Vitalis Madanhi
Vitalis Madanhi

ON MARCH 26, 2013, the UK Court of Appeal handed down a ruling in which it had occasion to consider the recent past and present position regarding Zimbabwean asylum seekers. The case is referred to as SS and others.

In particular the court considered the impact of the decision in the case of RT Zimbabwe, RN Zimbabwe and the case of EM Zimbabwe which has been restated in the case of CM Zimbabwe which happens to be the present country guidance case to be followed in asylum matters regarding Zimbabweans.

It is a feature of all the seven appeals considered in the case of SS and others that the appellants were found not to be credible in the version of events they put forward to the tribunal. A further feature of these appeals is the extent to which such findings of want of credibility may impact on what the Secretary of State says is a question of fact common to each appeal: that is, whether it remains necessary for the appellants (if returned to Zimbabwe) to demonstrate loyalty to Zanu PF to ensure safety from persecution.

The Secretary of State says that the findings of lack of credibility do, or may well, impact on the ultimate determination of the asylum claims. Thus the issue of credibility was duly examined as key to the success and or otherwise of a claim for asylum.

The court in turn considered first the impact of the decision of RT (Zimbabwe). In order to properly explain where the parties are at issue and in order to determine the proper disposal of each of the appeals on their own particular circumstances, it was necessary first to consider the ambit and implications of the decision in RT (Zimbabwe).

In that case, each of the Zimbabwean claimants had been found (contrary to their protestations in some of the cases) not to hold any political beliefs; but it was also found by the tribunal that they could and would, if necessary, be able to demonstrate loyalty to President Robert Mugabe’s Zanu PF party and therefore there was no real risk that they would be subject to ill-treatment if returned to Zimbabwe.

However, the core decision of the Supreme Court, applying the principles laid down in HJ (Iran) v SSHD [2010] UKSC 31[2011] 1AC 596, was to the effect that there was no basis for treating differently a person who had no political beliefs, but who, in order to avoid persecution, would be obliged to pretend that he did, from a person who did have active political beliefs and who, in order to avoid persecution, would be obliged to conceal them.

A simple assessment of credibility becomes essential at all times when a claim is made. An appellant who has been found not to be a witness of truth in respect of the factual basis of his claim will not be assumed to be truthful about his inability to demonstrate loyalty to the regime simply because he asserts that. The burden remains on the appellant throughout to establish the facts upon which he seeks to rely.

 But care must be taken in respect of such an appellant who has chosen to put forward a wholly untruthful account in support of his claim. The standard of proof he must meet is not a demanding one. As was pointed out in GM & YT (Eritrea) v SSHD [2008] EWCA Civ 833, per Buxton LJ at paragraph 31:

‘In every case it is still necessary to consider, despite the failure of the applicant to help himself by giving a true or any account of his own experiences, whether there is a reasonable likelihood of persecution on return.’”

That lack of credibility may be of key importance in any given case seems to be borne out by the actual disposals of the four cases by the Supreme Court. RT was found to be credible. It was accepted that she was apolitical and that she would be returned to a milieu where there was a real risk she would face hostile questioning which she could not truthfully answer. It was for that reason that the appeal of RT was allowed. By way of contrast, the appeals of SM and AM were remitted in circumstances where each had been found not to be credible.

In the cases of SS and others the common thread has been the fact that the appellants were not credible at all and their appeals had been considered in different courts before the matters were eventually considered by the court of appeal. The court of appeal remitted back to the Upper tribunal for reassessment. A quick summary of all the material issues in each case is outlined below highlighting matters requiring further evaluation. The material matters arising should be considered and effectively dealt with by anyone seeking to make an asylum claim afresh and or on appeal.


In the case of SS, permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal was refused by the Upper Tribunal. Permission to appeal was granted by Sir Richard Buxton on 19 July 2011 on the basis that, having regard to RN (Zimbabwe), the ambit of the approach based on credibility raised a point for consideration and also on the basis of the subsequent developments in the RT (Zimbabwe) litigation as to whether a person should be expected to lie about his political beliefs.

