In default of the union Act, there is no law to prove that Barotseland and Zambia were politically united
A reason to free BAROTSELAND.

We have 47 guests and no members online
17-05-2013 Hits:745 Barotse News
The Online Editor
A Press Release By Linyungandambo, Mutomena Office The stranded Zambian Government has sent 20 Deputy Ministers and their security personnel in Shangombo and Sisheke Districts in campaigns to win the people of that part of the country to support their illegal activities in the independent Barotse...
Read more14-05-2013 Hits:664 Barotse News
The Online Editor
Geographical Position: Barotseland is located in the Southern Central Africa. Brief History: Barotseland is an old African Nation which has been in existence for over 5 centuries and so named in the 1800s. It was once a British Protectorate but was not given independence when it wanted it, but in...
Read more12-05-2013 Hits:588 Barotse News
The Online Editor
THE US$ 200 million investment in the first ever hydro-power generation plant in Western Province’s Sioma district will economically develop the area, says provincial minister Obvious Mwaliteta. Western Power Company will set up a hydro-power plant at Ngonye Falls, which is expected to generate u...
Read more06-05-2013 Hits:566 Special Reports
The Online Editor
The following 100 reasons are given to highlight why Barotseland and Zambia can never and will never be one nation. They also illustrate that there is no union or relationship between them other than that of being neighbours for ever more, and that this fact must be easily understood by all sane...
Read more24-04-2013 Hits:937 Special Reports
The Online Editor
FIRST EDITION – APRIL 2013: SUMMONING OF THE BAROTSE NATIONAL COUNCIL FORMULATORS AND PRESENTERS OF RESOLUTIONS OF SURBODINATE ORGANS SOURCE OF FINAL RESOLUTIONS TURN COATS AND TREACHEROUS ACTIVITIES NEED TO DEFEND AND SAFE GUARD THE PEOPLES GAINS. AUTHORS: 1. MUTUNGULU WANGA 2. ...
Read more(Executive Summary, Page 509) 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY From the submissions received the following, are the findings and conclusions of the commission: 1.1 INTENT AND EVOLUTION OF THE AGREEMENT. The Barotseland Agreement 1964 is a…
It is not un common to hear this question asked with many devoid of knowledge about Barotse history wrongly alleging the practice is an overtone of “colonialism” , and un…
FIRST PHASE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME Administrative town to be built at Nalikwanda area. In this area, only modern buildings shall be constructed, slams and squatters shall not be allowed. Mongu Township to…
It is interesting to note that some sections of Barotseland want the matter of Barotseland’s statehood to be taken to the international court of justice (ICJ) while others oppose the idea. The simple questions that may be asked are what does declaration mean by international law? And what should be done after declaration has been made?
As per United Nations resolution number 1244 it describes declaration as IRREVERSIBLE and IRRESISTIBLE meaning when you have declared something you can never swallow your words for instance a dying declaration of a person and many other declarations. Another example is when the late second Republican President of Zambia declared that Zambia is a Christian Nation. To-date it is still called a Christian Nation. From here we see the consequences of declaration.
Likewise the Barotzish must know that their declaration to revert Barotseland to her earlier position by international law is IRREVERSIBLE and IRRESISTIBLE.
For any state to be recognized there are certain statehood conditions that are recognized worldwide and these must be met, failure to which that state can never be granted recognition.
WHAT IS RECOGNITION?
Recognition (in International law)
1. The process by which one state declares that another political entity fulfills the conditions of statehood and that it is willing to deal with as a member of the international community. Recognition usually takes place when a new state comes into being. Some authorities believe that recognition is constitute, i.e. it is one of the conditions that create a state in international law.
Mostly, however, regard it as being merely declaratory, i.e. an acceptance of a fact that already exists.
WHAT ARE THESE CONDITIONS OF STATEHOOD THAT MUST BE FULFILLED IN ORDER FOR A STATE TO BE RECOGNIZED?
These are : (a) The coat of arms, (b) The National flag, (c) The National seal, (d) The constitution, (e) The National Anthem, (f)The Name of the country and (g) the National Language.
The question is; has Barotseland fulfilled the above statehood conditions?
Barotseland actually has fulfilled the statehood conditions as required by the international law, for the information of those who did not know, we have all the above mentioned requirements which make up a state.
Another question Is, if these requirements have been met by the Barotzish, what should be the next step?
The next step is to put up the Royal Barotseland interim government period!!
People should appreciate what LINYUNGANDAMBO has done other than hating and mudslinging them. To me it shows that such people are not in the struggle. The genuine people in the struggle appreciate one another.
LINYUNGANDAMBO has finished everything. The question is where were those fellows who are claiming that they are in the struggle? What the LINYUNGANDAMBO have done has been accepted by the international community, and they even wonder what us Barotzish know. What are we doing after declaring and fulfilling the requirements needed in order for a new state to be recognized?
It must be noted that the are above mentioned statehood requirements have indeed be FULFILLED!
THE BACK GROUND ON HOW THESE CONDITIONS FOR STATE HOOD RECOGNITION CAME ABOUT?
