Zambia who since 1911 have lived and inter-married and created a unique Zambian national character? This is the demand of some separatist elements in Barotseland. This will require, among others, the determination of the boundaries of Barotseland, the holding of referenda in both Barotseland and other previously subject peoples like the Nkoya, Nyengo, Mbunda, Luvale to determine whether they would want to revert to be ruled by the Litunga again and so on. Such an option is obviously retrogressive and will tend to revise a backward and oppressive governance system of feudalism. This option does not support the development project and is inherently reactionary.
2. To uphold the status quo holding Zambia as a unitary state with power concentrated in Lusaka. To continue giving lip service of support to decentralization and devolution demands of the people. To ignore the demands of the BRE and the Litunga and treat advocates of the restoration of the BA 1964 as treasonous. This option is not only reactionary and divisive, but will make Zambia forever poor. This plays in the hands of Zambia’s enemies who celebrate at our inability to manage our country efficiently and effectively. Only despots who want to continue stealing peoples resources in Lusaka and abusing their powers unfettered support the maintenance of a unitary state.
3. To re-negotiate the Barotse Agreement so as to ensure more regional autonomy of all the regions of Zambia anchored on liberal democratic values and federalism. This will require that the PF government provides for Zambia a new constitution that entrenches federated structures in our governance. The Technical Committee appointed by President Sata can be requested to negotiate with the Litunga and the BRE and other Royal Establishments together with all civil society on the historical necessity of devolution and recommend in the new draft constitution the federated way in which Zambia would be governed. It is a notorious fact that no country has ever developed under the so called unitary state structures. In fact, this is a colonial legacy that suited despots. All serious countries only developed when they federated. This is true for the UK, Germany, Japan, India, RSA, Brazil. USA, France, Russia, India even small countries like South Korea, Switzerland and so on.
For sure, President Sata and the PF government can and should resolve the BA 1964 problem. Option three is not only historically necessary, but is also a historical inevitability as it is borne and steeled by history.
Proposals for Devolution of Power in Zambia
In simple language, devolution of power in our context means the delegation of power by the Central Goovernment to local or regional administration. It is the transfer of some political authority on which it is held accountable. This is different from decentralization where the center still remains in control. For catholics such as our President, they may be happy to know that devolution is characterized by subsidiarity which was a concept first enunciated by Pope Leo XIII but later recalled in a Papal encyclical “Quadragesimo Anno” in 1941. It holds that “it is injustice, a grave evil and a disturbance of right order for a large and higher organization to arrogate to itself functions which can be performed efficiently by smaller and lower bodies.”
The benefits of devolution of power includes among others that the evolution of a community-owned government, the spread of state authority making politics less threatening and encouraging joint problem solving, and prevention of state despotism that may tend to encourage unnecessary tensions, secessions, violence and even corruption.
Devolution of power is also a strategic response to unnecessary conflicts and underdevelopment. Country experiences include those of such counties as Canada/Quebec; UK /Wales/Scotland /Northern Ireland; Australia’s 6 states and two territories; Switzerlands 26 cantons; RSA’s nine provinces; Nigeria’s federalism and so on attest to this need for devolution.
Our proposal is therefore that Zambia should change the out dated system of governance of African Presidentialism. The Technical Committee that has been drafting the Republican Constitution must take advantage of this and recommend to a devolved structure of government.
As a condition for this, it would be advisable that the government first appointed a boundary delimitation commission to determine the cost effective boundaries for both districts and provinces and legalize this process through an Act of Parliament.
Our recommendation is a three-tier governance system with Lusaka as a special case, as follows:
At District Level:
The District should be the basic governance unit with a District Assembly headed by an elected Mayor/Chairman. There should also be established Constituency Councils, and Village Councils/ Suburb councils in urban areas.
Capital City - Lusaka :
Special legislation should be enacted along the lines of London or Washington DC and establish the Capital City council with an elected Mayor.
At Provincial Level
Establish elected Provincial headed by elected Provincial Governor. Election of Provincial Assembly by direct suffrage (2 per constituency). Provincial Assembly to have executive and legislative power. Establish Provincial High Court, Provincial Attorney General, Provincial Ombudsman, Provincial Public Service Commission. Provincial government to be in charge of education, health, land matters and so on that were the main demands in the BA 1964.
At National Level
The Judiciary to comprise the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, Judicial Service Commission: Parliament to be one chamber Assembly elected by proportional representation; Executive to comprise of a President as Head of State, deputized by a running mate and; the Prime Minister as Head of Government deputized by two deputies.
Conclusion
It is clear from our proposals for devolution of power that Zambia can use the Barotse Agreement 1964 as a framework for advancing good governance. In fact, devolution of power to the provinces of our country should be seen as the only sure way of enhancing our nationhood.
Friday, March 30, 2012
Friday, March 23, 2012
THE BAROTSE QUESTION: WHAT SHOULD BE DONE ( An Improved Version)
By.Dr.MbitaChitala
Executive Director: Zambia Research Foundation
www.mbitachitala.blogspot.com;mbitachitala@yahoo.co.uk;Mobile+260211976 030398
__________________________________________________________________________
Both the recommendation by the Rodger Chongwe Commission that the Barotseland Agreement be restored and the off the cuff comments by President Michael Chilufya Sata that he would not recommend that view to his cabinet, are both legitimate. The Chongwe Commission’s recommendation is anchored on the Commission’s interpretation of the law, namely, status of the abrogated Barotse Agreement 1964, while President Sata’s view is anchored on the political realism of the present day Zambia as a sovereign united nation. The challenge is to harmonize the two world outlooks and still end up with a united and prosperous Zambia.
There is generally little debate on the colonial history of Zambia. Between 1600-1800 when Bantu speaking peoples from the citadel of Bantu civilization in the Congo occupied Southern/Central and Eastern Africa displacing pre-historical peoples such as the Bushmen, Twa, and Hottentots, one could not reasonably define the boundaries that different Bantu nationalities occupied. This only became possible with European colonization which was effected during the late 1800s when major European powers claimed territories of influence on Africa. This scramble for Africa culminated in the Berlin Conference of 1884-6, when the whole of Africa was formally divided and shared by the colonial powers. The territory we started calling Zambia in 1964, was part of Land in Central Africa ceded to the British on 19th September, 1893 in a Land and Mineral Concession Certificate of claim signed by Henry Hamilton Johnson - the Commissioner and Consul General for the territories under British influence on behalf of British Government and witnessed by James Francis Cunningham - Manager of the African Lakes Company Limited and Lord Monteith Fortherington - the Manager of the African Lakes Company Limited. The whole Region was then known as British Central Africa. The name Barotseland was formulated by the British to distinguish the land where the Litunga Lubosi Lewanika I, rather than go to war like the other tribes to defend his area of influence, chose to sign an agreement with the British colonialists in which he ceded the land rights of his nationality peacefully to the colonialists.
The Barotse Question
The Barotse question has its origin with the Lochner Concession of 1887 and later the signing of the treaty in June 1890 when Frank Elliot Lochner as the representative of the British South Africa company (BSA co) signed a treaty with the Litunga of the Barotse people for protection against slave traders and against war with the British. The Litunga in turn gave mineral exploration and mining rights in the land he claimed to control to the BSA company. These were the rights which the BSA company kept enjoying and extending at their will until they were revoked by the new Zambian government after independence.
The land of the Litunga where the Barotse people had sovereighnty was first defined in 1878 by Litunga Lewanika (who ruled from 1878-1916 with one break in 1884-5) . In describing the Barotse Nation, he described true Barotseland as the Land in the Zambezi River Flood plain and about 40km East of Limulunga and Senanga (Gann, Rotberg). This characterization is historically correct as it agrees with the fact which affirms that from 1864 when the Basotho led by Sebitwane and who spoke kololo and had ruled Baroseland since 1838 were defeated and expelled by the Barotse (who now spoke a lingua franca known as Lozi and in some quarters came to be referred to as the Lozi people), the Boundary of the Lozi Nationality was restricted to the Zambezi valley. It was an enclave on the Barotse plains.
In subsequent years, the boundary of what the British Colonialists named as Barotseland kept shifting and was extended unilaterally by conquest or request for protection as other Bantu tribes were brought and made subject peoples of the Barotse Nationality. Francois Collard of the Paris Missionary Society is quoted by Nicholas Katanekwa in an unpublished manuscript that Coillard described the boundary of Barotseland as being “ON THE SOUTH, THE ZAMBEZI RIVER AND THE CHOBE RIVER;ON THE WEST THE 20TH DEGREE LONGITUDE EAST;ON THE NORTH THE WATERSHED OF THE CONGO AND THE ZAMBEZI RIVERS;ON THE EAST THE KAFUE RIVER.”THE PRINCIPAL TRIBES IN THESE AREAS ACCORDING TO HIM WERE:”THE MAYEEYE(MAYEI),MASHAIYO(MASHANJO),THE MASHI,MAWIKO(NORTH WESTERN MBUNDA)MAKOMA,BA MOENYO(MWENYI),THE BAUBALE(LUVALE),BA RUNDA(LUNDA),BALUKOLOE( LUKOLWE),BA KAONDE,MANKOEA(MANKOYA),LIAMBA(LAMBA),MASHIKULOMBOE(ILA),BAWE OR MATOMOE,MALEA(LEYA),BA SUBIYA,MAKUANGOA(KWANGWA),MATOTELA.” In the same paper, Katanekwa reported that “ACCORDING TO ADOLPHE JALLA , ANOTHER PMS MISSIONARY IN BAROTSELAND “ AT THE SIGNING CEREMONY THERE WERE GATHERED FROM WEST AND EAST THE PRINCIPAL HEADMEN OF THE TRIBES WHO ACKNOWLEDGED LEWANIKA’S POWER.THEY HAD COME FROM THE BANKS OF THE LUNGWEBUNGU,LUWOLOSHI,THE KABOMPOETC.THE BAUBALE AND RUNDA DID NOT ATTEND THE CEREMONY .” JALLA, FURTHER DESCRIBES THE BOUNDARIES OF THE LOZI KINGDOM “AS THE LUVALE AND LUNDA COUNTRIES TO THE SOURCE OF THE ZAMBEZI IN THE NORTH, KWITO RIVER TO THE OKAVANGO IN THE WEST; THE CHOBE TO ITS CONFUELENCE WITH THE ZAMBEZI AND ALONG THE ZAMBEZI TO THE JUNCTION WITH THE KAFUE RIVER IN THE SOUTH.IN THE EAST ALONG THE KAFUE RIVER FROM ITS JUNCTION WITH THE ZAMBEZI TO ACROSS THE HOOK.AFTER THE HOOK FURTHER TO THE WEST OF THE KAFUE RIVER, BUT EAST OF THE LUNGA RIVER).”
Other documents and peoples have given their own spatial differentiation of Barotseland. This includes such documentation and people like the 11 June 1891 Treaty between Britain and Portugal, the Anglo – Portuguese Protocol of 1893, Major Goold Adams who in 1896 attempted to define the boundaries on behalf of the British,and Major Coryndon, Robert who was appointed in 1897 as the first BSA representative in Barotseland. All these interpretations appear to be subjective and had many omissions which Lewanika pointed out.
On 25thJune, 1898 at a meeting held at Victoria Falls, the Litunga Lawenika together with 7 of his Counselors and witnessed by 5 other people on behalf of the Barotse Nationality, signed with R.T Coryndon - representing the British South Africa Company - a concession in which he ceded Land to the BSA Company that included “the whole territory of the Nation or any future extension there of including all subject and dependent territory.”In term of Geographical Boundary, the Barotse Nationality’s Boundaries were defined as:
a) Northern Boundary – from the Headwaters of the Dongwe along Kabompo Rivers to the junction of the Kabompo and Zambezi rivers.
b) Western Boundary – from the junction of the Kabompo and Zambezi Rivers along the Zambezi River to its Junction with the Majili River.
c) Eastern Boundaries – from the Junction of Zambezi and Majili Rivers along the Majili River to its head water hence Northward along the line of the watershed at the Headwaters of the Dongwe River.
In 1899, the British through an Order in Council created a new territory with new boundaries and called it “Barotselant-North Western Rhodesia”. The territory comprised of Barotseland as variously defined and North Western Rhodesia which comprised of the lands of the lands of the Lunda, Kaonde, Mushukulumbwe, Toka, Lamba, Lenje, Swaka, Lala,and Soli. The territory was first administered from Lealui by Robert Coryndon but shifted later to Kalomo in 1902 and to Livingstone in 1907. In 1900, Litunga Lewanika signed a concession with the BSA co. which gave him certain powers according to Katenekwa. Lewanika “ retained – Barotseland proper (excluding the Portuguese claim) whose boundaries ran from the junction of the Machili and Zambezi rivers northwards along the Machili river to its headwaters hence north ward along the line of the waterhead at the headwaters of the Dongwe river onwards to the headwaters of the Kabompo river, then along the Kabompo river, then along the Kabompo river to its junction with the Zambezi river river thence along the Zambezi river to its junction with the Machili river – for the exclusive use of the Lozi and to be reserved from prospecting and white settlement. Lewanika also ceded the rest which had earlier been claimed as part of Barotseland in the East from the Machili river to the Kafue river in the lands of the Kaonde, Mashukulumbwe, and Toka to the Queen and Her Majesty’s government through the BSA company.”(Katenekwa) This became the Eastern Boundary of Barotseland.
In May, 1900, the North Eastern Order in Council created a new territory known as North Eastern Rhodesia under the North Chartereland Company made of lands of the Ushi, Ngumbo, Mukulu, Chishinga, Bwile, Tabwa, Eastern Lunda, Bemba, Lungu, Mambwe, Bisa,. Namwanga, Tumbuka, Chewa, Nsenga, and Ngoni. The control of these areas was achieved by forcing Bantu Chiefs to sign concessions or by force of arms, namely by war. This was what befell the Ngoni of Mpezeni, the Lunda of Kazambe and the Bembas. This territory was administered from Fort Jameson , now Chipata, up to 1911.
In 1900, Britain formally annexed Barotseland and governed it as part of North Western Rhodersia. The people of Barotseland enjoyed equal rights as all other peoples of the territory as the British declined to give any special status to Barotseland. Later, Lewanika appeared to have been troubled by the British claims over what he considered his land.In a letter of complaint by Lewanika to Coryndon dated 23 January, 1906 Lewanika reiterated what he had conceded to the BSA Company in the concession of 1900. In defining the territory where he had jurisdiction, that is to say, the boundaries of his Nationality “Baroseland”, he noted that his nationality comprised of” Barotse Valley and round Sesheke.” The letter acknowledging this fact was signed by Lewanika and witnessed by his Ngambela – Masika and Ford Aitkens.
Later in another concession dated 11th Angust, 1909, Lewanika extended his anthority to include
a) The Country on the West lying between the Zambezi River and the Anglo Portuguese Boundary
b) The Boundaries of Barotseland as defined in 1900
c) North Western Rhodesia as defined by the BSA Company particulary the areas of Batoka and Mushukulumbwe countries in which according to Art 3 of the concession , Lewanika retained right to graze Cattle in unoccupied Lands.
The tribal and linguistic map of Zambia is also very clear on the identification of peoples of the Barotse Nationality. The Barotse nationality did not include Lands of other tribes such as that of the Kuanga, Kuandi, Nkoya, Totela, Shanjo, Subiya, Toka, Leya Lumbu, Mashi, Kwandi, Nkoya, Totela, Shanjo, Subiya, Simaa, Ndundulu, Mbunda Nyengo, Mwenji, Makoma, Mbewe, Lovale, Lukolwe, Lushange. The Litunga and the Barotse people in general, having defeated the Kololo and who were now enjoying British protection, were concerned with keeping their original home as described in the 1900 concession inviolate. The Litunga and his people realized that with the advance of colonialism, they would no longer be able to retain any influence outside those initial boundaries. They wanted to protect the Barotse Reserve from European settlement. And this, they succeeded as, unlike the other areas under British rule, no European or Indian settlement was allowed and no private ownership of Land was ever permitted.
The claim by the Litunga Lewanika in his letter dated 11th August, 1909 that his authority included North Western Rhodesia , is not borne by historical evidence. At the time Lockner signed a concession with Lewanika in 1900, other Chiefs of other tribes of the British Central African Protectorate also signed concessions with another envoy of the BSA Company named Joseph Tomson. The concessions were so numerous that the British Government decided to issue to the BSA Company “Certificate of claim” for each area where Tomson had signed concessions with chiefs who could not be identified . The areas were identified as A,B,C,D etc and the Company built forts in those areas such as Fort Rosebury and Fort Abercon representing present day Mansa and Mbala respectively.
