Before I proceed with our discussion today, I want to pass my heartfelt condolences to the Administrator-General for the Royal Barotseland, Right Hon. Afumba Mombotwa and his family for the untimely death of his mother Namasamu Kamona who died on Tuesday the 31st July 2012 and the burial took place on Thursday the 2nd of August 2012. It is indeed a big blow to Barotse Nationals at large, may the good Lord be with the Admin-General’s family and the people of Barotseland during this trying moment.

I would also like to thank God for the protection he accords to me always and to all the Barotzish at large, not forgetting to thank all those who read and contribute comments over my presentations am really humbled please continue with the same spirit this is your program send as many comments as you can. I want to particularly thank Mr. Maurice Pelekelo’s wonderful comment over my last presentation that was indeed gratifying keep it up my brother. 

Now back to business today I want us to look at these two issues in the name of declaration of dispute and notification because I have realized that many of us confuse the usage and meaning of these two different items. Due to that I have deliberately brought this discussion.

I want to start with the declaration of dispute, not declaration of dispute in employment law, but in view or sense of International Law. Declaration of dispute in International law arise when two countries have an argument or quarrel, it usually arise from boundaries or borders. One good example where there was a dispute and the declaration of dispute was made is the case of Namibia vs. Botswana these two countries had a dispute arising from the boundary and it must be noted that only matters of boundaries in the case of Barotseland’s statehood shall be taken to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that is if Zambia will dispute Barotseland’s borders. However, other issues like reparation (compensation) and repatriation are done by an Independent arbitrator (UNITED NATIONS) in accordance with the International law.

Now I pause a question here what dispute is there between Barotseland and Zambia as at now? I also want to make clarity on Mr. Pelekelo Maurice that the letter that the Ngambela wrote to president Sata is not a declaration of dispute. I want to categorically state here that the Ngambela’s letter to president Sata is not a declaration of dispute, but it is a notification, if I may ask it is a declaration of dispute from what? What is notification? It simply means to inform someone about something. Therefore, what the Ngambela wrote to president Sata was to notify or inform him over the repudiation of the Barotseland agreement 1964 by successive Zambian governments, the Ngambela further informed Mr. Sata that BRE will start putting government structures for Barotseland, surely is there any declaration of dispute here?

I have read the Ngambela’s letter to president sata twenty (20) times, trying to analyze and understand its contents and I have not seen or come across any single word which talks about declaration of dispute, but the sentence I have seen which has been emphasized and it has been put as the HEADLINE of that letter read as follows; “RECOGNITION AND ACCEPTANCE OFTHE REPUDIATON OF THE BAROTSELAND AGREEMENT 1964 BY THE ZAMBIN GOVERNMENT”. If I may ask is there any declaration of dispute in this headline? Let us take a look at the meaning of this word repudiation in the legal perspective point of view maybe it may mean declaration of dispute.

Oxford dictionary of Law defines repudiation in this way; “2. (in International Law) A state’s disclaimer of its obligations under a treaty. There is no question that such repudiation is a violation of international Law unless it can be justified on one of the accepted grounds for securing release from the obligation to comply with the treaty. The grounds upon which a treaty can be held to be invalid are laid down in Articles 46-53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties”.  As seen from the above definition repudiation simply means the other party to the treaty is not willing, disclaims or refuses to perform or undertake its obligations under a treaty. Now where is the declaration of dispute in the letter the Ngambela wrote to president Sata?

I would also like to clear and clarify on the notion that BAROTSE ROYAL ESTABLISHMENT (BRE) are the ones who should form the ROYAL BAROTSELAND INTERIM GOVERNMENT. This notion does not apply as long as the BRE and the people of Barotseland stand by their resolution that they want Constitutional Monarch unless if we say we want absolute Monarch, but so long we say we want constitutional Monarch, then it is not the BRE who should form the Royal Barotseland government but it the commoners who should form the government as it is done in Britain which is good example of Constitutional monarch.

In Britain the Queen is the Head of state and she does not interfere in the affairs of government where as the Right hon. Prime Minister is the Head of government even the Lord Chancellor together with his House of Lords they equally do not interfere in the affairs of government. And if we claim that as the people of Barotseland we want a constitutional monarch type of government which is a similar pattern to that of Britain then the BRE cannot form the government because that will be absolute monarch which personally I do not support because such kind of governments are considered by the international community as dictatorship even constitutional law defines total or absolute monarch as one man rule. And such kind of rule is no longer acceptable in this era.

Let’s be mindful the world is watching and waiting to see what type of government we shall put? Whether that government will respect human rights or not? The other point I would like to point out here is that one key to master in a struggle is consistence this point is very vital in struggle because when you are consistence even the international community will take you seriously.

And what am witnessing or seeing is that most of us are not consistence and therefore, we confuse the international community and the people of Barotseland, you would find that  today when we  wake up we say we want to take the matter of Barotseland’s statehood to the international Court of Justice (ICJ), tomorrow we say we have declared a dispute with Zambia, the other day we say we want to discuss with the Zambian government, another day we say we  have declared Barotseland as an independent state, therefore, she is free to pursue her own self-determination. We are confusing the international community as to what we really want. I would therefore, urge all the Barotzish to be consistence and not to follow the wind.Thank you keep sending your comments on this column.