MARK SIMUWE IS MISSGUIDED AND TOTALLY LOST OVER THE FACTS CONTAINED IN THE BAROTSELAND AGREEMENT, AM CHALLENGING HIM FOR A LIVE DEBATE
MARK SIMUWE IS MISSGUIDED AND TOTALLY LOST OVER THE FACTS CONTAINED IN THE BAROTSELAND AGREEMENT, AM CHALLENGING HIM FOR A LIVE DEBATE WITH ME ON PRIME TELEVISION SO THAT I CAN SCHOOL HIM OVER FACTS CONTAINED IN THE AGREEMENT – SAYS MUYUNDA MAKALA
UPND consultant Mark Simuuwe is misguided and completely lost because he doesn’t understand the facts contained in the annulled Barotseland Agreement 1964 (BA’64) and the consequences of terminating it. Yesterday, Mr. Simuwe exhibited total ignorance when he featured on Prime Television Zambia ‘s Oxygen of Democracy program; therefore, I challenge him to have a debate with me on the same program so that I can school and lecture him over the facts contained in the Barotseland Agreement. Economical difficulty is polluting the thinking of Mark wherein he is now pulling far away from truth and facts.
The issue of Barotseland is a
matter that is historically and
legal. Therefore, it is an issue that people
should not comment using their
feet but head without emotions. Historical facts both oral and written
relating to Northern Rhodesia and
Barotseland before and after the union
Agreement—BA’64—to form a unitary
state called Zambia are not far from our nose. They are taught in history as a
subject at secondary school level and in
the history of education at
college level. Historical facts in terms of
pictures and videos are lying
in the archive library of Zambia television
and radio. In 2011, the terms
and conditions of the BA’64 were
published in the Times of Zambia, the
Zambia Daily Mail, and the Post
Newspapers for seven consecutive days
for all to read, understand, and make
informed, sound and impartial judgment.
Thus, one doesn’t need to be a professor or have studied law to understand the facts that:
1. both Northern Rhodesia and Zambia
comprised of two distinct territories
2. Barotseland and North Eastern
Rhodesia;
3. the BA’64 is basis of the unitary state
of Zambia;
4. two of the three signatories in the
names of Mr. Kaunda represented
Northern Rhodesia government and Sir
Mwanawina III represented
Barotseland government;
5. none of the signatories represented a
province or a royal
establishment;
6. the BA’64 is a legal document;
7. the BA’64 is above the constitution,
laws and regulations of Zambia;
8. there are terms and conditions
attached the BA’64; and
10. the consequences of failing to comply with
the conditions of the BA’64 and
its unilateral abrogation.
Denying these facts, or pretending one
does not know them is as deliberate
as pretending not know that Kenneth
Kaunda was the first republican
President of Zambia. Therefore, it is only
a deceitful person who can argue
or deny the existence of the Barotseland.
Mark Simuwe says that there is no clause for secession in the Barotseland Agreement 1964. We challenge Mark Simuwe to show us the clause in the Barotseland Agreement 1964 which gives the Zambian government rights to abrogate it. Mark should know that secession does not apply on the Barotseland matter because Northern Rhodesia and Barotseland Kingdom were not one territory and that the Barotseland Agreement which was intended to associate Barotseland and Northern Rhodesia never entered into force. In addition there is no union act between Barotseland and Zambia, so secession does not apply.
_________________________________________
About the author: Muyunda Makala is a Good Governance Activist, a Barotse Political Activist, He is also one of the Barotse nationals who were arrested in 2011 by the Rupiah Banda Government regime over treason tramped up charges arising from the Barotseland self determination agenda following the abrogation of the Barotseland Agreement of 1964 by the Zambian Government.
For comments and feedback contact;
+260 971 554 551
Email: makalamuyunda@gmail.com
(@MakalaMuyunda Twitter/Facebook)