The court then ruled that the appeal should not be dismissed outright. First, it may be necessary (among other things) to consider the true extent of SS’s political convictions: his sur place MDC activities were described as being solely to bolster his claim (as well as being found not likely to attract attention). The evidence could be consistent with him being in truth a continuing Zanu-PF supporter (and so not required to lie if questioned): but no express finding, either way, on that point has yet been made. Further, more consideration may be needed as to the milieu of his return, since that might bear on the risk of his being interrogated at all.


This client had limited surplice activity in support of her asylum case. But there was no finding that such (limited) sur place activities as she undertook had come or would come to the attention of the authorities, indeed the implication of Immigration Judge Chambers’ decision was to the contrary. Nor was there any finding that she was not, or would be perceived not to be, associated with the regime. But the court observed that, where PN’s own evidence in all material respects was disbelieved and where (in the light of RT (Zimbabwe)) it can be said that further findings were needed, including on the issue of milieu, one cannot say that the appeal would be bound to succeed. EM (Zimbabwe), as restated in CM (Zimbabwe), was the applicable country guidance and would create a huddle for JS.


This case too was remitted to the Upper Tribunal. The Immigration Judge found that the sur place activities would not become known. But the Immigration Judge did not, apparently, regard that as conclusive and went on to say that in any event the authorities would be “likely” to find such activities as “insincere”. The court observed that the Immigration Judge did not (because of the view she took) make a finding as to whether BC was indeed a Zanu-PF supporter in reality and so did not consider whether she would be required to lie or be unable to demonstrate loyalty if stopped.


It is to be noted that SM had accepted that he had once been a Zanu-PF member and had formerly worked for the government in its security unit. It may be that findings are required as to whether or not he was in truth still a Zanu-PF supporter, or at least likely to be perceived as such: and to explore whether he would be at any real risk of being stopped and interrogated or (if so) whether he would be required to lie or be unable to demonstrate loyalty. Questions of any risk would need also to be assessed by appropriate findings as to the milieu to which he would be returned.


There was no consideration made about whether this appellant would be required to lie to assure his safety. It may well be said – as Ward LJ did – that a first step would be to assess whether he would be at risk of being stopped and interrogated: and it could be said that the findings of fact thus far tend to gainsay such a risk.

It cannot possibly be said that the appeal, if remitted, would be bound to succeed: indeed the findings thus far made suggest serious problems for SC’s case. In any event, the true extent of SC’s political convictions remains to be explored, as does a full assessment of the milieu to which he would be returned. It may also be noted that he has a mother and siblings and family network in Zimbabwe, who it is said have suffered no persecution; and the Immigration Judge had found it would be safe for him to return to them. This case was also remitted to the Upper tribunal for a rehearing on these points.

CM (Zimbabwe)

This determination of the Upper Tribunal (Blake J, Upper Tribunal Judge Lane and Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Campbell) was promulgated on 31st January 2013. This is presently the current country guidance case on Zimbabwe. Basically it restates the case of EM Zimbabwe. It is of course a most detailed determination, with voluminous appendices.

i) The country guidance in EM (Zimbabwe) on the position in Zimbabwe as at the end of January 2011 was not vitiated. It was held that the tribunal had there been entitled to find that there had been durable change since RN (Zimbabwe).

ii) The only change required to the EM (Zimbabwe) country guidance arose from the Supreme Court decision in RT (Zimbabwe): see para 214.

iii) It was found that there was cogent evidence of a downward trend in politically motivated human rights violations in Zimbabwe; and there was no evidence to suggest that the nationwide findings made in RN (Zimbabwe) with regard to the risk of having to show loyalty to Zanu-PF continued to apply (paras 194-195).

The determination in CM (Zimbabwe), in effect endorsing the country guidance given in EM (Zimbabwe), makes it difficult for the appeals remitted to the Upper tribunal to succeed. Clearly there are – in the light now of CM (Zimbabwe) – potentially formidable obstacles in the way of each appellant. Their cases remain to be assessed on their individual facts, in the light of RT (Zimbabwe) as well as of the country guidance contained in EM (Zimbabwe) as restated in CM (Zimbabwe). In all the circumstances any one claiming asylum should take note of the above analogies and what the courts actually look at and to be credible as this is also important.

