WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT THE BIRTH OF ZAMBIA: BAROTSE AGREEMENT?

(PART ONE)

I am privileged to share my thoughts which centre on clearing the misconception and raw
propaganda about what the Barotseland Agreement is, was intended to achieve and how it is
relevant today 50 years after it was signed.

Firstly, I would like to educate my fellow Zambians on the implication of the term
Barotseland which most people confuse with or hold synonymous with our present day
Western Province. Barotseland was a territory comprising all of present day Western Province
of Zambia, parts of Copperbelt Province and parts of North-Western Province. At its height it
measured 250,000 sq miles. The size of Barotseland kept shrinking due to the political
ineptitude of the Barotse Native Government and the Litungas unfounded fears of being
toppled. The capitalist Cecil Rhodes and his deputies in the territory made short work of the
Litungas lack of sophistication through extraction of one sided concessions and a telling show
of force against Lobengula in the Matebele War of 1893.

Barotseland was administered through a decentralised system of government effected by chiefs
subject to or vassals to the Litunga whose paramount role in the territory empowered him to
enter into treaties committing the entire territory. One such treaty was the so called
protectorate treaty entered into by the Litunga Lewanika with the British Crown in the guise of
Cecil Rhodes British South Africa Company in the year 1900. In 1905 the Litunga lost part of his
domains to Portugal through an award of part of his territory by King Victor-Emmanuel III of
Italy to Portugal. In 1941 the creation of Balovale district to which the Litunga had claimed
overlordship was cut away from Barotseland. The Litungas losses following the Lochner
concession include the Lawley concession of 1898 that reduced the Litungas annual subsidy
from 2,000 to 850 and gave the British South Africa Company judicial powers in disputes
between whites or whites and blacks. Lawley was a dry run for the company takeover of
Barotseland which in fact did not become a protectorate of the British Crown until 1924. Yes
indeed by the time of the signing of the Barotseland Agreement, the territory was nothing more
than a little over what is Western Province today.

I feel it is important for us to properly understand the history leading up to the creation of this
country no matter how discomforting it may be if we are to do justice to any grievance
concerning the question of Barotseland.

THE AGREEMENT PURPOSE AND IMPORT

Part of the Barotseland Agreement signed on the 18
th
of May 1964 by Dr. Kenneth David
Kaunda Prime Minister of Northern Rhodesia, The Litunga Mwanawina Lewanika III and
Imenda Sibandi the Ngambela (Prime Minister) of Barotseland respectively and witnessed by Sir
Evelyn D. Hone Governor of Northern Rhodesia and Richard Hornby Duncan Sandys
Parliamentary Undersecretary for the Secretary of the Commonwealth and Colonies of the
British Government, reads as follows:
Whereas it was proposed that the northern Rhodesia shall become an independent sovereign state to
be known as the republic of Zambia.
And where as it is the wish of the government of northern Rhodesia and of the Litunga of Barotseland,
his council and the chiefs and people of Barotseland that northern Rhodesia should proceed to
independence as one country and that all its peoples should be one nation:
And where , as having regard to the fact that all treaties and other agreements subsisting between her
majesty the queen of the United Kingdom of great Britain and northern Ireland and The Litunga of
Barotseland will terminate when Northern Rhodesia becomes an independent sovereign republic and her
majesty's government in the United Kingdom will there upon cease to have any responsibility for the
government of Rhodesia including Barotseland. It is the wish of the government of northern Rhodesia
and of The Litunga of Barotseland to enter into arrangements concerning the position of Barotseland as
part of the republic of Zambia to the place of the treaties and other agreements hitherto subsisting
between Her Majesty the Queen and The Litunga of Barotseland:

It is clear that the intent of the agreement was to create one and not several new countries. It is
also clear that any arrangements that either colony or protectorate had with the British Crown
would cease to exist once Zambia was born.

It is revealing with respect to how deliberate and considered the position on the union of
Northern Rhodesia and Barotseland to become present day Zambia were that an insinuation to
the contrary is unacceptable. I refer you to a House of Lords debate on the 25
th
of July 1963
where the agreement was aptly dealt with. The reference is available in the Hansard of July
1963 vol 252 cc825-7. The question tabled by Lord Clitheroe as to whether Her Majestys
government could assure the house that all the agreements and treaties with Barotseland
Chiefs would be fully respected and implemented. This of course was background to the
imminent independence of Northern Rhodesia. The Lord Chancellor (Lord Dilhorne) in part of
his response for the British Government says and I quote My Lords, the Litunga has been given
repeated assurances that no constitutional changes affecting Barotseland will be made without
prior consultation and agreement with the Litunga and Council. It is against this background
that the forthcoming talks between the Northern Rhodesia Government and the Barotse Native
Government are being arranged, with the object of finding an acceptable and workable
solution. End of quote.