The area covered by certificate of claim ‘’A’’ which included present day Copperbelt, Central and parts of Eastern, Southern Provinces, the BSA Company decided to transfer for administrative reasons, to the “suvereinty of Lewanika as the Land was inaccessible from Fort Jameson. The Administrative move effected on 30th March, 1905 by the BSA Company enabled Lewanika to benefit as he was now entitled to the share of the Tax Money that other Tribes people paid to the BSA Company. Lewanika never claimed ownership of the Copperbelt or any other Lands outside Baroseland.
In 1911, the two territories merged into the Protectorate of Northern Rhodesia. The name “Barotseland” was not featured in the new entity. However, the Almagamation Order contained specific provisions securing the Litunga Lewanika relative authority over Baroseland of which no map to show its extent was provided. The 1911 Order in Council defined the new amalgamated entity of Northern Rhodesia as land “ WHOSE LIMITS WERE DEFINED AS “THE PARTS OF AFRICA BOUNDED BY SOUTHERN RHODESIA(ZIMBABWE),GERMAN SOUTH WEST AFRICA(NAMIBIA),PORTUGUESE WEST AFRICA(ANGOLA),THE CONGO FREE STATE(CONGO DR),GERMAN EAST AFRICA(TANZANIA),NYASALAND(MALAWI) AND PORTUGUESE EAST AFRICA(MOZAMBIQUE).THIS ORDER VESTED POWER IN THE HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR NORTHERN RHODESIA WHO WAS BASED IN SOUTH AFRICA TO MAKE LAWS FOR THE PEACE, ORDER AND GOOD GOVERNMENT OF THE COUNTRY. SECTION 40 0F THE ORDER STATED THAT “ALL THE RIGHTS CONFERRED AND OBLIGATIONS IMPOSED UPON THE COMPANY AND UPON THE CHIEF AND PEOPLE OF THE BAROTSE RESPECTIVELY BY VARIOUS CONCESSIONS AS APPROVED BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE IN THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT SHALL CONTINUE TO HAVE FULL FORCE AND EFFECT.” SECTION 44 STATED IN PARTICULAR THAT ”NOTHING IN THE PROVISION CONFERRING POWER TO REGULATE THE CONDUCT OF THE NATIVES SHALL BE DEEMED TO LIMIT OR AFFECT THE EXERCISE OF THE CHIEF OF THE BAROTSE OF HIS AUTHORITY IN TRIBAL MATTERS.” THIS ORDER CREATED FOR THE FIRST TIME A COUNTRY- NORTHERN RHODESIA, WITH A SEMI-AUTONOMOUS BAROTSELAND THEREIN ENJOYING ITS CONCESSION TIME/1900 TREATY RIGHTS.” Katanekwa.
In 1942, the boundary of Barotseland was further altered when the Luvale and Lunda territories were excluded by the colonial government as a settlement of the dispute between the Luvale/Lunda chiefs and the Barotse Native Government. In 1953 with the creation of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, the Litunga caused that Barotseland was recognized as a Protectorate within a Protectorate. The traditioner ruler of Barotseland was by this recognition formally titled the Litunga of Barotseland. Up until the independence of Zambia in 1964, Barotseland comprised of five districts, namely, Kalabo, Mongu, Mankoya, Senanga and Sesheke. It excluded Balovale, Kabompo, Kasempa, Mumbwa, Namwala and Kalomo. This was the state of affairs up to 1964.
During the time of colonial rule, Barotseland had features of a charter colony although the Treaty and the Charter gave the territory protectorate status but not as an official protectorate of the United Kingdom government. Britain granted Barotseland semi autonomous status and made it a Protectorate within a Protectorate of Northern Rhodesia and administered as part of Northern Rhodesia. Other ethnic groups in the country such as the Bembas, Ngonis or Chewas did not ask for this status from the British. Barotseland was also denied recognition as an independent Kingdom in contrast to Lesotho and Swaziland which were recognized as such. This fate is shared by Zululand and the Baganda . The British refused to recognize the Litunga as a King. The British designated them as simply Paramount Chiefs. The British recognized only one King in their Empire- King George then and later Queen Victoria.
There is also a text description of the Boundary of Barotseland as at 1953 during the short lived Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasasand and an accompanying map drawn at the same time. This is probably the same spatial definition of Barotseland which Article 125 of the Zambia Independence order used to define Barotseland as the territory that as at midnight 23rd October, 1964 is comprised in the “Barotseland protectorate”. Documentary evidence of this description of Barotseland protectorate is not readily available anywhere. It certainly does not include Copperbelt, Central, Southern and parts of Western and Northern Provinces. What is evident is that the Barotse Nationality had influences in adjacent areas of its Borders. “From the Tribes which the Barotse subjugated, they exerted tribute in kind but in exchange, their vassals received gifts , loans of Cattle and protection from their enemies and the region remained relatively safe from the Slave Trade. Subject Tribes participated in the system as many had specialized products for exchanges.” ( Ghan ) These Tribes, as was the case with the Barotse, also enjoyed, relative autonomy and practiced different Governance systems.
As the wind of change which began with the independence from colonialism of Ghana in 1957, it was evident that this wind of change would come to Northern Rhodesia too. The African Welfare Societies first formed by Dauti Yamba in 1920’s at Mwenzo in Nakonde grew in stead and culminated in the formation of the African National Congress (ANC) in 1948 where one Mbikusita Lewanika who was later to become the Litunga of Barotseland was elected as the first President of the nationalist movement.
The Barotseland question, namely, that Barotseland should have relative autonomy as was the case with the British High Commission territories of Bechuanaland, Basutholand and Swaziland has always been the demand of the Litunga but was always refused by the British colonialists. They preferred that Barotseland was administered by the Commissioner of North Western Rhodesia at Kalomo and later Livingstone, the Governor of Northern Rhodesia at Lusaka and later the Prime Minister of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland in Salisbury. This demand by the Litunga for autonomy was rejected by the British had merit. Martin Meredith (2006) has observed that in Africa, there were over 10,000 African polities which the European colonialist amalgamated into 40 European colonies and protectorates. Zambia alone had more than 73 ethno linguistic groups. The British were correct in merging Barotseland into Northern Rhodesia to create a viable modern state.
However, in spite of use value of this unity of the people of Northern Rhodesia, the Litunga and the BRE continued to demand for autonomy of Barotseland. This demand became a side event at the independence talks at Lancaster House in London. Ealier in 1963, the Litunga had hired a lawyer named L.K Wilson to prepare the Barotse case for secession. Three records were prepared.
a. A record of quarantees of Barotseland‘s status as set out in various concessions signed and affirmed by constitutions of 1911, 1924 and 1953 .
b. The Barotse case for secession presented along the lines of the High Commission territories of Swaziland, Basutholand and Lesotholand;
c. Barotseland’s existence as a nation prior to the creation of Northern Rhodesia; failure of the colonial government to develop Barotseland;unsuitability for Western democracy for African conditions; and advantages of becoming an independent state of Barotseland.
The British government rejected the Barotse case. The UNIP delegation also refused to entrench rights, privileges and status that the Barotse demanded in the Zambian Constitution. Instead the three parties (UK, Northern Rhodesia and the Litunga representing Barotseland) opted for a separate agreement as an annex to the Independent Constitution. The three parties signed the agreement on 18th May, 1964. The Cabinet of the new Zambian government reaffirmed the agreement at its 63rd meeting on 30th October, 1964 to formally bind it to the Republic of Zambia.
However, despite there being an agreement which provided among others for the Litunga of Barotseland to continue to have power to make laws for Barotseland in relation to the Litungaship, Barotse Native Government, Barotse Native Authority, Barotse Native Courts, the Litunga’s Council, local government, Land, Forests, traditional and customary matters of Barotseland, Fishing, control of hunting, game preservation. Control of bush fires, native treasury, supply of beer, reservation of trees for canoes, local taxation, and Barotse local festivals, the agreement was not implemented by the UNIP government.
The UNIP delegation and later its cabinet did not sign the agreement and affirm it respectively in good faith. As soon as Independence was granted and the new leaders were confident of their power, they quickly moved to abrogate the agreement by introducing the Local Government Act of 1965 which abolished the Barotse Government, the Barotse Native Authorities, he Barotse Native Courts, the Barotse Native Treasury and provided that Barotseland would from then on be administered through a uniform local government system applied in all districts and provinces of the country. Barotseland was renamed Western Province. The Barotse National Council was abolished by statutory instrument and five district councils were established.
The Litunga and the Barotse opposed this unilateral move and insured that in the elections of 1968, UNIP lost all seats to the ANC. In the Referendum of 1969 which removed all entrenched provisions that gave the Litunga rights on land, the people of Western Province gave a 75% NO verdict to allow the UNIP government to wrestle land from the Litunga. Furthermore, the Litunga and the BRE continued to promote the Sichaba(National) Party or the Barotse National Party (BNP) whose political aims were to lobby for secession.
In July, 1991, just as the MMD was coming into power, in order to entice the votes of the Barotse, the BRE met President Kaunda and demanded that if he won the multi-party elections and formed government, he would accede to their demands to restore the Barotse Agreement and refund UK Sterling 400,000 which Finance Minister Arthur Wina had taken from the Barotse Native Teasury in 1964. President Kaunda agreed and undertook to meet all the demands. (Sichone and Simutanyi, 1996:188). Unfortunately, President Kaunda lost, but the demands of the Litunga and the BRE did not end.
The new government of President Frederick Chiluba viewed the demands of the BRE as unimportant and irrerevant. The Minister Without Portfolio Brig. General Godfrey Miyanda now leader of the Heritage Party, was appointed to negotiate with the BRE. The effort failed and in 1993, President Chiluba threatened that anyone making demands for the restoration of the Barotseland Agreement 1964 would be charged with the high crime of treason.
In the successive governments of President Levy Mwanawasa and President Banda, the National Constitutional Conference which had been set up unilaterally by President Mwanawasa (it was boycotted by the Catholic Church and the PF among others) ignored the submissions of the BRE. The draft Constitution that was made excluded principles of regional autonomy or devolution of power. President Banda’s government had absolutely no time to consider the BA 1964 question. The NCC contemptuously ignored the BRE demands and chose instead to continue with the divisive doctrine of unitary state.
What Should Be Done?
President Michael Chilufya Sata and the PF government have the opportunity to resolve this question of Barotseland. The demands of the Litunga and the BRE cannot be casually dismissed or ignored or wished away as has happened since 1964. As the Barotse National Council meets on 26th March, 2012 at Limulunga, a vocal section among the attendees will probably demand for a radical resolution of the Barotse question. Similarly, there will be voices of reason who may argue for liberal solutions to the question. However one looks at the challenge, in trying to resolve the impulse, the following questions must be addressed.
1. Was the Barotseland Agreement ever repealed or revoked? Could the Parliament of Zambia repeal the BA 1964 which was simply an annexure to the Independent Constitution? Was its abrogation by the Zambian Parliament supported by law? If the agreement is alive as observed by the Chongwe Commission, how can it be implemented without destabilizing the country?
2. Is the Litunga and the BRE justified in demanding for the restoration of the BA 1964 agreement? If relative autonomy as demanded is granted, what political institution will be in place – multi party democracy or a return to monarchical hegemony? What will be the response of other nationalities in Western Province such as the Nkoya, Mbunda, Nyengo, Luvale and others who are not Barotse? What will be the view of other nationalities like the Chewa, Bemba, Tonga, Ngoni, and so on that constitute the totality of the peoples of the Republic of Zambia?
3. What is the consensual view of the BA 1964 in Western Province? Are present demands of the BRE representational of all the people of Western Province including the Nkoya, Luvale, Mbunda Nyengo , non indigenous peoples who have settled there and so on.
4. Should the dispute be taken up by the High Court of Zambia as provided by Art. 9 of the BA 1964 in resolving any disputes on the agreement? What is the dispute and how does it impact the wider Zambia?
5. To what extent should the Right to Self Determination including secession as provided in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights relevant to the BA 1964? Are the Barotse nationality an oppressed people in Zambia? Has Barotseland been treated equitably with respect to development by successive governments?
6. What should be done?
For sure, valuable lessons can be learnt from the experience of other countries. Some examples include the case of Serbia and Kosovo which after a war,ended up with Kosovo declaring UDI in 2009; Sudan in which South Sudan emerged as an independent state after such a long and terrible civil war; Canada and Quebec in which Quebec has been recognized as a nation within a United Canada; Tanzania and Zanzibar in which Zanzibar is relatively autonomous; the example of South Africa where local government has been integrated within federated structures, and so on.
For many observers and analysts, there are three possibilities in resolving the Barotse Question.
1. To re-negotiate the Barotse Agreement so as to ensure more regional autonomy of all the regions of Zambia anchored on liberal democratic values and federalism. This will require that the PF government provides for Zambia a new constitution that entrenches federated structures in our governance. The Technical Committee appointed by President Sata can be requested to negotiate with the Litunga and the BRE and other Royal Establishments together with all civil society on the historical necessity of devolution and recommend in the new draft constitution the federated way in which Zambia would be governed. It is a notorious fact that no country has ever developed under the so called unitary state structures. In fact, this is a colonial legacy that suited despots. All serious countries only developed when they federated. This is true for the UK, Germany, Japan, India, RSA, Brazil. USA, France, Russia, India even small countries like South Korea, Switzerland and so on.
2. To uphold the status quo holding Zambia as a unitary state with power concentrated in Lusaka. To continue giving lip service of support to decentralization and devolution demands of the people. To ignore the demands of the BRE and the Litunga and treat advocates of the restoration of the BA 1964 as treasonous. This option is not only reactionary and divisive, but will make Zambia forever poor. This plays in the hands of Zambia’s enemies who celebrate at our inability to manage our country efficiently and effectively. Only despots who want to continue stealing peoples resources in Lusaka and abusing their powers unfettered support the maintenance of a unitary state.
3. To dissolve the state of Zambia and allow Barotseland to secede from the former Northern Rhodesia and divide the Zambian people into two or several balkanized separate entities. To divide the people of Zambia who since 1911 have lived and inter-married and created a unique Zambian national character? This is the demand of some separatist elements in Barotseland. This will require, among others, the determination of the boundaries of Barotseland, the holding of referenda in both Barotseland and other previously subject peoples like the Nkoya, Nyengo, Mbunda, Luvale to determine whether they would want to revert to be ruled by the Litunga again and so on. Such an option is obviously retrogressive and will tend to revise a backward and oppressive governance system of feudalism. This option does not support the development project and is inherently reactionary.
For sure, President Sata and the PF government can and should resolve the BA 1964 problem. Option one is not only historically necessary, but is also a historical inevitability as it is borne and steeled by history.
END
Executive Director: Zambia Research Foundation
www.mbitachitala.blogspot.com;mbitachitala@yahoo.co.uk;Mobile+260211976 030398
__________________________________________________________________________
Both the recommendation by the Rodger Chongwe Commission that the Barotseland Agreement be restored and the off the cuff comments by President Michael Chilufya Sata that he would not recommend that view to his cabinet, are both legitimate. The Chongwe Commission’s recommendation is anchored on the Commission’s interpretation of the law, namely, status of the abrogated Barotse Agreement 1964, while President Sata’s view is anchored on the political realism of the present day Zambia as a sovereign united nation. The challenge is to harmonize the two world outlooks and still end up with a united and prosperous Zambia.
There is generally little debate on the colonial history of Zambia. Between 1600-1800 when Bantu speaking peoples from the citadel of Bantu civilization in the Congo occupied Southern/Central and Eastern Africa displacing pre-historical peoples such as the Bushmen, Twa, and Hottentots, one could not reasonably define the boundaries that different Bantu nationalities occupied. This only became possible with European colonization which was effected during the late 1800s when major European powers claimed territories of influence on Africa. This scramble for Africa culminated in the Berlin Conference of 1884-6, when the whole of Africa was formally divided and shared by the colonial powers. The territory we started calling Zambia in 1964, was part of Land in Central Africa ceded to the British on 19th September, 1893 in a Land and Mineral Concession Certificate of claim signed by Henry Hamilton Johnson - the Commissioner and Consul General for the territories under British influence on behalf of British Government and witnessed by James Francis Cunningham - Manager of the African Lakes Company Limited and Lord Monteith Fortherington - the Manager of the African Lakes Company Limited. The whole Region was then known as British Central Africa. The name Barotseland was formulated by the British to distinguish the land where the Litunga Lubosi Lewanika I, rather than go to war like the other tribes to defend his area of influence, chose to sign an agreement with the British colonialists in which he ceded the land rights of his nationality peacefully to the colonialists.
The Barotse Question
The Barotse question has its origin with the Lochner Concession of 1887 and later the signing of the treaty in June 1890 when Frank Elliot Lochner as the representative of the British South Africa company (BSA co) signed a treaty with the Litunga of the Barotse people for protection against slave traders and against war with the British. The Litunga in turn gave mineral exploration and mining rights in the land he claimed to control to the BSA company. These were the rights which the BSA company kept enjoying and extending at their will until they were revoked by the new Zambian government after independence.
