Royal Barotseland Daily Mail

DOES THE TERM ‘BAROTSE PROVINCE’ IN RECORDED HISTORY PROVE BAROTSELAND WAS NEVER A COUNTRY?

Author: SIBETA MUNDIA, Barotseland Post | 21st January, 2024.

NO! The term PROVINCE, even by simple dictionary definition can be used to not only denote an administrative district or division of a country but also it can be applied to denote a country or region brought under the control of another country’s government.

Some countries under colonial governments could even be denoted as DISTRICTS. Countries have a choice of what to call their different administrative units.
Examples are plenty in history, past and recent.

For example, countries colonized by the ancient Roman government were always governed as provinces, when in fact these were colonized territories or countries. By 200 BC, the Roman Republic had conquered present-day Italy, and over the following two centuries, it conquered Greece and Spain, the North African coast, much of the Middle East, modern-day France, and even the remote island of Britain. Guess what, most of these were administered under the designation of the term PROVINCE!

Even now, countries that themselves could qualify for separate statehood in Canada, such as Quebec, are still governed as PROVINCES. Quebec Province very recently had an independence referendum. What this means is that Quebec is essentially a country whose citizens still want to be ruled as a PROVINCE under the sovereign state of CANADA.

So, QUEBEC is a PROVINCE, yes, but also a COUNTRY!

So, Province, District, Territory, Region, or even State are all terms that can be used to denote the various administrative partitions of any one sovereign country, colony, or continent.

Imagine if Africa became one sovereign country or state. We could call the current countries as STATES, PROVINCES, or DISTRICTS. The choice will be up to us, and any of the above classifications will not diminish the fact that the separate components are still COUNTRIES and STATES within the larger country or state of Africa.

A further example, the Vatican City State and the Holy See is a sovereign, independent territory or COUNTRY or STATE, with DIPLOMATIC recognition as such, and yet it exists and thrives within the city of ROME, not even a PROVINCE but a CITY! This is why it is called the Vatican City State! It is a city but also it is a thriving STATE with diplomatic recognition and status!

So, there is nothing strange in the use of the term Barotse Province in Northern Rhodesia or Zambia.

Barotseland Protectorate can be or could be termed as a PROVINCE because it was a protectorate (country) governed by or governed within another protectorate (country), and both were under the same colonial country or PROTECTOR Britain.

So, even presently, Barotseland country or protectorate could be designated as a PROVINCE because it is still governed under another SOVEREIGN state of ZAMBIA, which started as its PROTECTOR in 1964, but has sadly TURNED OUT to be its COLONIZER!

Barotseland has been under FORCED ASSIMILATION ever since the Barotseland Agreement 1964 was unilaterally abrogated! Therefore, we should all PEACEFULLY advocate for the rights of the people of Barotseland to decide whether to exercise their self-determination within Zambia or outside Zambia. This will prevent the matter from escalating into a volatile position that has engulfed other occupied territories such as Palestine.

By the way, Barotseland could even be classified as an administrative DISTRICT, but that would still not change that it was and still is a separate distinct PROTECTORATE or COUNTRY within another country.

Even Kenneth Kaunda, in justifying his abrogation of the Barotseland Agreement 1964, said that Zambia could not have a STATE within a STATE!

This is what Barotseland was, and still is, a ‘state within a state’, and civilized people KNOW and ACCEPT that this is not ANOMALY, as there are so many states striving within other states!

So, let us not play semantics by appealing to the current popular use of the term PROVINCE to try to dismiss the HISTORICAL status of Barotseland within Northern Rhodesia.

We all understand the history that the country of Barotseland was never granted independent political sovereign existence outside of Northern Rhodesia or later Zambia, but that is not to say Barotseland does not have that right to independent existence either within or outside Zambia!

Barotseland has this inviolable right should its people decide so!

This is what a protectorate status means - a weak state under another state. In Barotseland's case, it was a weak state put within or under another weak state of Northern Rhodesia.
Whether one thinks this was for convenience's sake only, is beside the point!

However, the current problem exists because when Zambia became the successor protector of Barotseland from Britain, by the Barotseland Agreement of 1964, Zambia decided to assimilate Barotseland unilaterally or forcefully by abrogating that 1964 agreement.

So, it is not what administrative term was designated to Barotseland then that matters but rather the FACT that Barotseland was officially, and more clearly, accorded the PROTECTORATE Status by the British in the Northern Rhodesia (Barotseland) Order in Council, 1953 - signed on the 30th of April at the Court at Windsor Castle, which states briefly;
“AND WHEREAS it is expedient that the said territory of Barotseland should be declared to be, and should be styled, the Barotseland Protectorate:

“Now, THEREFORE, Her Majesty, by virtue and in exercise of the powers in that behalf by the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, 1890, or otherwise in Her Majesty vested, is pleased, by and with the advice of Her Privy Council, to order, and it is hereby ordered as follows:

“1. (1) this order may be cited as the Northern Rhodesia (Barotseland) Order in Council, 1953, and shall be read as one with the Northern Rhodesia Orders in Council, 1924 to 1951,
(2) This order shall come into operation on the second day of May, 1953, and shall be published in the Gazette,

“2. That part of Northern Rhodesia the bounds of which are set out in the Schedule to this Order and which is known as Barotseland is hereby declared to be, and shall from the commencement of this Order be styled, the Barotseland Protectorate.

“3. The Barotseland Protectorate shall continue to be part of Northern Rhodesia and nothing in this Order shall affect the operation of the Northern Rhodesia Orders in Council, 1924 to 1951, or any other law.” END.

This is the recorded HISTORY. Whether one likes it or not, should not be the issue here! It is a historical FACT.

PICTURE FILE: Zambian President (left) and the Litunga, King of Barotseland, walk side by side during the Kuomboka ceremony in Limunga, Royal Barotseland Kingdom.

ZAMBIA’S FORMER JUSTICE MINISTER KABIMBA ANSWERS QUESTIONS ON BAROTSELAND ON RADIO TALK SHOW

Author: SIBETA MUNDIA, Barotseland Post | 19th January, 2024.

Today, on Phoenix Zambia Radio talk show, ‘Let the People Talk’, Mr. Kabimba tackled a question on Barotseland as he announced that he covers the matter in his recently released book.

On the show, Mr Kabimba was right about only one thing concerning Barotseland; he stated that Barotseland was a separate British Protectorate from the Northern Rhodesia Protectorate. This is factual.

For those who might not know, a protectorate is a state or country under the protection of another stronger state. Therefore, Barotseland was a separate country or state from Northern Rhodesia but merely shared the protection of Britain, a stronger state, and the two protectorates happened to have shared geographical proximity.

However, Kabimba was grossly wrong when he explained that an international treaty, The Barotseland Agreement 1964, which was signed by the three separate states of Northern Rhodesia, Britain, and Barotseland, to allow the two separate protectorates to proceed to independence as one sovereign state, could be annulled by merely changing domestic laws through parliament. A Zambian parliament that did not even have fair representation by numbers of Barotse MPs to other MPs from the rest of Zambia.

This is a legal fallacy, and Mr Kabimba as a lawyer knows that he is wrong here and he is the one misinforming the public. Kabimba’s ideas above differ sharply from seasoned Zambian constitutional lawyers who have written or spoken publicly on the same subject such as Dr. Ludwig Sondashi, Dr. Rodger Chongwe, Dr. Elias Mushya, and Mr John Sangwa.

A country can not decide to simply pass a national or domestic law to absolve itself from performing an international treaty! The Rodger Chongwe Commission of Inquiry, as preempted by Dr. Rodger Chongwe himself on this matter, rightly advised the Zambian State to correct thi