Others debating this motion were The Earl of Listowel, Lord Colyton and The Earl of Swinton.
The considered view of Lord Listowel was that the situation should be dealt with in a similar
way that India that had several Princely States and protectorates within the then British India
dealt with it i.e. by direct talks and agreements of accession to Independent India.

This was also adopted in the case of Barotseland and resulted in the full participation of not
only the Litunga Mwanawina Lewanika III but also the Barotse Native Government. The import
of the content of the agreement and indeed its extent and implication was not lost on the
parties involved as they all had time to consider drafts before the final document. The
provisional agreement of 16
th
April 1964 referred to in the body of text of the final agreement
attests to this. Another element of great importance considering the protectorate status of
Barotseland is well summarised by the Lord Chancellor in the debate of the 25
th
July 1963 as
follows and I quote:
I am grateful to the noble Earl. The position is that there can be no change in the constitutional
position of Barotseland without consideration by parliament, because this Parliament of the
United Kingdom alone is competent to effect legislation affecting its constitutional status

This clearly demonstrates that by force of treaties the British government through its
parliament had unfettered rights to legislate any constitutional change in its protectorates.
Nevertheless, the full participation of the Litunga and his council was honoured from the
negotiation phase through to the signing of the final agreement effectively dissolving both
Northern Rhodesia and Barotseland in favour of the newly independent Zambia. There was no
reverse gear as you will see from the agreement and therefore any secessionist movement
which in effect calls for the dissolution of Zambia is treasonous. The power to resolve all issues
arising from the breach of the agreement were vested in the High Court of Zambia.