The land of the Litunga where the Barotse people had sovereighnty was first defined in 1878 by Litunga Lewanika (who ruled from 1878-1916 with one break in 1884-5) . In describing the Barotse Nation, he described true Barotseland as the Land in the Zambezi River Flood plain and about 40km East of Limulunga and Senanga (Gann, Rotberg). This characterization is historically correct as it agrees with the fact which affirms that from 1864 when the Basotho led by Sebitwane and who spoke kololo and had ruled Baroseland since 1838 were defeated and expelled by the Barotse (who now spoke a lingua franca known as Lozi and in some quarters came to be referred to as the Lozi people), the Boundary of the Lozi Nationality was restricted to the Zambezi valley. It was an enclave on the Barotse plains.
In subsequent years, the boundary of what the British Colonialists named as Barotseland kept shifting and was extended unilaterally by conquest or request for protection as other Bantu tribes were brought and made subject peoples of the Barotse Nationality. Francois Collard of the Paris Missionary Society is quoted by Nicholas Katanekwa in an unpublished manuscript that Coillard described the boundary of Barotseland as being “ON THE SOUTH, THE ZAMBEZI RIVER AND THE CHOBE RIVER;ON THE WEST THE 20TH DEGREE LONGITUDE EAST;ON THE NORTH THE WATERSHED OF THE CONGO AND THE ZAMBEZI RIVERS;ON THE EAST THE KAFUE RIVER.”THE PRINCIPAL TRIBES IN THESE AREAS ACCORDING TO HIM WERE:”THE MAYEEYE(MAYEI),MASHAIYO(MASHANJO),THE MASHI,MAWIKO(NORTH WESTERN MBUNDA)MAKOMA,BA MOENYO(MWENYI),THE BAUBALE(LUVALE),BA RUNDA(LUNDA),BALUKOLOE( LUKOLWE),BA KAONDE,MANKOEA(MANKOYA),LIAMBA(LAMBA),MASHIKULOMBOE(ILA),BAWE OR MATOMOE,MALEA(LEYA),BA SUBIYA,MAKUANGOA(KWANGWA),MATOTELA.” In the same paper, Katanekwa reported that “ACCORDING TO ADOLPHE JALLA , ANOTHER PMS MISSIONARY IN BAROTSELAND “ AT THE SIGNING CEREMONY THERE WERE GATHERED FROM WEST AND EAST THE PRINCIPAL HEADMEN OF THE TRIBES WHO ACKNOWLEDGED LEWANIKA’S POWER.THEY HAD COME FROM THE BANKS OF THE LUNGWEBUNGU,LUWOLOSHI,THE KABOMPOETC.THE BAUBALE AND RUNDA DID NOT ATTEND THE CEREMONY .” JALLA, FURTHER DESCRIBES THE BOUNDARIES OF THE LOZI KINGDOM “AS THE LUVALE AND LUNDA COUNTRIES TO THE SOURCE OF THE ZAMBEZI IN THE NORTH, KWITO RIVER TO THE OKAVANGO IN THE WEST; THE CHOBE TO ITS CONFUELENCE WITH THE ZAMBEZI AND ALONG THE ZAMBEZI TO THE JUNCTION WITH THE KAFUE RIVER IN THE SOUTH.IN THE EAST ALONG THE KAFUE RIVER FROM ITS JUNCTION WITH THE ZAMBEZI TO ACROSS THE HOOK.AFTER THE HOOK FURTHER TO THE WEST OF THE KAFUE RIVER, BUT EAST OF THE LUNGA RIVER).”
Other documents and peoples have given their own spatial differentiation of Barotseland. This includes such documentation and people like the 11 June 1891 Treaty between Britain and Portugal, the Anglo – Portuguese Protocol of 1893, Major Goold Adams who in 1896 attempted to define the boundaries on behalf of the British,and Major Coryndon, Robert who was appointed in 1897 as the first BSA representative in Barotseland. All these interpretations appear to be subjective and had many omissions which Lewanika pointed out.
On 25thJune, 1898 at a meeting held at Victoria Falls, the Litunga Lawenika together with 7 of his Counselors and witnessed by 5 other people on behalf of the Barotse Nationality, signed with R.T Coryndon - representing the British South Africa Company - a concession in which he ceded Land to the BSA Company that included “the whole territory of the Nation or any future extension there of including all subject and dependent territory.”In term of Geographical Boundary, the Barotse Nationality’s Boundaries were defined as:
a) Northern Boundary – from the Headwaters of the Dongwe along Kabompo Rivers to the junction of the Kabompo and Zambezi rivers.
b) Western Boundary – from the junction of the Kabompo and Zambezi Rivers along the Zambezi River to its Junction with the Majili River.
c) Eastern Boundaries – from the Junction of Zambezi and Majili Rivers along the Majili River to its head water hence Northward along the line of the watershed at the Headwaters of the Dongwe River.
In 1899, the British through an Order in Council created a new territory with new boundaries and called it “Barotselant-North Western Rhodesia”. The territory comprised of Barotseland as variously defined and North Western Rhodesia which comprised of the lands of the lands of the Lunda, Kaonde, Mushukulumbwe, Toka, Lamba, Lenje, Swaka, Lala,and Soli. The territory was first administered from Lealui by Robert Coryndon but shifted later to Kalomo in 1902 and to Livingstone in 1907. In 1900, Litunga Lewanika signed a concession with the BSA co. which gave him certain powers according to Katenekwa. Lewanika “ retained – Barotseland proper (excluding the Portuguese claim) whose boundaries ran from the junction of the Machili and Zambezi rivers northwards along the Machili river to its headwaters hence north ward along the line of the waterhead at the headwaters of the Dongwe river onwards to the headwaters of the Kabompo river, then along the Kabompo river, then along the Kabompo river to its junction with the Zambezi river river thence along the Zambezi river to its junction with the Machili river – for the exclusive use of the Lozi and to be reserved from prospecting and white settlement. Lewanika also ceded the rest which had earlier been claimed as part of Barotseland in the East from the Machili river to the Kafue river in the lands of the Kaonde, Mashukulumbwe, and Toka to the Queen and Her Majesty’s government through the BSA company.”(Katenekwa) This became the Eastern Boundary of Barotseland.
In May, 1900, the North Eastern Order in Council created a new territory known as North Eastern Rhodesia under the North Chartereland Company made of lands of the Ushi, Ngumbo, Mukulu, Chishinga, Bwile, Tabwa, Eastern Lunda, Bemba, Lungu, Mambwe, Bisa,. Namwanga, Tumbuka, Chewa, Nsenga, and Ngoni. The control of these areas was achieved by forcing Bantu Chiefs to sign concessions or by force of arms, namely by war. This was what befell the Ngoni of Mpezeni, the Lunda of Kazambe and the Bembas. This territory was administered from Fort Jameson , now Chipata, up to 1911.
In 1900, Britain formally annexed Barotseland and governed it as part of North Western Rhodersia. The people of Barotseland enjoyed equal rights as all other peoples of the territory as the British declined to give any special status to Barotseland. Later, Lewanika appeared to have been troubled by the British claims over what he considered his land.In a letter of complaint by Lewanika to Coryndon dated 23 January, 1906 Lewanika reiterated what he had conceded to the BSA Company in the concession of 1900. In defining the territory where he had jurisdiction, that is to say, the boundaries of his Nationality “Baroseland”, he noted that his nationality comprised of” Barotse Valley and round Sesheke.” The letter acknowledging this fact was signed by Lewanika and witnessed by his Ngambela – Masika and Ford Aitkens.
Later in another concession dated 11th Angust, 1909, Lewanika extended his anthority to include
a) The Country on the West lying between the Zambezi River and the Anglo Portuguese Boundary
b) The Boundaries of Barotseland as defined in 1900
c) North Western Rhodesia as defined by the BSA Company particulary the areas of Batoka and Mushukulumbwe countries in which according to Art 3 of the concession , Lewanika retained right to graze Cattle in unoccupied Lands.
The tribal and linguistic map of Zambia is also very clear on the identification of peoples of the Barotse Nationality. The Barotse nationality did not include Lands of other tribes such as that of the Kuanga, Kuandi, Nkoya, Totela, Shanjo, Subiya, Toka, Leya Lumbu, Mashi, Kwandi, Nkoya, Totela, Shanjo, Subiya, Simaa, Ndundulu, Mbunda Nyengo, Mwenji, Makoma, Mbewe, Lovale, Lukolwe, Lushange. The Litunga and the Barotse people in general, having defeated the Kololo and who were now enjoying British protection, were concerned with keeping their original home as described in the 1900 concession inviolate. The Litunga and his people realized that with the advance of colonialism, they would no longer be able to retain any influence outside those initial boundaries. They wanted to protect the Barotse Reserve from European settlement. And this, they succeeded as, unlike the other areas under British rule, no European or Indian settlement was allowed and no private ownership of Land was ever permitted.
The claim by the Litunga Lewanika in his letter dated 11th August, 1909 that his authority included North Western Rhodesia , is not borne by historical evidence. At the time Lockner signed a concession with Lewanika in 1900, other Chiefs of other tribes of the British Central African Protectorate also signed concessions with another envoy of the BSA Company named Joseph Tomson. The concessions were so numerous that the British Government decided to issue to the BSA Company “Certificate of claim” for each area where Tomson had signed concessions with chiefs who could not be identified . The areas were identified as A,B,C,D etc and the Company built forts in those areas such as Fort Rosebury and Fort Abercon representing present day Mansa and Mbala respectively.
The area covered by certificate of claim ‘’A’’ which included present day Copperbelt, Central and parts of Eastern, Southern Provinces, the BSA Company decided to transfer for administrative reasons, to the “suvereinty of Lewanika as the Land was inaccessible from Fort Jameson. The Administrative move effected on 30th March, 1905 by the BSA Company enabled Lewanika to benefit as he was now entitled to the share of the Tax Money that other Tribes people paid to the BSA Company. Lewanika never claimed ownership of the Copperbelt or any other Lands outside Baroseland.
In 1911, the two territories merged into the Protectorate of Northern Rhodesia. The name “Barotseland” was not featured in the new entity. However, the Almagamation Order contained specific provisions securing the Litunga Lewanika relative authority over Baroseland of which no map to show its extent was provided. The 1911 Order in Council defined the new amalgamated entity of Northern Rhodesia as land “ WHOSE LIMITS WERE DEFINED AS “THE PARTS OF AFRICA BOUNDED BY SOUTHERN RHODESIA(ZIMBABWE),GERMAN SOUTH WEST AFRICA(NAMIBIA),PORTUGUESE WEST AFRICA(ANGOLA),THE CONGO FREE STATE(CONGO DR),GERMAN EAST AFRICA(TANZANIA),NYASALAND(MALAWI) AND PORTUGUESE EAST AFRICA(MOZAMBIQUE).THIS ORDER VESTED POWER IN THE HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR NORTHERN RHODESIA WHO WAS BASED IN SOUTH AFRICA TO MAKE LAWS FOR THE PEACE, ORDER AND GOOD GOVERNMENT OF THE COUNTRY. SECTION 40 0F THE ORDER STATED THAT “ALL THE RIGHTS CONFERRED AND OBLIGATIONS IMPOSED UPON THE COMPANY AND UPON THE CHIEF AND PEOPLE OF THE BAROTSE RESPECTIVELY BY VARIOUS CONCESSIONS AS APPROVED BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE IN THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT SHALL CONTINUE TO HAVE FULL FORCE AND EFFECT.” SECTION 44 STATED IN PARTICULAR THAT ”NOTHING IN THE PROVISION CONFERRING POWER TO REGULATE THE CONDUCT OF THE NATIVES SHALL BE DEEMED TO LIMIT OR AFFECT THE EXERCISE OF THE CHIEF OF THE BAROTSE OF HIS AUTHORITY IN TRIBAL MATTERS.” THIS ORDER CREATED FOR THE FIRST TIME A COUNTRY- NORTHERN RHODESIA, WITH A SEMI-AUTONOMOUS BAROTSELAND THEREIN ENJOYING ITS CONCESSION TIME/1900 TREATY RIGHTS.” Katanekwa.
In 1942, the boundary of Barotseland was further altered when the Luvale and Lunda territories were excluded by the colonial government as a settlement of the dispute between the Luvale/Lunda chiefs and the Barotse Native Government. In 1953 with the creation of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, the Litunga caused that Barotseland was recognized as a Protectorate within a Protectorate. The traditioner ruler of Barotseland was by this recognition formally titled the Litunga of Barotseland. Up until the independence of Zambia in 1964, Barotseland comprised of five districts, namely, Kalabo, Mongu, Mankoya, Senanga and Sesheke. It excluded Balovale, Kabompo, Kasempa, Mumbwa, Namwala and Kalomo. This was the state of affairs up to 1964.
During the time of colonial rule, Barotseland had features of a charter colony although the Treaty and the Charter gave the territory protectorate status but not as an official protectorate of the United Kingdom government. Britain granted Barotseland semi autonomous status and made it a Protectorate within a Protectorate of Northern Rhodesia and administered as part of Northern Rhodesia. Other ethnic groups in the country such as the Bembas, Ngonis or Chewas did not ask for this status from the British. Barotseland was also denied recognition as an independent Kingdom in contrast to Lesotho and Swaziland which were recognized as such. This fate is shared by Zululand and the Baganda . The British refused to recognize the Litunga as a King. The British designated them as simply Paramount Chiefs. The British recognized only one King in their Empire- King George then and later Queen Victoria.
There is also a text description of the Boundary of Barotseland as at 1953 during the short lived Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasasand and an accompanying map drawn at the same time. This is probably the same spatial definition of Barotseland which Article 125 of the Zambia Independence order used to define Barotseland as the territory that as at midnight 23rd October, 1964 is comprised in the “Barotseland protectorate”. Documentary evidence of this description of Barotseland protectorate is not readily available anywhere. It certainly does not include Copperbelt, Central, Southern and parts of Western and Northern Provinces. What is evident is that the Barotse Nationality had influences in adjacent areas of its Borders. “From the Tribes which the Barotse subjugated, they exerted tribute in kind but in exchange, their vassals received gifts , loans of Cattle and protection from their enemies and the region remained relatively safe from the Slave Trade. Subject Tribes participated in the system as many had specialized products for exchanges.” ( Ghan ) These Tribes, as was the case with the Barotse, also enjoyed, relative autonomy and practiced different Governance systems.
As the wind of change which began with the independence from colonialism of Ghana in 1957, it was evident that this wind of change would come to Northern Rhodesia too. The African Welfare Societies first formed by Dauti Yamba in 1920’s at Mwenzo in Nakonde grew in stead and culminated in the formation of the African National Congress (ANC) in 1948 where one Mbikusita Lewanika who was later to become the Litunga of Barotseland was elected as the first President of the nationalist movement.
The Barotseland question, namely, that Barotseland should have relative autonomy as was the case with the British High Commission territories of Bechuanaland, Basutholand and Swaziland has always been the demand of the Litunga but was always refused by the British colonialists. They preferred that Barotseland was administered by the Commissioner of North Western Rhodesia at Kalomo and later Livingstone, the Governor of Northern Rhodesia at Lusaka and later the Prime Minister of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland in Salisbury. This demand by the Litunga for autonomy was rejected by the British had merit. Martin Meredith (2006) has observed that in Africa, there were over 10,000 African polities which the European colonialist amalgamated into 40 European colonies and protectorates. Zambia alone had more than 73 ethno linguistic groups. The British were correct in merging Barotseland into Northern Rhodesia to create a viable modern state.
However, in spite of use value of this unity of the people of Northern Rhodesia, the Litunga and the BRE continued to demand for autonomy of Barotseland. This demand became a side event at the independence talks at Lancaster House in London. Ealier in 1963, the Litunga had hired a lawyer named L.K Wilson to prepare the Barotse case for secession. Three records were prepared.
a. A record of quarantees of Barotseland‘s status as set out in various concessions signed and affirmed by constitutions of 1911, 1924 and 1953 .
b. The Barotse case for secession presented along the lines of the High Commission territories of Swaziland, Basutholand and Lesotholand;
c. Barotseland’s existence as a nation prior to the creation of Northern Rhodesia; failure of the colonial government to develop Barotseland;unsuitability for Western democracy for African conditions; and advantages of becoming an independent state of Barotseland.
The British government rejected the Barotse case. The UNIP delegation also refused to entrench rights, privileges and status that the Barotse demanded in the Zambian Constitution. Instead the three parties (UK, Northern Rhodesia and the Litunga representing Barotseland) opted for a separate agreement as an annex to the Independent Constitution. The three parties signed the agreement on 18th May, 1964. The Cabinet of the new Zambian government reaffirmed the agreement at its 63rd meeting on 30th October, 1964 to formally bind it to the Republic of Zambia.