Vitalis Madanhi is the Principal solicitor of Bake and CO Solicitors, a firm specializing in Immigration and asylum law in Birmingham, UK. He can be contacted at vmadanhi@bakesolicitors.co.uk, Phone 01216165025, mobile 07947866649 www.bakesolicitors.co.uk

Disclaimer: This article only provides general information and guidance. It is not in any way intended to replace or substitute the advice of any solicitor or advisor. Each case depends on its facts. The writer will not accept any liability for any claims or inconvenience as a result of the use of this information. /NEWZIMBABWE

Wynter M Kabimba

I was disheartened to read the Sunday Post Newspaper editorial of 20th October 2013 which falsely claimed that “Bemba tribalism” is at the core of demands by ruling Patriotic Front (PF) members to have embattled Secretary General Hon. Wynter Kabimba disciplined based on petitions from all 10 provinces and 2 members of the Central Committee.

Strangely, the Post Newspaper is parroting the same divisive language of “tribal clique” and “corrupt PF Cabinet ministers” used by Kabimba and Vice President Guy Scott which have badly dented the image of PF and government.

It is also deeply regrettable that the Post Newspaper chose to discredit a great leader, freedom fighter and former Republican Vice President late Simon Mwansa Kapwepwe (MHSRIP) through their futile attempts to defend and promote their friends Guy Scott and Wynter Kabimba.

The Post’s revisionist view that late Simon Kapwepwe was popularly elected as UNIP and Republican Vice President only by Bembas only is both factually and historically incorrect, unless they are implying that UNIP was a “Bembas only” party – ask Dr. Kenneth Kaunda and other freedom fighters like Simon Zukas!

In a democratic dispensation, unlike the one party State Kaunda imposed on Zambia later on, late Simon Kapwepwe and Harry Mwaanga Nkumbula would both probably have been freely elected President of Zambia if they had been allowed to exercise their God-given right!
Paradoxically, the Post’s false and misguided “Bemba tribalism” claims also echoed by their surrogates like Fr. Luonde came on the same day that Kabwata MP Hon. Given Lubinda published a lengthy letter in the Sunday Mail of 20th October 2013 explaining how Wynter Kabimba labeled false accusations against him to hound him out of PF, with only Sylvia Masebo being the key witness, and how Wynter served both as Accuser and Judge in his case.

Yet, in spite of the obvious miscarriage of natural justice against him by Kabimba’s devious schemes, Lubinda never cried wolf by claiming that his persecution was tribal or racial in nature, and Post Newspaper never stood behind him.

Oddly, Wynter and the Post even supported PF cadres like Kabwata PF Constituency chairman Silubanje and others who demonstrated against Lubinda claiming they were exercising their democratic rights!

The Sunday Mail of this same date quotes Home Affairs Minister and PF Disciplinary Committee chairman Hon. Edgar Lungu as challenging Scott and Kabimba to excuse themselves from the PF if they felt it was tribal or corrupt, saying“…you can’t hunt with fox and play with rabbits!”

In the Sunday Nation on the same day Finance Minister Hon. Alexander Chikwanda again refuted these senseless allegations by the Post and their preferred PF leaders stating that Wynter Kabimba is both Bemba and Sala by parentage and “…how can we work against our own?”

When people feel politically pressured and weak due to their lack of genuine popular mass support and base, they resort to “playing victim” employing tactics like tribalism, clanism, racism etc. Indeed “Uwawa tabula kabepesho” (he who has fallen lacks no excuse!).

Instead of defending themselves against their accusers and rallying people to their side, the Post and their preferred PF leaders, like desperate drowning men, are trying to pull everyone down with them to destruction due to their ulterior motives – Ukufilila munsenga!