A House of Commons debate on the 10
th
of July 1964 appearing in the Hansard of like date vol.
698 cc776-86 titled Clause 8. ZAMBIA INDEPENDENCE BILL considered in committee under the
Chairmanship of Sir. Robert Grimston reveals the following:
Hon. Mr. Ronald Bell Member of Parliament for Buckinghamshire South debates as follows and
I quote:
I was very sorry that I was unable to take part in the debate on the Second Reading, because it
ended earlier than I expected and I thus lost an opportunity. During that debate things were said
about this clause with which I would not have been in full agreement. I should now like to say
that I regard the outcome of the negotiations which led to the Barotseland Agreement of 1964
as one which was very happy both for Barotseland and for the new country of Zambia. I do not
wish to go back to mention the things said on Second Reading, if only for the reason that I have
not given notice to the hon. Members who said them, but it would be most unfortunate if the
impression were to go out of the House that what has taken place with regard to Barotseland is
in any degree a disappointment and disadvantage to the people of that country. It was said on
Tuesday, for example that the Litunga of Barotseland had been brought in at ten Oclock at
night to sign an agreement by which he lost the control of his country and which in effect,
abolished Barotseland and completely changed the situation of that country. This is very far
from being the truth. I do not want to mix up the two functions in which I am concerned in
Barotseland, but the fact is that the negotiations which took place over a period of 11 months,
and which finally ended in the Barotseland agreement, 1964, were negotiations of a particularly
happy character in that all those who took part in them had as their final objective the discovery
of a method of association which would allow their country and Northern Rhodesia to go
forward happily together in harmony not starting with recrimination, and arriving at an
agreement between two protectorates which would not be an armistice line in a long drawn
struggle, but which would allow them to go forward together as one country making the best
use of their resources human and material. I would be most unhappy if anything said in the
debate on Tuesday, after the success of the long effort, should lead in Northern Rhodesia to
doubts and disharmony and to a feeling that the sacrifices made on both sides were not
profitably made and would perhaps better not have been made. I am sure that the contrary is
true and that when the Litunga of Barotseland signed that agreement at ten Oclock at night it
was merely a formal and ceremonial ending to 11 months of hard and extremely useful
negotiations. I find no particular significance in the fact that the agreement was signed at ten
Oclock at night. This parliament reaches most of its important decisions at that hour.
In case there should be any lingering doubt about that, I should like to say that the Agreement
signed at ten Oclock at night: in London, which is the subject of this Clause, was virtually
identical in all its terms with that which had been signed in the full light of day and in complete
harmony in Lusaka three weeks before. It would be quite untrue to say that by that Agreement
Barotseland passes away its rights and will lose its distinctive way of life or cease to exist as a
significant part of Zambia. The contrary is true. Anyone who reads the agreement which has
been published as a Command Paper will see that on the contrary that not only the Litunga and
his National Council, but also Dr. Kaunda and the Ministers of the Northern Rhodesia
Government, were all most anxious that Barotseland should continue to make its distinctive and
in some sense separate contribution to the life of the new country. Honourable members will
find preserved all the traditional rights of the Litunga, all the traditional ways by which the Lozi
people have lived their lives so successfully as one of the most significant parts of the territory of
Northern Rhodesia. They are all safeguarded in the form of a solemn agreement which was
signed by the Litunga, by Dr. Kaunda and the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. At
the time Dr. Kaunda gave a solemn promise on behalf of himself and his Government, that after
independence had come into force, after the passage of this measure, he, on behalf of his
Government, would solemnly and publicly reaffirm as an independent country their adherence
to this agreement and their observance to its terms. When that is the case, when all the
traditional life of Barotseland is incorporated in this agreement, when the whole thing has been
done in an atmosphere of goodwill and they all want to go forward happily, and when, as I say
this is no mere armistice line but a genuine fusion of entities, it seems to me tragic that words
should be spoken which might stir up forgotten disagreements in Northern Rhodesia.
12 noon.
That is why I have taken this opportunity today, as one who has had some knowledge of what
has happened, to say that this Agreement, and Clause 8 which embodies it, is something of
which everybody in Barotseland from the Litunga to the humblest of his subjects and everyone
in Northern Rhodesia, from the Prime Minister to members of the tribes other than the Lozi, can
all be very happy and in which they can rejoice. I am sure that in passing the Bill with this clause
in it we shall not be doing anything which is in any way derogatory to the undertakings which
have been given over half a century to the Litunga of Barotseland on behalf of British
Governments, but that on the contrary, we shall have joined in a wise and fruitful Agreement. I
trust that that will be the message which will go out from this House on the deliberations of the
Bill, rather than some of the things which were said I am sure in good faith, but not perhaps in
full knowledge of the facts by some hon. Members in the debate on Tuesday. End of quote.

It is clear that a great deal of thought and debate preceded the agreement and certainly the
birth of Zambia without which it wouldnt have been possible. An important position of the
British Government and the Crown is established in the debate of the 10
th
of July 1964 by then
Undersecretary of State for Commonwealth Relations John Tilney M.P. when he says in part
and I quote:
The committee will know that certain agreements were entered into between Her Majesty and
the Litunga of Barotseland, which is part of Northern Rhodesia, with respect to the
administration of Barotseland. Her Majesty also formally assumed obligations under
agreements concluded between the British South Africa Company and the Litunga during the
period that the company was responsible for the administration of the Territory. Undertakings
and understandings connected with these agreements have also from time to time been entered
into. These agreements, undertakings and understandings did not in all cases distinguish
between the rights and obligations of the Crown and the rights and obligations of the
Government of Northern Rhodesia in relation to Barotseland. But, following the conference, a
new agreement to which hon. Members have referred, the Barotseland Agreement, 1964, was
entered into between the Government of Northern Rhodesia and the Litunga, which was
intended to define the relationship between the parties when Northern Rhodesia becomes
independent and to supersede all existing obligations. The purpose of this Clause is to terminate
all existing rights and obligations both of the Crown and of the Government of Northern
Rhodesia under the existing agreements, undertakings and understandings, except those arising
under this agreement. Similarly, provision was made in the Uganda Independence Act 1962,
terminating agreements between the Crown and the kingdoms in Uganda. The possibility of
giving Barotseland the same sort of status within Zambia as the Kingdoms had within Uganda
was considered, but the parties to the 1964 Agreement decided otherwise. Under that
agreement, Barotseland, as the Right Hon. Gentleman said, is part of the unitary state of
Zambia. End of quote.
(TO BE CONTINUED)

Eugene Makai 2014