However, despite there being an agreement which provided among others for the Litunga of Barotseland to continue to have power to make laws for Barotseland in relation to the Litungaship, Barotse Native Government, Barotse Native Authority, Barotse Native Courts, the Litunga’s Council, local government, Land, Forests, traditional and customary matters of Barotseland, Fishing, control of hunting, game preservation. Control of bush fires, native treasury, supply of beer, reservation of trees for canoes, local taxation, and Barotse local festivals, the agreement was not implemented by the UNIP government.
The UNIP delegation and later its cabinet did not sign the agreement and affirm it respectively in good faith. As soon as Independence was granted and the new leaders were confident of their power, they quickly moved to abrogate the agreement by introducing the Local Government Act of 1965 which abolished the Barotse Government, the Barotse Native Authorities, he Barotse Native Courts, the Barotse Native Treasury and provided that Barotseland would from then on be administered through a uniform local government system applied in all districts and provinces of the country. Barotseland was renamed Western Province. The Barotse National Council was abolished by statutory instrument and five district councils were established.
The Litunga and the Barotse opposed this unilateral move and insured that in the elections of 1968, UNIP lost all seats to the ANC. In the Referendum of 1969 which removed all entrenched provisions that gave the Litunga rights on land, the people of Western Province gave a 75% NO verdict to allow the UNIP government to wrestle land from the Litunga. Furthermore, the Litunga and the BRE continued to promote the Sichaba(National) Party or the Barotse National Party (BNP) whose political aims were to lobby for secession.
In July, 1991, just as the MMD was coming into power, in order to entice the votes of the Barotse, the BRE met President Kaunda and demanded that if he won the multi-party elections and formed government, he would accede to their demands to restore the Barotse Agreement and refund UK Sterling 400,000 which Finance Minister Arthur Wina had taken from the Barotse Native Teasury in 1964. President Kaunda agreed and undertook to meet all the demands. (Sichone and Simutanyi, 1996:188). Unfortunately, President Kaunda lost, but the demands of the Litunga and the BRE did not end.
The new government of President Frederick Chiluba viewed the demands of the BRE as unimportant and irrerevant. The Minister Without Portfolio Brig. General Godfrey Miyanda now leader of the Heritage Party, was appointed to negotiate with the BRE. The effort failed and in 1993, President Chiluba threatened that anyone making demands for the restoration of the Barotseland Agreement 1964 would be charged with the high crime of treason.
In the successive governments of President Levy Mwanawasa and President Banda, the National Constitutional Conference which had been set up unilaterally by President Mwanawasa (it was boycotted by the Catholic Church and the PF among others) ignored the submissions of the BRE. The draft Constitution that was made excluded principles of regional autonomy or devolution of power. President Banda’s government had absolutely no time to consider the BA 1964 question. The NCC contemptuously ignored the BRE demands and chose instead to continue with the divisive doctrine of unitary state.
What Should Be Done?
President Michael Chilufya Sata and the PF government have the opportunity to resolve this question of Barotseland. The demands of the Litunga and the BRE cannot be casually dismissed or ignored or wished away as has happened since 1964. As the Barotse National Council meets on 26th March, 2012 at Limulunga, a vocal section among the attendees will probably demand for a radical resolution of the Barotse question. Similarly, there will be voices of reason who may argue for liberal solutions to the question. However one looks at the challenge, in trying to resolve the impulse, the following questions must be addressed.
1. Was the Barotseland Agreement ever repealed or revoked? Could the Parliament of Zambia repeal the BA 1964 which was simply an annexure to the Independent Constitution? Was its abrogation by the Zambian Parliament supported by law? If the agreement is alive as observed by the Chongwe Commission, how can it be implemented without destabilizing the country?
2. Is the Litunga and the BRE justified in demanding for the restoration of the BA 1964 agreement? If relative autonomy as demanded is granted, what political institution will be in place – multi party democracy or a return to monarchical hegemony? What will be the response of other nationalities in Western Province such as the Nkoya, Mbunda, Nyengo, Luvale and others who are not Barotse? What will be the view of other nationalities like the Chewa, Bemba, Tonga, Ngoni, and so on that constitute the totality of the peoples of the Republic of Zambia?
3. What is the consensual view of the BA 1964 in Western Province? Are present demands of the BRE representational of all the people of Western Province including the Nkoya, Luvale, Mbunda Nyengo , non indigenous peoples who have settled there and so on.
4. Should the dispute be taken up by the High Court of Zambia as provided by Art. 9 of the BA 1964 in resolving any disputes on the agreement? What is the dispute and how does it impact the wider Zambia?
5. To what extent should the Right to Self Determination including secession as provided in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights relevant to the BA 1964? Are the Barotse nationality an oppressed people in Zambia? Has Barotseland been treated equitably with respect to development by successive governments?
6. What should be done?
For sure, valuable lessons can be learnt from the experience of other countries. Some examples include the case of Serbia and Kosovo which after a war,ended up with Kosovo declaring UDI in 2009; Sudan in which South Sudan emerged as an independent state after such a long and terrible civil war; Canada and Quebec in which Quebec has been recognized as a nation within a United Canada; Tanzania and Zanzibar in which Zanzibar is relatively autonomous; the example of South Africa where local government has been integrated within federated structures, and so on.
For many observers and analysts, there are three possibilities in resolving the Barotse Question.
1. To re-negotiate the Barotse Agreement so as to ensure more regional autonomy of all the regions of Zambia anchored on liberal democratic values and federalism. This will require that the PF government provides for Zambia a new constitution that entrenches federated structures in our governance. The Technical Committee appointed by President Sata can be requested to negotiate with the Litunga and the BRE and other Royal Establishments together with all civil society on the historical necessity of devolution and recommend in the new draft constitution the federated way in which Zambia would be governed. It is a notorious fact that no country has ever developed under the so called unitary state structures. In fact, this is a colonial legacy that suited despots. All serious countries only developed when they federated. This is true for the UK, Germany, Japan, India, RSA, Brazil. USA, France, Russia, India even small countries like South Korea, Switzerland and so on.
2. To uphold the status quo holding Zambia as a unitary state with power concentrated in Lusaka. To continue giving lip service of support to decentralization and devolution demands of the people. To ignore the demands of the BRE and the Litunga and treat advocates of the restoration of the BA 1964 as treasonous. This option is not only reactionary and divisive, but will make Zambia forever poor. This plays in the hands of Zambia’s enemies who celebrate at our inability to manage our country efficiently and effectively. Only despots who want to continue stealing peoples resources in Lusaka and abusing their powers unfettered support the maintenance of a unitary state.
3. To dissolve the state of Zambia and allow Barotseland to secede from the former Northern Rhodesia and divide the Zambian people into two or several balkanized separate entities. To divide the people of Zambia who since 1911 have lived and inter-married and created a unique Zambian national character? This is the demand of some separatist elements in Barotseland. This will require, among others, the determination of the boundaries of Barotseland, the holding of referenda in both Barotseland and other previously subject peoples like the Nkoya, Nyengo, Mbunda, Luvale to determine whether they would want to revert to be ruled by the Litunga again and so on. Such an option is obviously retrogressive and will tend to revise a backward and oppressive governance system of feudalism. This option does not support the development project and is inherently reactionary.
For sure, President Sata and the PF government can and should resolve the BA 1964 problem. Option one is not only historically necessary, but is also a historical inevitability as it is borne and steeled by history.
END
Thursday, March 1, 2012
THE BAROTSE QUESTION: What should be done?
By. Dr. Mbita Chitala
Executive Director, Zambia Research Foundation
www.mbitachitala.blogspot.com; mbitachitala@yahoo.co.uk; Mobile +260 211 976 030398
______________________________________________________________________________
Both the recommendation by the Rodger Chongwe Commission that the Barotseland Agreement be restored and the off the cuff comments by President Michael Chilufya Sata that he would not recommend that view to his cabinet, are both legitimate. The Chongwe Commission’s recommendation is anchored on the Commission’s interpretation of the law, namely, status of the abrogated Barotse Agreement 1964, while President Sata’s view is anchored on the political realism of the present day Zambia as a sovereign united nation. The challenge is to harmonize the two world outlooks and still end up with a united and prosperous Zambia.
There is generally little debate on the colonial history of Zambia. Following the Berlin Conference of 1884, the territory we started calling Zambia in 1964, was part of Land in Central Africa ceded to the British on 19th September, 1893 in a Land and Mineral Concession Certificate of claim signed by Henry Hamilton Johnson - the Commissioner and Consul General for the territories under British influence on behalf of British Government and witnessed by James Francis Cunningham - Manager of the African Lakes Company Limited and Lord Monteith Fortherington - the Manager of the African Lakes Company Limited. The whole Region was then known as British Central Africa.
The Barotse Question
The Barotse question has its origin with the Lochner Concession of 1887 when Lochner as the representative of the British South Africa company signed a treaty with the Litunga of the Barotse people for protection against slave traders and in turn gave mineral exploration and mining rights in his land to the BSA company. These were the rights which the BSA company kept enjoying and extending at their will until they were revoked by the Zambian government at independence.
The land of the Litunga where the Barotse people had sovereighnty was defined in 1878 by Litunga Lewanika (who ruled from 1878-1916 with one break in 1884-5) . In describing the Barotse Nation, he described true Barotseland as the Land in the Zambezi River Flood plain and about 40km East of Limulunga and Senanga (Gann, Rotberg). This characterization is historically correct as it agrees with the fact which affirms that from 1864 when the Basotho led by Sebitwane and who spoke kololo and had ruled Baroseland since 1838 were defeated and expelled by the Barotse (who now spoke a lingua franca known as Lozi and in some quarters came to be referred to as the Lozi people), the Boundary of the Lozi Nationality was restricted to the Zambezi valley.
In subsequent years, the boundary of what the British Colonialists named as Barotseland kept shifting as other tribes were brought and made subject peoples of the Barotse Nationality.
On 25thJune, 1898 at a meeting held at Victoria Falls, the Litunga Lawenika together with 7 of his Counselors and witnessed by 5 other people on behalf of the Barotse Nationality, signed with R.T Corydon - representing the British South Africa Company - a concession in which he ceded Land to the BSA Company that included “the whole territory of the Nation or any future extension there of including all subject and dependent territory.”In term of Geographical Boundary, the Barotse Nationality’s Boundaries were defined as:
a) Northern Boundary – from the Headwaters of the Dongwe along Kabompo Rivers to the junction of the Kabompo and Zambezi rivers.
b) Western Boundary – from the junction of the Kabompo and Zambezi Rivers along the Zambezi River to its Junction with the Majili River.
c) Eastern Boundaries – from the Junction of Zambezi and Majili Rivers along the Majili River to its head water hence Northward along the line of the watershed at the Headwaters of the Dongwe River.
In 1900, Britain formally annexed Barotseland and governed it as part of North Western Rhodersia. The people of Barotseland enjoyed equal rights as all other peoples of the territory as the British declined to give any special status to Barotseland.
In a letter of complaint by Lewanika to Coryrdon dated 23 January, 1906 Lewanika reiterated what he had conceded to the BSA Company in the concession of 1900. In defining the territory where he had jurisdiction, that is to say, the boundaries of his Nationality “Baroseland”, he noted that his nationality comprised of” Barotse Valley and round Sesheke”The letter acknowledging this fact was signed by Lewanika and witnessed by his Ngambela – Masika and Ford Aitkens.
Later in another concession dated 11th Angust, 1909, Lewanika extended his anthority to include
a) The Country on the West lying between the Zambezi River and the Anglo Portuguese Boundary
b) The Boundaries of Barotseland as defined in 1900
c) North Western Rhodesia as defined by the BSA Company particulary the areas of Batoka and Mushukulumbwe countries in which according to Art 3 of the concession , Lewanika retained right to graze Cattle in unoccupied Lands.
The tribal and linguistic map of Zambia is also very clear on the identification of peoples of the Barotse Nationality. The Barotse nationality did not include Lands of other tribes such as that of the Kuanga, Kuandi, Nkoya, Totela, Shanjo, Subiya, Toka, Leya Lumbu, Mashi, Kwandi, Nkoya, Totela, Shanjo, Subiya, Simaa, Ndundulu, Mbunda Nyengo, Mwenji, Makoma, Mbewe, Lovale, Lukolwe, Lushange. The Litunga and the Barotse people in general, having defeated the Kololo and who were now enjoying British protection, were concerned with keeping their original home as described in the 1900 concession inviolate. The Litunga and his people realized that with the advance of colonialism, they would no longer be able to retain any influence outside those initial boundaries. They wanted to protect the Barotse Reserve from European settlement. And this, they succeeded as, unlike the other areas under British rule, no European or Indian settlement was allowed and no private ownership of Land was ever permitted.
The claim by the Litunga Lewanika in his letter dated 11th August, 1909 that his authority included North Western Rhodesia , is not borne by historical evidence. At the time Lockner signed a concession with Lewanika in 1900, other Chiefs of other tribes of the British Central African Protectorate also signed concessions with another envoy of the BSA Company named Joseph Tomson. The concessions were so numerous that the British Government decided to issue to the BSA Company “Certificate of claim” for each area where Tomson had signed concessions with chiefs who could not be identified . The areas were identified as A,B,C,D etc and the Company built forts in those areas such as Fort Rosebury and Fort Abercon representing present day Mansa and Mbala respectively.
The area covered by certificate of claim ‘’A’’ which included present day Copperbelt, Central and parts of Eastern, Southern Provinces, the BSA Company decided to transfer for administrative reasons, to the “suvereinty of Lewanika as the Land was inaccessible from Fort Jameson. The Administrative move effected on 30th March, 1905 by the BSA Company enabled Lewanika to benefit as he was now entitled to the share of the Tax Money that other Tribes people paid to the BSA Company. Lewanika never claimed ownership of the Copperbelt or any other Lands outside Baroseland.
These administrative changes that gave Lewanika “care taker” status resulted in the creation by the BSA company of an entity known as “ Baroseland - North Western Rhodesia” and was initially headquartered at Kalomo. The other area known as North Eastern Rhodesia was Headquatered at Fort Jameson , now Chipata. In 1911, the two territories merged into the Protectorate of Northern Rhodesia. The name “Barotseland” was not featured in the new entity. However, the Almagamation Order contained specific provisions securing the Litunga Lewanika relative authority over Baroseland alone without North Western Rhodesia.
During the time of colonial rule, Barotseland had features of a charter colony although the Treaty and the Charter gave the territory protectorate status but not as an official protectorate of the United Kingdom government. Britain granted Barotseland semi autonomous status and made it a Protectorate within a Protectorate of Northern Rhodesia and administered as part of Northern Rhodesia. Other ethnic groups in the country such as the Bembas, Ngonis or Chewas did not ask for this status from the British. Barotseland was also denied recognition as an independent Kingdom in contrast to Lesotho and Swaziland which were recognized as such. This fate is shared by Zululand and the Baganda . The British refused to recognize the Litunga as a King. The British designated them as simply Paramount Chiefs. The British recognized only one King in their Empire- King George then and later Queen Victoria.
There is also a text description of the Boundary of Barotseland as at 1953 during the short lived Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasasand and an accompanying map drawn at the same time. This is probably the same spatial definition of Barotseland which Article 125 of the Zambia Independence order used to define Barotseland as the territory that as at midnight 23rd October, 1964 is comprised in the “Barotseland protectorate”. Documentary evidence of this description of Barotseland protectorate is not readily available anywhere. It certainly does not include Copperbelt, Central, Southern and parts of Western and Northern Provinces. What is evident is that the Barotse Nationality had influences in adjacent areas of its Borders. “From the Tribes which the Barotse subjugated, they exerted tribute in kind but in exchange, their vassals received gifts , loans of Cattle and protection from their enemies and the region remained relatively safe from the Slave Trade. Subject Tribes participated in the system as many had specialized products for exchanges.” ( Ghan ) These Tribes, as was the case with the Barotse, also enjoyed, relative autonomy and practiced different Governance systems.
As the wind of change which began with the independence from colonialism of Ghana in 1957, it was evident that this wind of change would come to Northern Rhodesia too. The African Welfare Societies first formed by Dauti Yamba in 1920’s at Mwenzo in Nakonde grew in stead and culminated in the formation of the African National Congress (ANC) in 1948 where one Mbikusita Lewanika who was later to become the Litunga of Barotseland was elected as the first President of the nationalist movement. The Barotseland question, namely, that Barotseland should have relative autonomy as was the case with the British High Commission territories of Bechuanaland, Basutholand and Swaziland has always been the demand of the Litunga but was always refused by the British colonialists. They preferred that Barotseland was administered by the Commissioner of North Western Rhodesia at Kalomo and later Livingstone, the Governor of Northern Rhodesia at Lusaka and later the Prime Minister of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland in Salisbury. This rejected by the British had merit. Martin Meredith (2006) has observed that in Africa, there were over 10,000 African polities which the European colonialist amalgamated into 40 European colonies and protectorates. Zambia alone had more than 73 ethno linguistic groups. The British were correct in merging Barotseland into Northern Rhodesia to create a viable modern state.