With the collapse of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia in the 1990s it became imperative for states of the European Union to adopt a common policy with regard to recognition of the new emerging sovereign states of Eastern and south-Eastern Europe. Consequently, in December 1991, the European Commission published its Guidelines on the recognition of new states.
This made it a precondition of recognition that the new states should respect human rights and oppose the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
2. Acceptance of a government as the legal representative of the state. This may be de facto or de jure. The distinction is a fluid one, often involving a political element, since international law allows state discretion as to whether or not to accord recognition and of which kind. The according of recognition of either kind is usually an acknowledgment that the government recognized has effect control, but the decision to give merely de facto recognition.
The significance of the distinction ( which is of little legal consequence) therefore, depends on the intention of the recognizing government. Recognition may be express or implied ( for example, by entering into diplomatic relations with a new government) (ESTRADA DOCTORINE)
As we conclude let us look at the case of KOSOVO and see if we as Barotzish need to take the matter to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), there are other precedents such as ERITREA and GRAND COMOROS which are similar cases to that of Barotseland.
Due to time I have decided to pick on the KOSOVO scenario and especially take interest the words spoken by Daniel Bethlehem the legal advisor to the Queen’s Bench,
THE CASE OF KOSOVO
It must be noted that Kosovo did not take the matter to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) after declaring that they were no longer part of Yugoslavia.
Instead it was the Serbians that took Kosovo to the ICJ, as it is further stated in the statement in the judgment of the case of Serbia Vs Kosovo on the 10th day of December 2009 by the United Kingdom. Queen's Bench (QB), legal adviser to the foreign and common wealth office Daniel Bethlehem made the following remarks:
“Serbia by initiating the proceedings by the ICJ wants to set back the clock, and seeks an advisory option that would compel Kosovo to re-engage with Serbia over status. There is, however, no reason whatever to believe that an agreed outcome would be any more achievable now than it was in the past. The United Kingdom warns about the misleading approach of Serbia which would like the court assess the legality of the declaration ignoring the events that led to it. Serbia has made it clear that it will never accept an independent Kosovo, for its part has made it quite clear, that, given the legality of abuse, it cannot again become part of Serbia. Courts do not continue to order estranged spouses to continue in broken marriage. Although the resolution 1244 referred to the territorial integrity of Yugoslavia, this principle was not the cornerstone for political situation to Kosovo's status. The United Kingdom did not come to support independence for Kosovo quickly or easily and does not see these proceedings are adversarial to Serbia. Serbia's democracy is not much older than Kosovo's. Independence of Kosovo brought stability to the region after a traumatic decade. The common future for both states in European Union and the United Kingdom will continue to work towards the realization of that vision”
Note
I want to challenge anyone who can say there is at least one country that got its independence in the ICJ then let them give us the name of that country. We will be very grateful as Barotseland National Youth League (BNYL) and personally as an individual.
But I can assure that person that there is no country that got its independence in International Court of Justice (ICJ). Therefore, we the youth of Barotseland reject the notion or idea that we should take the issue of Barotseland's independence to the ICJ because in the first place there is no such precedent and secondly, by international law, when you declare the next step is to be recognized so long you have fulfilled the statehood conditions.
Even in the case of SERBIA Vs. KOSOVO, it was not KOSOVO that took SERBIA to ICJ, instead it was SERBIA which took KOSOVO to court.
The matter of going to the international Court of Justice(ICJ) will or may only arise on boundaries / borders, in an event that a dispute arise over boundaries / borders and not now because there, is no dispute.
If I may ask what dispute is there between Barotseland and Zambia as at now? Because up to now Zambia has never rebutted our declaration, and by law silence means acceptance, because, the Zambian government was supposed to rebut that declaration within 48 hours from the time the declaration was made as stipulated by international law.
But they failed to do so, meaning they have consented to declaration.
MALOZI AMUTONE KI YONA NITI YA LUKULULA ONA YE!!!
AKUNA NAHA YE KILE YALUKULUHELA MWA KUTA YA LIFASI!!
MUSIKE MWA PUMIHA KI MAHATA BABA SA ZIBIBI MILAO YA LIFASI!!
Comments
I read Mwenda Nayoto, the Secretary General of the Barotseland National Youth League (BNYL)
Well spoken. There is a lot of truth in most of the issues you have raised. I also agree with Pelekelo on the unity of purpose.
What should be understood however, is that Barotseland desires freedom without bloodshed. Most if not all the nations you have named here, including Kosovo got their independence after bloodshed. Barotseland has recorded population of about 900 000. We don't want to lose another soul.
The sillence of the Zambian government is a recipe for civil war. Unless we outsmart Zambia that war is likely to occur.
Even though there is no nation that got independence through ICJ, the only way Barotseland can get indepence without war is through the endorsement of the ICJ. It is not just being free by any means possible, rather by means less violent possible to save lives.
Groups that just break from mother nations dont need courts like ICJ because they are outlawed already. But Barotseland is within the relm of law. Therefore ICJ involvement may be to the advantage of Barotseland, especially that Zambia is not letting go without a fight. Through ICJ thr international community will support Barotseland.
Ki naako! Tu koongote
But what i dont understand is that we expect Zambia to "willing" hand you over our state? We have taken our state and the international community is watching and they know our claim is legitimate. so what is there to fear??
RSS feed for comments to this post