The Royal Barotseland Government
Office of the Prime Minister
Lealui,Limulunga - Barotseland

5th July, 2012

The Secretary General
African Union

RE: BAROTSELAND’S PRESENTATION TO THE AFRICAN UNION SUMMIT HELD BETWEEN 09th July – 16th July 2012

This presentation serves to implore the African Union and its member states to state their status quo on Barotseland.

We are aware that the heads of African States being unable and unwilling to deal with complex problems of governance of multi-ethnic and segmented societies opted to limit the applicability of the right of self-determination to cases of Africans struggling against white rule. However, this is contrary to the principal of self-determination.

With regards to the Barotseland case it is indisputable that we are a nation and that there was no pre-colonial link between Barotseland and Western Nyasa (North Eastern Rhodesia).

If one were to examine the geo-political context and social cultural context of Barotseland, one would easily conclude the illegal annexation of Barotseland to Zambia in 1964. We feel domination and subjugation are characteristics of colonial policy.

What should be brought to the attention of the African leaders and head of states is that we have learnt from the Zambian intelligentia and Lawyers that the Barotseland Agreement intended to make Barotseland part of Zambia. Additionally, we have also learnt from the Zambians that the Barotseland Agreement was grossly abrogated by Act of the Zambian Parliament which is valid. If follows then that, the legal axiom states that lex posterior derogato,” viz a later Act over rules an earlier one. An act of abrogation over rules the Act of Annexation if any.

This matter is very clear and there is no dispute over it, as it can be noted from the following:

a) The Zambian Government is aware that the territory (Barotseland) signed an Agreement with Northern Rhodesia (Zambia) in 1964.

b) The Zambian Government knows very well that what gave them the authority over Barotseland was the Barotseland Agreement of 1964.

c) The Zambian Government knows too well that the agreement was nullified.

d) The Zambian Government knows that the Barotzis wanted the Barotseland Agreement to be honoured, respected, implemented and enter into force, but all the successive Zambian governments have been giving many excuses and citing legislative Acts as a basis for refusing to honour the Agreement. Which simply means the Agreement was entered into in bad faith.

e) There was a Barotse Congress held between 26th March – 27th March 2012, where it was announced and declared publicly that Barotse People had nothing to do with the Agreement as well; this was in conformity with the principal of law which states “Nobody could be bound by an agreement that is not in force.”

The Barotzis have accepted the nullification of the Agreement; and by principal of law “a thing is made and destroyed by one and the same means” so if Zambia was made by the agreement, then it is destroyed by the same Agreement that is nullified.

Finally, they (Barotseland People) resolved to revert to their original status.

The police and Army Officers know too well about these occurrences. So logically and rationally on this resolve there is no dispute since both parties agree on the nullification. Neither is there any conflict; conflict arising from what? What is startling is that the Zambian Government still feels it has authority over Barotseland; authority derived from what? Because even the Zambian Constitution Review Commission of 2005, does question the authority of Zambian Government over Barotseland in default of the Agreement of 1964.

The constitution report stated:

“Failure to implement the Agreement amounts frustration of the treaty which gives rise to questions about the legitimacy of the Zambian Government’s authority over Barotseland“

When Barotseland entered into Agreement she entered as a
nation and a country; when agreement is rescinded Barotseland retains her former position.

If ever there shall be a dispute it shall come from border and not dispute arising from reversion or it could be a dispute arising reparations.

Our appeal to all African leaders is that African Countries are at liberty to co-operate and enter into diplomatic relations with Barotseland without any contravention; and in doing so they do not interfere in internal matters of any country.

With Regards,

Afumba Mombotwa - Administrator General, Royal Barotseland

Kalimukwa Samuel - National Secretary, Royal Barotseland