However, in spite of use value of this unity of the people of Northern Rhodesia, the Litunga and the BRE continued to demand for autonomy of Barotseland. This demand became a side event at the independence talks at Lancaster House in London. Ealier in 1963, the Litunga had hired a lawyer named L.K Wilson to prepare the Barotse case for secession. Three records were prepared.
a. A record of quarantees of Barotseland‘s status as set out in various concessions signed and affirmed by constitutions of 1911, 1924 and 1953 .
b. The Barotse case for secession presented along the lines of the High Commission territories of Swaziland, Basutholand and Lesotholand;
c. Barotseland’s existence as a nation prior to the creation of Northern Rhodesia; failure of the colonial government to develop Barotseland;unsuitability for Western democracy for African conditions; and advantages of becoming an independent state of Barotseland.
The British government rejected the Barotse case. The UNIP delegation also refused to entrench rights, privileges and status that the Barotse demanded in the Zambian Constitution. Instead the three parties (UK, Northern Rhodesia and the Litunga representing Barotseland) opted for a separate agreement as an annex to the Independent Constitution. The three parties signed the agreement on 18th May, 1964. The Cabinet of the new Zambian government reaffirmed the agreement at its 63rd meeting on 30th October, 1964 to formally bind it to the Republic of Zambia.
However, despite there being an agreement which provided among others for the Litunga of Barotseland to continue to have power to make laws for Barotseland in relation to the Litungaship, Barotse Native Government, Barotse Native Authority, Barotse Native Courts, the Litunga’s Council, local government, Land, Forests, traditional and customary matters of Barotseland, Fishing, control of hunting, game preservation. Control of bush fires, native treasury, supply of beer, reservation of trees for canoes, local taxation, and Barotse local festivals, the agreement was not implemented by the UNIP government.
The UNIP delegation and later its cabinet did not sign the agreement and affirm it respectively in good faith. As soon as Independence was granted and the new leaders were confident of their power, they quickly moved to abrogate the agreement by introducing the Local Government Act of 1965 which abolished the Barotse Government, the Barotse Native Authorities, he Barotse Native Courts, the Barotse Native Treasury and provided that Barotseland would from then on be administered through a uniform local government system applied in all districts and provinces of the country. Barotseland was renamed Western Province. The Barotse National Council was abolished by statutory instrument and five district councils were established.
The Litunga and the Barotse opposed this unilateral move and insured that in the elections of 1968, UNIP lost all seats to the ANC. In the Referendum of 1969 which removed all entrenched provisions that gave the Litunga rights on land, the people of Western Province gave a 75% NO verdict to allow the UNIP government to wrestle land from the Litunga. Furthermore, the Litunga and the BRE continued to promote the Sichaba(National) Party or the Barotse National Party (BNP) whose political aims were to lobby for secession.
In July, 1991, just as the MMD was coming into power, in order to entice the votes of the Barotse, the BRE met President Kaunda and demanded that if he won the multi-party elections and formed government, he would accede to their demands to restore the Barotse Agreement and refund UK Sterling 400,000 which Finance Minister Arthur Wina had taken from the Barotse Native Teasury in 1964. President Kaunda agreed and undertook to meet all the demands. (Sichone and Simutanyi, 1996:188). Unfortunately, President Kaunda lost, but the demands of the Litunga and the BRE did not end.
The new government of President Frederick Chiluba viewed the demands of the BRE as unimportant and irrerevant. The Minister Without Portfolio Brig. General Godfrey Miyanda now leader of the Heritage Party, was appointed to negotiate with the BRE. The effort failed and in 1993, President Chiluba threatened that anyone making demands for the restoration of the Barotseland Agreement 1964 would be charged with the high crime of treason.
In the successive governments of President Levy Mwanawasa and President Banda, the National Constitutional Conference which had been set up unilaterally by President Mwanawasa (it was boycotted by the Catholic Church and the PF among others) ignored the submissions of the BRE. The draft Constitution that was made excluded principles of regional autonomy or devolution of power. President Banda’s government had absolutely no time to consider the BA 1964 question. The NCC contemptuously ignored the BRE demands and chose instead to continue with the divisive doctrine of unitary state.
What Should Be Done?
President Michael Chilufya Sata and the PF government have the opportunity to resolve this question of Barotseland. The demands of the Litunga and the BRE cannot be casually dismissed or ignored or wished away as has happened since 1964. However, in trying to resolve the impulse, the following questions must be addressed.
1. Was the Barotseland Agreement ever repealed or revoked? Could the Parliament of Zambia repeal the BA 1964 annexure to the Independent Constitution? Was its abrogation supported by law? If the agreement is alive as observed by the Chongwe Commission, how can it be implemented without destabilizing the country?
2. Is the Litunga and the BRE justified in demanding for the restoration of the BA 1964? If relative autonomy as demanded is granted, what political institution will be in place – multi party democracy or a return to monarchical hegemony? What will be the response of other nationalities in Western Province such as the Nkoya, Mbunda, Nyengo, Luvale and others who are not Barotse? What will be the view of other nationalities like the Chewa, Bemba, Tonga, Ngoni, and so on that constitute the totality of the peoples of the Republic of Zambia?
3. What is the consensual view of the BA 1964 in Western Province? Are present demands of the BRE representational of all the people of Western Province including the Nkoya, Luvale, Mbunda Nyengo , non indigenous peoples who have settled there and so on.
4. Should the dispute be taken up by the High Court of Zambia as provided by Art. 9 of the BA 1964 in resolving any disputes on the agreement? What is the dispute and how does it impact the wider Zambia?
5. To what extent should the Right to Self Determination including secession as provided in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights relevant to the BA 1964? Are the Barotse nationality an oppressed people in Zambia?
For sure, valuable lessons can be learnt from the experience of other countries. Some examples include the case of Serbia and Kosovo which ended up with Kosovo declaring UDI in 2009; Sudan in which South Sudan emerged as an independent state after such a long and terrible civil war; Canada and Quebec in which Quebec has been recognized as a nation within a United Canada; Tanzania and Zanzibar in which Zanzibar is relatively autonomous; the example of South Africa where local government has been integrated within federated structures, and so on.
For many observers and analysts, there are three possibilities in resolving the Barotse Question.
1. To re-negotiate the Barotse Agreement so as to ensure more regional autonomy of all the regions of Zambia anchored on liberal democratic values and federalism. This will require that the PF government provides for Zambia a new constitution that entrenches federated structures in our governance. The Technical Committee appointed by President Sata can be requested to negotiate with the Litunga and the BRE and other Royal Establishments together with all civil society on the historical necessity of devolution and recommend in the new draft constitution the federated way in which Zambia would be governed. It is a notorious fact that no country has ever developed under the so called unitary state structures. In fact, this is a colonial legacy that suited despots. All serious countries only developed when they federated. This is true for the UK, Germany, Japan, India, RSA, Brazil. USA, France, Russia, India even small countries like South Korea, Switzerland and so on.
2. To uphold the status quo holding Zambia as a unitary state with power concentrated in Lusaka. To continue giving lip service of support to decentralization and devolution demands of the people. To ignore the demands of the BRE and the Litunga and treat advocates of the restoration of the BA 1964 as treasonous. This option is not only reactionary and divisive, but will make Zambia forever poor. This plays in the hands of Zambia’s enemies who celebrate at our inability to manage our country efficiently and effectively. Only despots who want to continue stealing peoples resources in Lusaka and abusing their powers unfettered support the maintenance of a unitary state.
3. To dissolve the state of Zambia and allow Barotseland to secede from the former Northern Rhodesia and divide the Zambian people into two or several balkanized separate entities. To divide the people of Zambia who since 1911 have lived and inter-married and created a unique Zambian national character? This is the demand of some separatist elements in Barotseland. This will require, among others, the determination of the boundaries of Barotseland, the holding of referenda in both Barotseland and other previously subject peoples like the Nkoya, Nyengo, Mbunda, Luvale to determine whether they would want to revert to be ruled by the Litunga again and so on. Such an option is obviously retrogressive and will tend to revise a backward and oppressive governance system of feudalism. This option does not support the development project and is inherently reactionary.
For sure, President Sata and the PF government can and should resolve the BA 1964 problem. Option one is not only historically necessary, but is also a historical inevitability as it is borne and steeled by history.
END
Executive Director, Zambia Research Foundation
www.mbitachitala.blogspot.com; mbitachitala@yahoo.co.uk; Mobile +260 211 976 030398
______________________________________________________________________________
Both the recommendation by the Rodger Chongwe Commission that the Barotseland Agreement be restored and the off the cuff comments by President Michael Chilufya Sata that he would not recommend that view to his cabinet, are both legitimate. The Chongwe Commission’s recommendation is anchored on the Commission’s interpretation of the law, namely, status of the abrogated Barotse Agreement 1964, while President Sata’s view is anchored on the political realism of the present day Zambia as a sovereign united nation. The challenge is to harmonize the two world outlooks and still end up with a united and prosperous Zambia.
There is generally little debate on the colonial history of Zambia. Following the Berlin Conference of 1884, the territory we started calling Zambia in 1964, was part of Land in Central Africa ceded to the British on 19th September, 1893 in a Land and Mineral Concession Certificate of claim signed by Henry Hamilton Johnson - the Commissioner and Consul General for the territories under British influence on behalf of British Government and witnessed by James Francis Cunningham - Manager of the African Lakes Company Limited and Lord Monteith Fortherington - the Manager of the African Lakes Company Limited. The whole Region was then known as British Central Africa.
The Barotse Question
The Barotse question has its origin with the Lochner Concession of 1887 when Lochner as the representative of the British South Africa company signed a treaty with the Litunga of the Barotse people for protection against slave traders and in turn gave mineral exploration and mining rights in his land to the BSA company. These were the rights which the BSA company kept enjoying and extending at their will until they were revoked by the Zambian government at independence.
The land of the Litunga where the Barotse people had sovereighnty was defined in 1878 by Litunga Lewanika (who ruled from 1878-1916 with one break in 1884-5) . In describing the Barotse Nation, he described true Barotseland as the Land in the Zambezi River Flood plain and about 40km East of Limulunga and Senanga (Gann, Rotberg). This characterization is historically correct as it agrees with the fact which affirms that from 1864 when the Basotho led by Sebitwane and who spoke kololo and had ruled Baroseland since 1838 were defeated and expelled by the Barotse (who now spoke a lingua franca known as Lozi and in some quarters came to be referred to as the Lozi people), the Boundary of the Lozi Nationality was restricted to the Zambezi valley.
In subsequent years, the boundary of what the British Colonialists named as Barotseland kept shifting as other tribes were brought and made subject peoples of the Barotse Nationality.
On 25thJune, 1898 at a meeting held at Victoria Falls, the Litunga Lawenika together with 7 of his Counselors and witnessed by 5 other people on behalf of the Barotse Nationality, signed with R.T Corydon - representing the British South Africa Company - a concession in which he ceded Land to the BSA Company that included “the whole territory of the Nation or any future extension there of including all subject and dependent territory.”In term of Geographical Boundary, the Barotse Nationality’s Boundaries were defined as:
a) Northern Boundary – from the Headwaters of the Dongwe along Kabompo Rivers to the junction of the Kabompo and Zambezi rivers.
b) Western Boundary – from the junction of the Kabompo and Zambezi Rivers along the Zambezi River to its Junction with the Majili River.
c) Eastern Boundaries – from the Junction of Zambezi and Majili Rivers along the Majili River to its head water hence Northward along the line of the watershed at the Headwaters of the Dongwe River.
In 1900, Britain formally annexed Barotseland and governed it as part of North Western Rhodersia. The people of Barotseland enjoyed equal rights as all other peoples of the territory as the British declined to give any special status to Barotseland.
In a letter of complaint by Lewanika to Coryrdon dated 23 January, 1906 Lewanika reiterated what he had conceded to the BSA Company in the concession of 1900. In defining the territory where he had jurisdiction, that is to say, the boundaries of his Nationality “Baroseland”, he noted that his nationality comprised of” Barotse Valley and round Sesheke”The letter acknowledging this fact was signed by Lewanika and witnessed by his Ngambela – Masika and Ford Aitkens.
Later in another concession dated 11th Angust, 1909, Lewanika extended his anthority to include
a) The Country on the West lying between the Zambezi River and the Anglo Portuguese Boundary
b) The Boundaries of Barotseland as defined in 1900
c) North Western Rhodesia as defined by the BSA Company particulary the areas of Batoka and Mushukulumbwe countries in which according to Art 3 of the concession , Lewanika retained right to graze Cattle in unoccupied Lands.
The tribal and linguistic map of Zambia is also very clear on the identification of peoples of the Barotse Nationality. The Barotse nationality did not include Lands of other tribes such as that of the Kuanga, Kuandi, Nkoya, Totela, Shanjo, Subiya, Toka, Leya Lumbu, Mashi, Kwandi, Nkoya, Totela, Shanjo, Subiya, Simaa, Ndundulu, Mbunda Nyengo, Mwenji, Makoma, Mbewe, Lovale, Lukolwe, Lushange. The Litunga and the Barotse people in general, having defeated the Kololo and who were now enjoying British protection, were concerned with keeping their original home as described in the 1900 concession inviolate. The Litunga and his people realized that with the advance of colonialism, they would no longer be able to retain any influence outside those initial boundaries. They wanted to protect the Barotse Reserve from European settlement. And this, they succeeded as, unlike the other areas under British rule, no European or Indian settlement was allowed and no private ownership of Land was ever permitted.
The claim by the Litunga Lewanika in his letter dated 11th August, 1909 that his authority included North Western Rhodesia , is not borne by historical evidence. At the time Lockner signed a concession with Lewanika in 1900, other Chiefs of other tribes of the British Central African Protectorate also signed concessions with another envoy of the BSA Company named Joseph Tomson. The concessions were so numerous that the British Government decided to issue to the BSA Company “Certificate of claim” for each area where Tomson had signed concessions with chiefs who could not be identified . The areas were identified as A,B,C,D etc and the Company built forts in those areas such as Fort Rosebury and Fort Abercon representing present day Mansa and Mbala respectively.
The area covered by certificate of claim ‘’A’’ which included present day Copperbelt, Central and parts of Eastern, Southern Provinces, the BSA Company decided to transfer for administrative reasons, to the “suvereinty of Lewanika as the Land was inaccessible from Fort Jameson. The Administrative move effected on 30th March, 1905 by the BSA Company enabled Lewanika to benefit as he was now entitled to the share of the Tax Money that other Tribes people paid to the BSA Company. Lewanika never claimed ownership of the Copperbelt or any other Lands outside Baroseland.
These administrative changes that gave Lewanika “care taker” status resulted in the creation by the BSA company of an entity known as “ Baroseland - North Western Rhodesia” and was initially headquartered at Kalomo. The other area known as North Eastern Rhodesia was Headquatered at Fort Jameson , now Chipata. In 1911, the two territories merged into the Protectorate of Northern Rhodesia. The name “Barotseland” was not featured in the new entity. However, the Almagamation Order contained specific provisions securing the Litunga Lewanika relative authority over Baroseland alone without North Western Rhodesia.
During the time of colonial rule, Barotseland had features of a charter colony although the Treaty and the Charter gave the territory protectorate status but not as an official protectorate of the United Kingdom government. Britain granted Barotseland semi autonomous status and made it a Protectorate within a Protectorate of Northern Rhodesia and administered as part of Northern Rhodesia. Other ethnic groups in the country such as the Bembas, Ngonis or Chewas did not ask for this status from the British. Barotseland was also denied recognition as an independent Kingdom in contrast to Lesotho and Swaziland which were recognized as such. This fate is shared by Zululand and the Baganda . The British refused to recognize the Litunga as a King. The British designated them as simply Paramount Chiefs. The British recognized only one King in their Empire- King George then and later Queen Victoria.
There is also a text description of the Boundary of Barotseland as at 1953 during the short lived Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasasand and an accompanying map drawn at the same time. This is probably the same spatial definition of Barotseland which Article 125 of the Zambia Independence order used to define Barotseland as the territory that as at midnight 23rd October, 1964 is comprised in the “Barotseland protectorate”. Documentary evidence of this description of Barotseland protectorate is not readily available anywhere. It certainly does not include Copperbelt, Central, Southern and parts of Western and Northern Provinces. What is evident is that the Barotse Nationality had influences in adjacent areas of its Borders. “From the Tribes which the Barotse subjugated, they exerted tribute in kind but in exchange, their vassals received gifts , loans of Cattle and protection from their enemies and the region remained relatively safe from the Slave Trade. Subject Tribes participated in the system as many had specialized products for exchanges.” ( Ghan ) These Tribes, as was the case with the Barotse, also enjoyed, relative autonomy and practiced different Governance systems.