Is the Post telling us that Wynter’s accusers, Central Committee members like Hon. Jean Kapata (North Western province)and Onat Kamayoyo (Western province) all Bemba? Is PF Deputy SG Bridget Atanga, who expelled Wynter Kabimba’s person Situula Sikwindi Bemba? Is Hon. Given Lubinda Bemba?

Is Hon. Edgar Lungu Bemba? What other excuses, apart from feeble accusations of “Bemba tribalism”, do the Post Newspaper, Guy Scott and Wynter Kabimba have?

Zambians should not forget that the Post Newspaper’s crusade as spokespersons for Wynter Kabimba and Guy Scott is only for self-preservation and to protect their narrow “interests.”Surprisingly, this same newspaper kept insulting President Sata as a “Bemba tribalist” while in opposition, while Sylvia Masebo was insulting Mr. Sata even as late as 2 years ago! Talk about political opportunism! They now claim in their editorials to be President Sata’s greatest praise singers.

The Post newspaper always maliciously labels those who stand against their peculiar agenda “Tribalists” or “Corrupt” – they labeled late President Chiluba, who actually picked Levy Mwanawasa over his fellow tribespersons Emmanuel Kasonde and Michael Sata to succeed him as President, a tribalist.

And they also called late UPND leader Anderson Mazoka and former President Rupiah Banda “tribalists.” One would also wonder why a so-called “private” newspaper like the Post is so bitter and fully immersed in PF’s intra-party partisan wrangles, thus losing all sense of objectivity and independence. Can they tell the nation if they are an appendage of the PF which serves the interests of “their chosen leaders?”

I urge all well-meaning patriotic Zambians to condemn in the strongest terms possible the Post Newspaper’s careless and dangerous “Bemba Tribalism” mantra which can divide the country and plunge it into untold chaos like what happened in countries like Kenya, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Somalia, Rwanda, Nigeria, Yugoslavia, Sri Lanka, etc. This self-serving newspaper’s narrow and “partisan” agenda is only for self-preservation at the expense of party and national unity.


Lusaka, Zambia: Lusaka City Council - Civic Centre - Independence Avenue - photo by M.Torres

Dear Editor, I write from Italy.


“I write from Italy to thank the Ministry of Tourism, Zambia Tourism Board, Zambia Embassy in Rome, for the great help and their willingness to resolve my case of fraud devised by Mr. Clifford Zulu (Zambia Travel Centre TO – Lusaka) in August 2009.

Due to their continued support and caring, after 4 years everything has been resolved. These are the words I wanted to write, I wanted thanks Zambia Authorities, but unfortunately it is not. I must however thank Hon. Mr Nickson Chilangwa, the only person in Zambia who helped me actually to recover all the money unjustly stolen from Mr Clifford Zulu. This result was achieved thanks to help of Hon Mr. Nickson Chilangwa, with his financial commitment of all quote.

What saddened me was the complete lack of contact Authorities in Zambia (Zambia Tourism Board, Ministry of Tourism, Embassy of Italy in Lusaka, Zambian Embassy in Rome, etc..), that they thought the time would erase everything, deciding do not help me with their silence, very wrong their thought! Hon. Mr Chilangwa was to me in the past strongly criticized because has as a collaborator in its ZAMSAF TO, his travel agency, Mr Zulu, the fraudster, but it has proven much more willing to solve my unfortunate case.

I hope that my misadventure associated with other cases of fraud by tour operator local Zambia Authorities make people think, if you want to invest in tourism, serious and honest. Honestly, for me there will be another chance to visit your beautiful country, because at the moment I’m not convinced of the seriousness of the competent authorities of the tourism sector, and these four years have given me quite right. Good Luck Wonderful Zambia!!!!””

Best Regards, Mr Roberto Tartaglia

Mr. Banda
Rupiah Banda

By G.Usenga

Mr. Banda
Rupiah Banda
When Rupiah Banda was president and he told off the donors to pack their bags and go,Sata who was opposition leader that time condemned this and even write the letter to the donors and commissioners over RB remarks.