As the wind of change which began with the independence from colonialism of Ghana in 1957, it was evident that this wind of change would come to Northern Rhodesia too. The African Welfare Societies first formed by Dauti Yamba in 1920’s at Mwenzo in Nakonde grew in stead and culminated in the formation of the African National Congress (ANC) in 1948 where one Mbikusita Lewanika who was later to become the Litunga of Barotseland was elected as the first President of the nationalist movement. The Barotseland question, namely, that Barotseland should have relative autonomy as was the case with the British High Commission territories of Bechuanaland, Basutholand and Swaziland has always been the demand of the Litunga but was always refused by the British colonialists. They preferred that Barotseland was administered by the Commissioner of North Western Rhodesia at Kalomo and later Livingstone, the Governor of Northern Rhodesia at Lusaka and later the Prime Minister of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland in Salisbury. This rejected by the British had merit. Martin Meredith (2006) has observed that in Africa, there were over 10,000 African polities which the European colonialist amalgamated into 40 European colonies and protectorates. Zambia alone had more than 73 ethno linguistic groups. The British were correct in merging Barotseland into Northern Rhodesia to create a viable modern state.
However, in spite of use value of this unity of the people of Northern Rhodesia, the Litunga and the BRE continued to demand for autonomy of Barotseland. This demand became a side event at the independence talks at Lancaster House in London. Ealier in 1963, the Litunga had hired a lawyer named L.K Wilson to prepare the Barotse case for secession. Three records were prepared.
a. A record of quarantees of Barotseland‘s status as set out in various concessions signed and affirmed by constitutions of 1911, 1924 and 1953 .
b. The Barotse case for secession presented along the lines of the High Commission territories of Swaziland, Basutholand and Lesotholand;
c. Barotseland’s existence as a nation prior to the creation of Northern Rhodesia; failure of the colonial government to develop Barotseland;unsuitability for Western democracy for African conditions; and advantages of becoming an independent state of Barotseland.
The British government rejected the Barotse case. The UNIP delegation also refused to entrench rights, privileges and status that the Barotse demanded in the Zambian Constitution. Instead the three parties (UK, Northern Rhodesia and the Litunga representing Barotseland) opted for a separate agreement as an annex to the Independent Constitution. The three parties signed the agreement on 18th May, 1964. The Cabinet of the new Zambian government reaffirmed the agreement at its 63rd meeting on 30th October, 1964 to formally bind it to the Republic of Zambia.
However, despite there being an agreement which provided among others for the Litunga of Barotseland to continue to have power to make laws for Barotseland in relation to the Litungaship, Barotse Native Government, Barotse Native Authority, Barotse Native Courts, the Litunga’s Council, local government, Land, Forests, traditional and customary matters of Barotseland, Fishing, control of hunting, game preservation. Control of bush fires, native treasury, supply of beer, reservation of trees for canoes, local taxation, and Barotse local festivals, the agreement was not implemented by the UNIP government.
The UNIP delegation and later its cabinet did not sign the agreement and affirm it respectively in good faith. As soon as Independence was granted and the new leaders were confident of their power, they quickly moved to abrogate the agreement by introducing the Local Government Act of 1965 which abolished the Barotse Government, the Barotse Native Authorities, he Barotse Native Courts, the Barotse Native Treasury and provided that Barotseland would from then on be administered through a uniform local government system applied in all districts and provinces of the country. Barotseland was renamed Western Province. The Barotse National Council was abolished by statutory instrument and five district councils were established.
The Litunga and the Barotse opposed this unilateral move and insured that in the elections of 1968, UNIP lost all seats to the ANC. In the Referendum of 1969 which removed all entrenched provisions that gave the Litunga rights on land, the people of Western Province gave a 75% NO verdict to allow the UNIP government to wrestle land from the Litunga. Furthermore, the Litunga and the BRE continued to promote the Sichaba(National) Party or the Barotse National Party (BNP) whose political aims were to lobby for secession.
In July, 1991, just as the MMD was coming into power, in order to entice the votes of the Barotse, the BRE met President Kaunda and demanded that if he won the multi-party elections and formed government, he would accede to their demands to restore the Barotse Agreement and refund UK Sterling 400,000 which Finance Minister Arthur Wina had taken from the Barotse Native Teasury in 1964. President Kaunda agreed and undertook to meet all the demands. (Sichone and Simutanyi, 1996:188). Unfortunately, President Kaunda lost, but the demands of the Litunga and the BRE did not end.
The new government of President Frederick Chiluba viewed the demands of the BRE as unimportant and irrerevant. The Minister Without Portfolio Brig. General Godfrey Miyanda now leader of the Heritage Party, was appointed to negotiate with the BRE. The effort failed and in 1993, President Chiluba threatened that anyone making demands for the restoration of the Barotseland Agreement 1964 would be charged with the high crime of treason.
In the successive governments of President Levy Mwanawasa and President Banda, the National Constitutional Conference which had been set up unilaterally by President Mwanawasa (it was boycotted by the Catholic Church and the PF among others) ignored the submissions of the BRE. The draft Constitution that was made excluded principles of regional autonomy or devolution of power. President Banda’s government had absolutely no time to consider the BA 1964 question. The NCC contemptuously ignored the BRE demands and chose instead to continue with the divisive doctrine of unitary state.
What Should Be Done?
President Michael Chilufya Sata and the PF government have the opportunity to resolve this question of Barotseland. The demands of the Litunga and the BRE cannot be casually dismissed or ignored or wished away as has happened since 1964. However, in trying to resolve the impulse, the following questions must be addressed.
1. Was the Barotseland Agreement ever repealed or revoked? Could the Parliament of Zambia repeal the BA 1964 annexure to the Independent Constitution? Was its abrogation supported by law? If the agreement is alive as observed by the Chongwe Commission, how can it be implemented without destabilizing the country?
2. Is the Litunga and the BRE justified in demanding for the restoration of the BA 1964? If relative autonomy as demanded is granted, what political institution will be in place – multi party democracy or a return to monarchical hegemony? What will be the response of other nationalities in Western Province such as the Nkoya, Mbunda, Nyengo, Luvale and others who are not Barotse? What will be the view of other nationalities like the Chewa, Bemba, Tonga, Ngoni, and so on that constitute the totality of the peoples of the Republic of Zambia?
3. What is the consensual view of the BA 1964 in Western Province? Are present demands of the BRE representational of all the people of Western Province including the Nkoya, Luvale, Mbunda Nyengo , non indigenous peoples who have settled there and so on.
4. Should the dispute be taken up by the High Court of Zambia as provided by Art. 9 of the BA 1964 in resolving any disputes on the agreement? What is the dispute and how does it impact the wider Zambia?
5. To what extent should the Right to Self Determination including secession as provided in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights relevant to the BA 1964? Are the Barotse nationality an oppressed people in Zambia?
For sure, valuable lessons can be learnt from the experience of other countries. Some examples include the case of Serbia and Kosovo which ended up with Kosovo declaring UDI in 2009; Sudan in which South Sudan emerged as an independent state after such a long and terrible civil war; Canada and Quebec in which Quebec has been recognized as a nation within a United Canada; Tanzania and Zanzibar in which Zanzibar is relatively autonomous; the example of South Africa where local government has been integrated within federated structures, and so on.
For many observers and analysts, there are three possibilities in resolving the Barotse Question.
1. To re-negotiate the Barotse Agreement so as to ensure more regional autonomy of all the regions of Zambia anchored on liberal democratic values and federalism. This will require that the PF government provides for Zambia a new constitution that entrenches federated structures in our governance. The Technical Committee appointed by President Sata can be requested to negotiate with the Litunga and the BRE and other Royal Establishments together with all civil society on the historical necessity of devolution and recommend in the new draft constitution the federated way in which Zambia would be governed. It is a notorious fact that no country has ever developed under the so called unitary state structures. In fact, this is a colonial legacy that suited despots. All serious countries only developed when they federated. This is true for the UK, Germany, Japan, India, RSA, Brazil. USA, France, Russia, India even small countries like South Korea, Switzerland and so on.
2. To uphold the status quo holding Zambia as a unitary state with power concentrated in Lusaka. To continue giving lip service of support to decentralization and devolution demands of the people. To ignore the demands of the BRE and the Litunga and treat advocates of the restoration of the BA 1964 as treasonous. This option is not only reactionary and divisive, but will make Zambia forever poor. This plays in the hands of Zambia’s enemies who celebrate at our inability to manage our country efficiently and effectively. Only despots who want to continue stealing peoples resources in Lusaka and abusing their powers unfettered support the maintenance of a unitary state.
3. To dissolve the state of Zambia and allow Barotseland to secede from the former Northern Rhodesia and divide the Zambian people into two or several balkanized separate entities. To divide the people of Zambia who since 1911 have lived and inter-married and created a unique Zambian national character? This is the demand of some separatist elements in Barotseland. This will require, among others, the determination of the boundaries of Barotseland, the holding of referenda in both Barotseland and other previously subject peoples like the Nkoya, Nyengo, Mbunda, Luvale to determine whether they would want to revert to be ruled by the Litunga again and so on. Such an option is obviously retrogressive and will tend to revise a backward and oppressive governance system of feudalism. This option does not support the development project and is inherently reactionary.
For sure, President Sata and the PF government can and should resolve the BA 1964 problem. Option one is not only historically necessary, but is also a historical inevitability as it is borne and steeled by history.
END
Saturday, June 11, 2011
THE CARNAGE OF PRESIDENT BANDA AND THE MMD GOVERNMENT MUST BE STOPPED
By: Mbita Chitala PhD
Other than the few misguided colleagues in the MMD led by a UNIP clique that have taken over the party and a few nuisance one- man NGOs created by the MMD to fern trouble and led by such obnoxious characters as Edwin Lifwekelo, Gregory Cifire, Moses Kalonde, Chanda Chimba, Mulenga and whose despicable mouthings are the in trade of the MMD government controlled Times of Zambia, Zambia Daily Mail and the ZNBC television and Radio networks, all peace loving Zambians organized in all church organizations, women’s movement, workers organizations, young people and student organizations, professional organizations and all those underemployed village farmers and unemployed citizens in the informal sector – are agreed that change in our country is an inevitable historical necessity, that the bad governance of President R B Banda must come to an end as the country goes to the polls. Our country has a historical duty to re dedicate itself to ideals that advance our nation to peace, prosperity and happiness for all.
The demands of the people of Zambia are simple and uncomplicated. In addition to several democratic demands anchored on the Bill of Rights, the next elections will be contested on three broadly defined people’s demands.
1. To provide for Zambia, a multi-party constitution consensually arrived at by the majority of Zambians. The MMD regime in twenty years in power has failed in spite of wasting more than K500 billion of tax payer’s money in its last attempt to give Zambia a compromised constitution in which President Banda must take the sole responsibility and be held accountable to the disaster. Zambians know that the continued reign of President Banda means that there will never be in our country a peoples constitution. This one reason alone is sufficient to indict the MMD as a blatant failure which must be removed from public office quickly. Senior Statesmen like Willa Mung’omba, Simon Zukas and others have observed that the failure of the MMD to enact the constitution symbolized a Vote of no Confidence on the MMD regime and called for their resignation. The MMD government has unashamedly refused to resign or even apologise to the people for this man made disaster. The people have a chance to send them to the dust bin of history in the coming elections and ensure that they account for their bad governance.
It is immensely gratifying that the people have a choice. While the people do not yet know the programs of other political parties, one good choice is to support the Patriotic Front and President Michael Sata whose manifesto has been published and has undertaken to establish a committee of experts to review the recommendations of all previous Constitutional Review Commissions and draft a constitution that will be submitted to a referendum and if accepted by the people, to be enacted as our fundamental law within 90 days of taking office. This is a patriotic undertaking and that is why all former pact sympathisers such as Col. Panji Kaunda , consultants such as Bob Sichinga , MMD members such as Hon George Mpombo have endorsed Mr. Michael Sata and the Patriotic Front. This is the best chance to have a progressive party that has committed itself to providing us with a multi-party constitution that will address such issues as devolution of power which is the main grievance of the Barotse question and the need to do away with the one party state infrastructure that has prevented our democracy from blooming and blossoming into a real democracy.
2. To reduce the more than 73 percent poverty incidence in our country. Granted, our country has benefited from the cancellation of our external debt which allowed us to put money in infrastructure as part of the MDGs initiative and allowed us to have over 7% GDP statiscal growth in the last few years, poverty, however, still remains widespread and continues to stunt the growth of our people. In many areas such as Shangombo, Lukulu, Petauke, Chilubi, Chavuma, Luangwa, Samfya, Gwembe, and many other districts, 90% of households live in poverty. Others overcrowd our towns in despicable shanties. On the formal economy, out of a possible six million employable labour force, only about 500,000 are in employment leaving the rest to hover between suicide and madness, to swell the mountains of angry unemployed and underemployed – the majority of whom are young people and women. Housing continues to be a nightmare with more than two million houses that need to be constructed to fill the housing deficit, a distant dream ,as the MMD have no plans to house our people.
The MMD government under President Banda have refused to tax the mining companies equitably and fairly because of a possible collusion that has continued to disadvantage Zambia. This gross abuse of power has meant the country losing on an opportunity to earn billions of dollars that could have facilitated government to create employment opportunities for our people, ensure that taxes are lowered to enable people have sufficient disposable income and hence fight poverty more meaningfully. Unless the MMD and President Banda are defeated in the next elections, poverty of our people will worsen as they have no plan for poverty eradication at all. No quality jobs will be created as has been admitted by the IMF Representative Dr. Kapur and confirmed by Minister of Commerce Felix Mutati. Poverty will increase despite statiscal GDP growth rates that benefits foreigners at the expense of Zambians. As all Zambians know, retrenching workers as happened during the privatization fiasco and lately at ZAMTEL is the trade mark of the MMD. Even in the next five years, they have promised in their manifesto to create only 50,000 employment opportunities.
Of the political party manifestos that have been published, only the Patriotic Front manifesto addresses the issue of poverty eradication meaningfully. President Sata and the PF have undertaken to invest massively in the social sector as well as in public works, agriculture, housing development, mineral development, industry and so on. The manifesto promises to review the mining policy so that Zambians benefit from their God-given wasting asset of copper, cobalt and gemstones. It is clear our country must revert to the Mwanawasa mining tax regime that provided for fair windfall taxes, a public works program to create jobs for our young people, active small business promotion and empowerment of Zambians to create a middle class, selective subsidies to agriculture and industry and massive investment in education and health.
The manifesto promises the lowering of taxes- PAYE and zero rating for VAT purposes of essential commodities such as transport, food, medicines, education, agricultural inputs, the increasing of salaries to public servants, the prompt payment of all pensioners, the construction of more than two million houses, the development of one major project per province to create more than one million employment opportunities in the first three years, abolish nuisance taxes such as user fees in hospitals and levies in schools, commit itself to affirmative action, institute media reforms to be in line with democratic needs and so on. The annual GDP growth rates are expected to exceed 10% and our country’ GDP will more than treble. These yearnings are attainable and they will be achieved by the PF supported by the people’s coalition.
3. To conduct a program of zero-tolerance against corruption and abuse of office. Mwanawasa’s legacy has been betrayed by President RB Banda and the new MMD regime. Grand corruption has become the norm. The repeal of the mining tax code and policy was an exercise in grand executive mischief which will need to be investigated. The privatization of both Zambtel and ZANACO,both opposed by the majority of people in Zambia, lacked transparency. The award of contracts to supply government with fertiliser, military equipment, build schools and clinics, construct roads, and other properties as occurred at NAPSA had executive collusion imbedded under so called “single sourcing” which is an acronym for grand corruption and fraud, has made some people hitherto poor into dollar millionaires. All this will need to be investigated and the culprits who have been cheating the people shall be brought to book. It is gratifying that the PF has promised to implement this zero tolerance against corruption and has promised to re-enact the abuse of office clause in the Anti Corruption Act that President Banda and the MMD removed to hide public abuse and thefts in the public service.
4. We founders of the MMD together with many patriotic and progressive citizens, the ideals that the PF manifesto have undertaken to accomplish, are the same ideals and vision we have always stood for until President RB Banda and a clique of his UNIP zealots conducted a coup against the true blue MMD members and crowned it with the farce at Mulungushi where intimidation, violence, bribery, provincialism and dictatorship were introduced as the new MMD party policy. We hold President Banda responsible for reversing all the democratic gains of the MMD. It is therefore necessary to implore all the people, the people in Mbala, Mpulungu, Senga Hill, Isoka, Nakonde , to the people of Western province and other provinces that clamour for devolution and desire to settle the Barotse question, to the progressives in the MMD, UPND, ADD, NAREP, FDD and all other political parties that want change from this corrupt disaster, to students that want free education and guaranteed job opportunities, to the sick people that desire not to be denied assistance for lack of money, to the pensioners that want to be paid their pensions promptly, to all workers and peasants that want to improve their conditions, to the intellectuals that desire excellence instead of patronage and nepotism, to all citizens that want a united and peaceful Zambia, the Hour for Change has come again. Examining political work already accomplished, together with the vision as reflected in a manifesto, the PF and President Michael Sata have provided us with a sure way of our country starting afresh and getting rid for good this manmade disaster.
End
Other than the few misguided colleagues in the MMD led by a UNIP clique that have taken over the party and a few nuisance one- man NGOs created by the MMD to fern trouble and led by such obnoxious characters as Edwin Lifwekelo, Gregory Cifire, Moses Kalonde, Chanda Chimba, Mulenga and whose despicable mouthings are the in trade of the MMD government controlled Times of Zambia, Zambia Daily Mail and the ZNBC television and Radio networks, all peace loving Zambians organized in all church organizations, women’s movement, workers organizations, young people and student organizations, professional organizations and all those underemployed village farmers and unemployed citizens in the informal sector – are agreed that change in our country is an inevitable historical necessity, that the bad governance of President R B Banda must come to an end as the country goes to the polls. Our country has a historical duty to re dedicate itself to ideals that advance our nation to peace, prosperity and happiness for all.
The demands of the people of Zambia are simple and uncomplicated. In addition to several democratic demands anchored on the Bill of Rights, the next elections will be contested on three broadly defined people’s demands.
1. To provide for Zambia, a multi-party constitution consensually arrived at by the majority of Zambians. The MMD regime in twenty years in power has failed in spite of wasting more than K500 billion of tax payer’s money in its last attempt to give Zambia a compromised constitution in which President Banda must take the sole responsibility and be held accountable to the disaster. Zambians know that the continued reign of President Banda means that there will never be in our country a peoples constitution. This one reason alone is sufficient to indict the MMD as a blatant failure which must be removed from public office quickly. Senior Statesmen like Willa Mung’omba, Simon Zukas and others have observed that the failure of the MMD to enact the constitution symbolized a Vote of no Confidence on the MMD regime and called for their resignation. The MMD government has unashamedly refused to resign or even apologise to the people for this man made disaster. The people have a chance to send them to the dust bin of history in the coming elections and ensure that they account for their bad governance.
It is immensely gratifying that the people have a choice. While the people do not yet know the programs of other political parties, one good choice is to support the Patriotic Front and President Michael Sata whose manifesto has been published and has undertaken to establish a committee of experts to review the recommendations of all previous Constitutional Review Commissions and draft a constitution that will be submitted to a referendum and if accepted by the people, to be enacted as our fundamental law within 90 days of taking office. This is a patriotic undertaking and that is why all former pact sympathisers such as Col. Panji Kaunda , consultants such as Bob Sichinga , MMD members such as Hon George Mpombo have endorsed Mr. Michael Sata and the Patriotic Front. This is the best chance to have a progressive party that has committed itself to providing us with a multi-party constitution that will address such issues as devolution of power which is the main grievance of the Barotse question and the need to do away with the one party state infrastructure that has prevented our democracy from blooming and blossoming into a real democracy.
2. To reduce the more than 73 percent poverty incidence in our country. Granted, our country has benefited from the cancellation of our external debt which allowed us to put money in infrastructure as part of the MDGs initiative and allowed us to have over 7% GDP statiscal growth in the last few years, poverty, however, still remains widespread and continues to stunt the growth of our people. In many areas such as Shangombo, Lukulu, Petauke, Chilubi, Chavuma, Luangwa, Samfya, Gwembe, and many other districts, 90% of households live in poverty. Others overcrowd our towns in despicable shanties. On the formal economy, out of a possible six million employable labour force, only about 500,000 are in employment leaving the rest to hover between suicide and madness, to swell the mountains of angry unemployed and underemployed – the majority of whom are young people and women. Housing continues to be a nightmare with more than two million houses that need to be constructed to fill the housing deficit, a distant dream ,as the MMD have no plans to house our people.
The MMD government under President Banda have refused to tax the mining companies equitably and fairly because of a possible collusion that has continued to disadvantage Zambia. This gross abuse of power has meant the country losing on an opportunity to earn billions of dollars that could have facilitated government to create employment opportunities for our people, ensure that taxes are lowered to enable people have sufficient disposable income and hence fight poverty more meaningfully. Unless the MMD and President Banda are defeated in the next elections, poverty of our people will worsen as they have no plan for poverty eradication at all. No quality jobs will be created as has been admitted by the IMF Representative Dr. Kapur and confirmed by Minister of Commerce Felix Mutati. Poverty will increase despite statiscal GDP growth rates that benefits foreigners at the expense of Zambians. As all Zambians know, retrenching workers as happened during the privatization fiasco and lately at ZAMTEL is the trade mark of the MMD. Even in the next five years, they have promised in their manifesto to create only 50,000 employment opportunities.
Of the political party manifestos that have been published, only the Patriotic Front manifesto addresses the issue of poverty eradication meaningfully. President Sata and the PF have undertaken to invest massively in the social sector as well as in public works, agriculture, housing development, mineral development, industry and so on. The manifesto promises to review the mining policy so that Zambians benefit from their God-given wasting asset of copper, cobalt and gemstones. It is clear our country must revert to the Mwanawasa mining tax regime that provided for fair windfall taxes, a public works program to create jobs for our young people, active small business promotion and empowerment of Zambians to create a middle class, selective subsidies to agriculture and industry and massive investment in education and health.
The manifesto promises the lowering of taxes- PAYE and zero rating for VAT purposes of essential commodities such as transport, food, medicines, education, agricultural inputs, the increasing of salaries to public servants, the prompt payment of all pensioners, the construction of more than two million houses, the development of one major project per province to create more than one million employment opportunities in the first three years, abolish nuisance taxes such as user fees in hospitals and levies in schools, commit itself to affirmative action, institute media reforms to be in line with democratic needs and so on. The annual GDP growth rates are expected to exceed 10% and our country’ GDP will more than treble. These yearnings are attainable and they will be achieved by the PF supported by the people’s coalition.
3. To conduct a program of zero-tolerance against corruption and abuse of office. Mwanawasa’s legacy has been betrayed by President RB Banda and the new MMD regime. Grand corruption has become the norm. The repeal of the mining tax code and policy was an exercise in grand executive mischief which will need to be investigated. The privatization of both Zambtel and ZANACO,both opposed by the majority of people in Zambia, lacked transparency. The award of contracts to supply government with fertiliser, military equipment, build schools and clinics, construct roads, and other properties as occurred at NAPSA had executive collusion imbedded under so called “single sourcing” which is an acronym for grand corruption and fraud, has made some people hitherto poor into dollar millionaires. All this will need to be investigated and the culprits who have been cheating the people shall be brought to book. It is gratifying that the PF has promised to implement this zero tolerance against corruption and has promised to re-enact the abuse of office clause in the Anti Corruption Act that President Banda and the MMD removed to hide public abuse and thefts in the public service.
4. We founders of the MMD together with many patriotic and progressive citizens, the ideals that the PF manifesto have undertaken to accomplish, are the same ideals and vision we have always stood for until President RB Banda and a clique of his UNIP zealots conducted a coup against the true blue MMD members and crowned it with the farce at Mulungushi where intimidation, violence, bribery, provincialism and dictatorship were introduced as the new MMD party policy. We hold President Banda responsible for reversing all the democratic gains of the MMD. It is therefore necessary to implore all the people, the people in Mbala, Mpulungu, Senga Hill, Isoka, Nakonde , to the people of Western province and other provinces that clamour for devolution and desire to settle the Barotse question, to the progressives in the MMD, UPND, ADD, NAREP, FDD and all other political parties that want change from this corrupt disaster, to students that want free education and guaranteed job opportunities, to the sick people that desire not to be denied assistance for lack of money, to the pensioners that want to be paid their pensions promptly, to all workers and peasants that want to improve their conditions, to the intellectuals that desire excellence instead of patronage and nepotism, to all citizens that want a united and peaceful Zambia, the Hour for Change has come again. Examining political work already accomplished, together with the vision as reflected in a manifesto, the PF and President Michael Sata have provided us with a sure way of our country starting afresh and getting rid for good this manmade disaster.
End
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
SUBMISSION TO THE NATIONAL CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE (NCC) ON THE DRAFT CONSTITUTION OF ZAMBIA
ZAMBIA RESEARCH FOUNDATION (ZRF)
(Registered with the Registrar of Societies – Registration Number ORS/102/35/403)
SUBMISSIONS TO THE NATIONAL CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE (NCC)
ON THE DRAFT CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF ZAMBIA
PUBLISHED ON 18TH JUNE 2010
SUBMITTED BY:
Dr. Mbita Chitala Chairman
ZAMBIA RESEARCH FOUNDATION, P.O. BOX 35443, LUSAKA , ZAMBIA
Tel +260 211 214777, Mobile: 0976 030398 Email: mbitachitala@yahoo.co.uk
___________________________________________________________________________
Dear Hon.Mr. Chifumu Banda SC
Chairman of the NCC
LUSAKA.
Since the NCC has finally produced a draft constitution, we as a civil society research organization with to present and recommend these submissions for the NCC’s considerations before you submit your recommendations to the Minister of Justice as provided in the NCC Act.
1. PREAMBLE
The Paragraph reading “Declare the Republic a Christian Nation ……” should be deleted as it is controversial, contradictory to Art 48(i) which protects citizens from discrimination on grounds of religion etc and Art 57(3) which provides for freedom of conscience. The multi-religious character of our nation can be added in the paragraph that “Recognizes the multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and multi-religious character of our nation”. Freedom of worship should not be used to infringe onto other peoples comforts however few they may be. Zambia should not adopt a State Religion.
2. PART II – THE REPUBLIC OF ZAMBIA AND ITS SOVEREIGNTY
a. Need to add a new clause: “For purposes of Clause (5), the formation of provinces and districts shall not be treated as establishment of new states
b. Need to add a new clause on culture to provide for promotion of Zambian culture, recognition of indigenous technologies, promotion of intellectual property rights and enacting legislation for communities to be compensated via royalties.
c. Need to provide that Presidential Flag, National Assembly Flag and the motto One Zambia One Nation shall be national symbols in Clause (6).
d. Need to include as Official National Languages Bemba, Kaonde, Lunsa, Luvale, Nyanja, Silozi and Tonga in addition to English in Clause 7(1).
e. Need to provide for a new clause on Decentralization and Access to Services to provide that “Zambia is divided into Provinces and Districts as specified in Schedule………..”
f. Need to provide a clause on State and Religion “That there shall be no State Religion”.
3. PART III - NATIONAL VALUES, PRINCIPLES, OBJECTIVES AND DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF NATIONAL POLICY
a. Need to include in Clause 13(L) provision for “the state to provide education and other public goods such as roads”.
4. PART IV- LAWS OF ZAMBIA
a. Need to delete reference to “British Laws” in Clause 20(d)(f) and be replaced with “Foreign Laws” to allow Zambia to adopt good laws from any other country.
5. PART VI - BILL OF RIGHTS
a. Article 40(2) providing for capital punishment should be deleted and be replaced with a clause reading as follows:“A person shall not be deprived of life intentionally.” This is consistent with civilized international practice.
b. Art 47(5), should be edited to include civil cases in addition to criminal cases to allow persons to appeal for a retrial if new and compelling evidence has become available.
c. Art 49 should provide for the establishment of a Gender Commission whose objective will among others to provide for affirmative action for purposes of redressing imbalances created by history, tradition or custom.
d. Need to delete Art 50(2)© as it contradicts Art 51(1).
e. Need to delete the derogation in Art 51(1) starting at “ except that an Act of Parliament……” as this derogation would allow for the abuse of children.
f. In Art 52, there is need to define concept of “Family” as referring to nuclear, extended and polygamous marriages and not heterosexual unions or same sex unions or sorolate unions.
g. Art 52(5) outlawing same sex marriages need not be in the Constitution as it is controversial and may adversely impact Zambia’s international relations. Need to delete the clause.
h. Art 53 should include in persons with disabilities older members of society, refugees and displaced persons. Should include in the title these categories of persons.
i. Art 58)f) should be re- worded to delete the word “registration” as registration conflicts with freedom of expression. Rather, the word regulation suffices to prevent anarchy.
j. Art 59 be re titled “Right of Access to Information” and the constitution should provide for the right to access to information held by the state or any other person if required for protection of fundamental freedoms. Parliament should enact a law to provide for this.
k. In Art 60(3)(f), the word “registration” should be deleted as the idea is to regulate and not to subvert the freedom of the media.
l. Art. 66 should be more specific to provide workers rights to fair compensation, reasonable working conditions, to form and join trade unions, for employers rights to form employer organizations and for the right to collective bargaining.
m. Art 67 must be rephrased to make social security a mandatory obligation of the state and should include shelter and other public goods such as roads and transportation.
n. There is also need for the constitution to indicate the following in this Part:
- Right of citizens to shelter and housing; food; water; and sanitation
- Right of citizens not to obey unlawful instructions
- An article on consumer rights to provide for right to reasonable quality goods and services, information and protection of their health and safety as well as compensation for loss or injury.
- Need in Art 74 on enforcement of Bill of Rights to, for the constitution to establish the Human Rights Commission and define its powers in an enabling law of Parliament otherwise the enforcement provided currently would become an academic exercise.
6. PART VII - CODE OF CONDUCT OF PUBLIC OFFICES
This part should provide for the creation by the constitution an organ to ascertain information provided and penalties – otherwise it is academic in its present form. An independent Ethics Commission would suffice. The current system where declarations are lodged with the Chief Justice is inherently wrong as the courts are appellant institutions.
7. PART VIII – REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE
a. Art 84(1) should be re-phrased to avoid wastage of public resources. By elections for MPs and Counsellors should be limited to seats falling vacant held by independent MPs or Counsellors. In all other cases where a vacancy occurs, a political party holding that seat should be able to nominate a replacement from their lists.
b. Art 87(2)(a) should not limit the chairmanship of the Electoral Commission to Judges only as this is discriminatory and unnecessary. Other citizens suitably qualified can also serve as Chairmen and as members.
c. Art 86 on the Selection Committee to peruse and recommend membership to be vetted by Parliament and then be appointed by the President as members of the Electoral Commission should be deleted as it is an unnecessary cost. The position where Parliament vets Presidential nominations is adequate.
d. Art 100(1) providing that only parties with representation in Parliament will be funded should be deleted and substitute with an article that provides for any political party participating in national as well as local government elections shall be funded on an equitable and proportional basis. The idea of funding only those with seats in Parliament is not only discriminatory but not fair to investing in democracy.
e. An additional article should be added to provide that “no civil servant shall hold office in a political party”. This is standard practice in all democracies.
8. PART IX – EXCUTIVE
a. Art 108(d) providing for a minimum age of 35 years to be elected and serve as President should also provide for a maximum age of 75 years as beyond that, most Zambians become senile and need to rest and enjoy their pensions.
b. Art 108(e) providing for a minimum qualification of First Degree to be candidate to the Presidency of Zambia should be deleted as it is controversial, divisive discriminatory and can lead to unnecessary judicial action.
c. Art 113 on Tenure of Office of the President, the constitution should also provide that it will be treasonable offence for a person who has lost elections or been removed as provided in the constitution to refuse to vacate office within the period provided in the constitution.
d. Art 128 on the appointment of the Vice President. The constitution should provide that the VP shall be a running mate so that the VP also has a national mandate when he acts as President. The costly idea of going for by elections when the office of President falls vacant will also be addressed since the VP would immediately be sworn in to complete the term of office.
- The constitution should also provide for both emolument and retirement benefits for the VP
- A by election should only occur if the office of VP is also vacant as that of the President.
e. Art 130(i) 131(1) , 132(1) as well as 128(2) allowing the President to appoint ministers from Opposition Parties should be deleted as this weakens our democracy and may enable the executive to rule without checks and balances. The commitment to multi-partism should limit a President to appoint ministers from the party that sponsored him or her and to citizens who are neither opposition MPs or Counsellors.
9. PART X - THE LEGISLATRE
a. Art 143(a) providing for 240 MPS to be directly elected is unjustifiable. This should be left to an enabling legislation which will be based on scientific study of demographic patterns, geography etc. The constitution should so direct.
b. Art 144(5) providing that Chiefs are not qualified to seek elective office must provide for a derogation that they can if they resign as chiefs.
c. The constitution should also provide for voters to have a right to recall an MP or Counsellor and state that Parliament will enact legislation to this effect providing for grounds and the process for recall.
10. PART XII – LOCAL GOVERNMENT
a. Article 212(2) on objectives of Local Government should include the following objectives:
- Ensure equitable sharing of national and local resources
- Facilitate decentralization/devolution of State organs, functions, and services from Lusaka to the Provinces and Districts
- Recognize the right of communities to manage their affairs.
b. Article 216(2)(3) on composition and functions/duties of District Council should provide in the constitution as a directive principles to any other legislation the following:
- That the Mayor and Deputy Mayor or Chairman and Vice Chairman shall be elected directly by the electorate from voters in the district who are not members of the council but pay ground rent to the council for their properties. And that the Mayor/Chairman and their Deputies will be ex-officicial members of the council.
- The Mayor/Chairman shall constitute the executive authority of the council and appoint other officers of the council with the approval of the Council
- That Parliament shall enact legislation to provide for the elections, removal of mayors, vacancy, functions and powers, boundaries of councils, relationships with central government, support of districts, conflict of laws, suspension of district councils etc.
c. Article 224(3) on consequential amendments. Need to delete reference of Provincial Minister as being a Deputy Minister as this conflicts with Article 133 that include Provincial Ministers as members of Cabinet.
11. PART XIII - CHIEFTAINCY AND HOUSE OF CHIEFS
a. Article 227 should be expanded to provide for the establishment of “Community Development Funds” in each district for the purpose of advancing development in each chieftainship. These funds under colonial rule were called “Native Authority Treasuries” for each “tribe” as the nationalities were known then. Since the Chieftaincies are corporation sole as provided in Article 226(a) and with power to manage land and other natural resources as provided in Article 227(2), it is necessary to protect chiefs from being corrupted by land speculators etc by creating these community funds in which land royalties and other presents can be pooled and managed. Parliament will then provide the appropriate legislation to manage these funds.
12. PART XIV PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSIONS
a. There should be included in the Constitution a clause establishing and providing for the functions and powers of statutory institutions and parastatal companies.
b. The constitution should in addition to establishing the Public Service Commission, should also create all other commissions and provide for their functions etc. These commissions include the following:
- Teachers Service Commission
- Local Government Service Commission
- Salaries and Remuneration Commission – a new commission to standardize salaries in the Public Service etc
- Financial and Fiscal Commission to replace the ineffective Economic Advisory Council
- National Land Commission – to superintend on all land matters
- Public Debt Management Commission
13. PART XVII – PUBLIC FINANCE AND BUDGET
a. Article 265 on imposition of taxes should also provide for
- Principles that will guide Zambia’s public finance such as accountability, equitable, fair taxation and expenditure management as well as prudency and needs of future generations etc
b. The constitution should also create an Equalization Fund to support local government
c. Article 274 on management of public debt should provide for the establishment of a Debt Management Office to centralize the currently haphazard management of finance and fiscal functions which have been abating corruption and abuses.
14. PART XIX – LAND AND PROPERTY
a. Article 287 on Basis of Land Policy should include as Art 287(i) the objective of “Elimination of gender discrimination”
b. Article 288 on Classification of Land should be re- phrased to
- Delete “customary land” and substitute “Community Land”. Customary land denotes tribal land which is anathema to Zambia as a unitary state.
- Replace classification of “State Land” with “Public Land” as the concept state in this context is meaningless
- The constitution should also provide for Private Land which shall be held on freehold terms. This should be the case in community lands.
c. Article 292 on land tenure should include as article 292(5) a clause that land under “customary” classification can only be alienated to non-citizens on the basis of co-ownership with the chieftaincy and on which royalties will be paid.
d. Article 291 on the vesting of land in the President should be deleted and provide that land will be vested in the National Land Commission which will be a corporate sole etc. There is need to remove the one party practice and democratize land administration.
e. The constitution should also establish a Land Development Fund and Parliament will provide legislation on its management.
15. PART XXI – REVIEW, ADOPTION, AND AMENDMENT OF CONSTITUTION
a. In Article 303(4), the word “all” should be deleted as it is meaningless.
b. The constitution should also provide that the constitution can be amended without referendum by either
- parliamentary initiative and/or
- by popular initiative after collecting one million signatures of citizens
This completes the process and gives citizens avenues that can be less costly but consensual.
16. PART XXII – GENERAL PROVISIONS
The constitution should provide the following additional provisions:
a. That all international agreements shall be tabled in Parliament
b. That state organs may delegate any power or function to other state organs
c. Ascribe to the right of self determination by communities
Yours in National Service
Mbita Chitala PhD
CHAIRMAN -ZAMBIA RESEARCH FOUNDATION
(Registered with the Registrar of Societies – Registration Number ORS/102/35/403)
SUBMISSIONS TO THE NATIONAL CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE (NCC)
ON THE DRAFT CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF ZAMBIA
PUBLISHED ON 18TH JUNE 2010
SUBMITTED BY:
Dr. Mbita Chitala Chairman
ZAMBIA RESEARCH FOUNDATION, P.O. BOX 35443, LUSAKA , ZAMBIA
Tel +260 211 214777, Mobile: 0976 030398 Email: mbitachitala@yahoo.co.uk
___________________________________________________________________________
Dear Hon.Mr. Chifumu Banda SC
Chairman of the NCC
LUSAKA.
Since the NCC has finally produced a draft constitution, we as a civil society research organization with to present and recommend these submissions for the NCC’s considerations before you submit your recommendations to the Minister of Justice as provided in the NCC Act.
1. PREAMBLE
The Paragraph reading “Declare the Republic a Christian Nation ……” should be deleted as it is controversial, contradictory to Art 48(i) which protects citizens from discrimination on grounds of religion etc and Art 57(3) which provides for freedom of conscience. The multi-religious character of our nation can be added in the paragraph that “Recognizes the multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and multi-religious character of our nation”. Freedom of worship should not be used to infringe onto other peoples comforts however few they may be. Zambia should not adopt a State Religion.
2. PART II – THE REPUBLIC OF ZAMBIA AND ITS SOVEREIGNTY
a. Need to add a new clause: “For purposes of Clause (5), the formation of provinces and districts shall not be treated as establishment of new states
b. Need to add a new clause on culture to provide for promotion of Zambian culture, recognition of indigenous technologies, promotion of intellectual property rights and enacting legislation for communities to be compensated via royalties.
c. Need to provide that Presidential Flag, National Assembly Flag and the motto One Zambia One Nation shall be national symbols in Clause (6).
d. Need to include as Official National Languages Bemba, Kaonde, Lunsa, Luvale, Nyanja, Silozi and Tonga in addition to English in Clause 7(1).
e. Need to provide for a new clause on Decentralization and Access to Services to provide that “Zambia is divided into Provinces and Districts as specified in Schedule………..”
f. Need to provide a clause on State and Religion “That there shall be no State Religion”.
3. PART III - NATIONAL VALUES, PRINCIPLES, OBJECTIVES AND DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF NATIONAL POLICY
a. Need to include in Clause 13(L) provision for “the state to provide education and other public goods such as roads”.
4. PART IV- LAWS OF ZAMBIA
a. Need to delete reference to “British Laws” in Clause 20(d)(f) and be replaced with “Foreign Laws” to allow Zambia to adopt good laws from any other country.
5. PART VI - BILL OF RIGHTS
a. Article 40(2) providing for capital punishment should be deleted and be replaced with a clause reading as follows:“A person shall not be deprived of life intentionally.” This is consistent with civilized international practice.
b. Art 47(5), should be edited to include civil cases in addition to criminal cases to allow persons to appeal for a retrial if new and compelling evidence has become available.
c. Art 49 should provide for the establishment of a Gender Commission whose objective will among others to provide for affirmative action for purposes of redressing imbalances created by history, tradition or custom.
d. Need to delete Art 50(2)© as it contradicts Art 51(1).
e. Need to delete the derogation in Art 51(1) starting at “ except that an Act of Parliament……” as this derogation would allow for the abuse of children.
f. In Art 52, there is need to define concept of “Family” as referring to nuclear, extended and polygamous marriages and not heterosexual unions or same sex unions or sorolate unions.
g. Art 52(5) outlawing same sex marriages need not be in the Constitution as it is controversial and may adversely impact Zambia’s international relations. Need to delete the clause.
h. Art 53 should include in persons with disabilities older members of society, refugees and displaced persons. Should include in the title these categories of persons.
i. Art 58)f) should be re- worded to delete the word “registration” as registration conflicts with freedom of expression. Rather, the word regulation suffices to prevent anarchy.
j. Art 59 be re titled “Right of Access to Information” and the constitution should provide for the right to access to information held by the state or any other person if required for protection of fundamental freedoms. Parliament should enact a law to provide for this.
k. In Art 60(3)(f), the word “registration” should be deleted as the idea is to regulate and not to subvert the freedom of the media.
l. Art. 66 should be more specific to provide workers rights to fair compensation, reasonable working conditions, to form and join trade unions, for employers rights to form employer organizations and for the right to collective bargaining.
m. Art 67 must be rephrased to make social security a mandatory obligation of the state and should include shelter and other public goods such as roads and transportation.
n. There is also need for the constitution to indicate the following in this Part:
- Right of citizens to shelter and housing; food; water; and sanitation
- Right of citizens not to obey unlawful instructions
- An article on consumer rights to provide for right to reasonable quality goods and services, information and protection of their health and safety as well as compensation for loss or injury.
- Need in Art 74 on enforcement of Bill of Rights to, for the constitution to establish the Human Rights Commission and define its powers in an enabling law of Parliament otherwise the enforcement provided currently would become an academic exercise.
6. PART VII - CODE OF CONDUCT OF PUBLIC OFFICES
This part should provide for the creation by the constitution an organ to ascertain information provided and penalties – otherwise it is academic in its present form. An independent Ethics Commission would suffice. The current system where declarations are lodged with the Chief Justice is inherently wrong as the courts are appellant institutions.
7. PART VIII – REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE
a. Art 84(1) should be re-phrased to avoid wastage of public resources. By elections for MPs and Counsellors should be limited to seats falling vacant held by independent MPs or Counsellors. In all other cases where a vacancy occurs, a political party holding that seat should be able to nominate a replacement from their lists.
b. Art 87(2)(a) should not limit the chairmanship of the Electoral Commission to Judges only as this is discriminatory and unnecessary. Other citizens suitably qualified can also serve as Chairmen and as members.
c. Art 86 on the Selection Committee to peruse and recommend membership to be vetted by Parliament and then be appointed by the President as members of the Electoral Commission should be deleted as it is an unnecessary cost. The position where Parliament vets Presidential nominations is adequate.
d. Art 100(1) providing that only parties with representation in Parliament will be funded should be deleted and substitute with an article that provides for any political party participating in national as well as local government elections shall be funded on an equitable and proportional basis. The idea of funding only those with seats in Parliament is not only discriminatory but not fair to investing in democracy.
e. An additional article should be added to provide that “no civil servant shall hold office in a political party”. This is standard practice in all democracies.
8. PART IX – EXCUTIVE
a. Art 108(d) providing for a minimum age of 35 years to be elected and serve as President should also provide for a maximum age of 75 years as beyond that, most Zambians become senile and need to rest and enjoy their pensions.
b. Art 108(e) providing for a minimum qualification of First Degree to be candidate to the Presidency of Zambia should be deleted as it is controversial, divisive discriminatory and can lead to unnecessary judicial action.
c. Art 113 on Tenure of Office of the President, the constitution should also provide that it will be treasonable offence for a person who has lost elections or been removed as provided in the constitution to refuse to vacate office within the period provided in the constitution.
d. Art 128 on the appointment of the Vice President. The constitution should provide that the VP shall be a running mate so that the VP also has a national mandate when he acts as President. The costly idea of going for by elections when the office of President falls vacant will also be addressed since the VP would immediately be sworn in to complete the term of office.
- The constitution should also provide for both emolument and retirement benefits for the VP
- A by election should only occur if the office of VP is also vacant as that of the President.
e. Art 130(i) 131(1) , 132(1) as well as 128(2) allowing the President to appoint ministers from Opposition Parties should be deleted as this weakens our democracy and may enable the executive to rule without checks and balances. The commitment to multi-partism should limit a President to appoint ministers from the party that sponsored him or her and to citizens who are neither opposition MPs or Counsellors.
9. PART X - THE LEGISLATRE
a. Art 143(a) providing for 240 MPS to be directly elected is unjustifiable. This should be left to an enabling legislation which will be based on scientific study of demographic patterns, geography etc. The constitution should so direct.
b. Art 144(5) providing that Chiefs are not qualified to seek elective office must provide for a derogation that they can if they resign as chiefs.
c. The constitution should also provide for voters to have a right to recall an MP or Counsellor and state that Parliament will enact legislation to this effect providing for grounds and the process for recall.
10. PART XII – LOCAL GOVERNMENT
a. Article 212(2) on objectives of Local Government should include the following objectives:
- Ensure equitable sharing of national and local resources
- Facilitate decentralization/devolution of State organs, functions, and services from Lusaka to the Provinces and Districts
- Recognize the right of communities to manage their affairs.
b. Article 216(2)(3) on composition and functions/duties of District Council should provide in the constitution as a directive principles to any other legislation the following:
- That the Mayor and Deputy Mayor or Chairman and Vice Chairman shall be elected directly by the electorate from voters in the district who are not members of the council but pay ground rent to the council for their properties. And that the Mayor/Chairman and their Deputies will be ex-officicial members of the council.
- The Mayor/Chairman shall constitute the executive authority of the council and appoint other officers of the council with the approval of the Council
- That Parliament shall enact legislation to provide for the elections, removal of mayors, vacancy, functions and powers, boundaries of councils, relationships with central government, support of districts, conflict of laws, suspension of district councils etc.
c. Article 224(3) on consequential amendments. Need to delete reference of Provincial Minister as being a Deputy Minister as this conflicts with Article 133 that include Provincial Ministers as members of Cabinet.
11. PART XIII - CHIEFTAINCY AND HOUSE OF CHIEFS
a. Article 227 should be expanded to provide for the establishment of “Community Development Funds” in each district for the purpose of advancing development in each chieftainship. These funds under colonial rule were called “Native Authority Treasuries” for each “tribe” as the nationalities were known then. Since the Chieftaincies are corporation sole as provided in Article 226(a) and with power to manage land and other natural resources as provided in Article 227(2), it is necessary to protect chiefs from being corrupted by land speculators etc by creating these community funds in which land royalties and other presents can be pooled and managed. Parliament will then provide the appropriate legislation to manage these funds.
12. PART XIV PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSIONS
a. There should be included in the Constitution a clause establishing and providing for the functions and powers of statutory institutions and parastatal companies.
b. The constitution should in addition to establishing the Public Service Commission, should also create all other commissions and provide for their functions etc. These commissions include the following:
- Teachers Service Commission
- Local Government Service Commission
- Salaries and Remuneration Commission – a new commission to standardize salaries in the Public Service etc
- Financial and Fiscal Commission to replace the ineffective Economic Advisory Council
- National Land Commission – to superintend on all land matters
- Public Debt Management Commission
13. PART XVII – PUBLIC FINANCE AND BUDGET
a. Article 265 on imposition of taxes should also provide for
- Principles that will guide Zambia’s public finance such as accountability, equitable, fair taxation and expenditure management as well as prudency and needs of future generations etc
b. The constitution should also create an Equalization Fund to support local government
c. Article 274 on management of public debt should provide for the establishment of a Debt Management Office to centralize the currently haphazard management of finance and fiscal functions which have been abating corruption and abuses.
14. PART XIX – LAND AND PROPERTY
a. Article 287 on Basis of Land Policy should include as Art 287(i) the objective of “Elimination of gender discrimination”
b. Article 288 on Classification of Land should be re- phrased to
- Delete “customary land” and substitute “Community Land”. Customary land denotes tribal land which is anathema to Zambia as a unitary state.
- Replace classification of “State Land” with “Public Land” as the concept state in this context is meaningless
- The constitution should also provide for Private Land which shall be held on freehold terms. This should be the case in community lands.
c. Article 292 on land tenure should include as article 292(5) a clause that land under “customary” classification can only be alienated to non-citizens on the basis of co-ownership with the chieftaincy and on which royalties will be paid.
d. Article 291 on the vesting of land in the President should be deleted and provide that land will be vested in the National Land Commission which will be a corporate sole etc. There is need to remove the one party practice and democratize land administration.
e. The constitution should also establish a Land Development Fund and Parliament will provide legislation on its management.
15. PART XXI – REVIEW, ADOPTION, AND AMENDMENT OF CONSTITUTION
a. In Article 303(4), the word “all” should be deleted as it is meaningless.
b. The constitution should also provide that the constitution can be amended without referendum by either
- parliamentary initiative and/or
- by popular initiative after collecting one million signatures of citizens
This completes the process and gives citizens avenues that can be less costly but consensual.
16. PART XXII – GENERAL PROVISIONS
The constitution should provide the following additional provisions:
a. That all international agreements shall be tabled in Parliament
b. That state organs may delegate any power or function to other state organs
c. Ascribe to the right of self determination by communities
Yours in National Service
Mbita Chitala PhD
CHAIRMAN -ZAMBIA RESEARCH FOUNDATION
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