Here is what the Post Newspaper

Sata writes Rupiah over his attacks on donors

PATRIOTIC Front (PF) leader Michael Sata has stated that the departure of donors from Zambia will not make Frederick Chiluba innocent in the eyes of the world.

And Sata stated that it did not take any donor to convince Zambians that President Rupiah Banda’s defence of Chiluba was a matter of personal interest.

In a letter to President Banda dated August 28, 2010, which was also copied to the US Ambassador to Zambia, British High Commissioner to Zambia and the European Union (EU) leader of delegation, Sata condemned President Banda’s unwarranted attacks on the donor community.

“On Thursday 26th August 2010, the ZNBC television channel showed a clip during the 19:00 hours news in which you unleashed a scathing attack on the donors for their comment on the non-registration of the Chiluba London judgment by the High Court of Zambia two weeks ago. This was after your comments while in Southern Province this week when you urged the Zambian people to accept the refusal by the High Court to register the judgment in question as being a good judgment,” Sata stated.

Michael Sata
President Michael Sata

“Since you became the Republican President of Zambia you have personally spearheaded the campaign together with your Vice-President vilifying me in the government print and electronic media that I did not understand and/or appreciate the role of donors and the importance of foreign investment in the social and economic development of our country.
“You have portrayed yourself as a ‘darling’ of the donors in the eyes of the donor community and the Zambian people. You have attempted to make them believe that I was against Chinese investment in Zambia by distorting my views and the stance of the Patriotic Front. However, you have promoted this self-righteous image for as long as your hold on power was not under threat from the opposition political parties as it seems to be the case now.”

He told President Banda that it did not take any donor to convince the Zambian people that his defence of Chiluba in all of his plunder cases was a matter of personal and not public interest.

“As your political consultant we do not expect you to allow Mr Chiluba to be subjected to any unfavourable judicial orders by our courts of law. But in doing so you must also allow others with divergent views to freely express themselves over these matters of public interest,” Sata stated.

“It is not the departure of the donors from Zambia which will make Mr Chiluba innocent in the eyes of the world. Your unwarranted attacks on the donors are, therefore, uncalled for and the people of Zambia and the donor community all deserve an unreserved apology from you personally.”

On Thursday, President Banda launched scathing attacks on the donors and Zambians who are demanding an appeal against High Court judge Evans Hamaundu’s decision to throw out the application by the state to register the London judgment against former president Chiluba.

President Banda, who described the donors’ actions as colonialism or neo-colonialism, asked them to pack their bags and return to their countries instead of “sticking their noses in our business to try and influence the elections.”

However, the British government on Friday stated that the London judgment was still in force and had not been overturned.

British High Commissioner to Zambia Tom Carter stated that the British government had, however, not made any public comment on the issue of the registration of the London judgment in Zambia.

So Rupiah Banda,like Sata that time,is very right to have apologized by writing the apology to the people concerned.Infact, Rupiah Banda’s letter is more human and diplomatic  than the Letter Sata wrote to him (RB) and the donors.

What goes around comes around!

Michael Sata
President Michael Sata

Letter to the Editor

Michael Sata
President Michael Sata

Our president, Michael Sata, has for sure without any doubts manifested high deficiency in both diplomacy and respect for others. For quite some time now, many Zambians have complained over the crude behavior and character exhibited by this President.

To some place where he has gone, diplomacy has never been portrayed and has manifested the behavior which doesn’t befit the president of any country.

I know some Zambians especially some cadres really get amused with such behavior and they see nothing wrong with it.

I have argued with some few individuals in the streets of Kitwe and have expressed some sort of happiness to the way the president talks to other people especially leaders.

Several times the president has humiliated his own ministers publicly by either denouncing them harshly or telling them off. Recently at the state house he humiliated the learned Justice Minister, Sebastian Zulu who couldn’t show up to provide a report on NAPSA commission of inquiry.

Even the Post Newspaper which supports him has denounced his type of non-diplomatic and humiliating behavior.

I quote what the Post Newspaper wrote on Sata’s humiliation of Sebastian Zulu by its columnist Sishuwa Sishuwa on Wed 18 Apr. 2012, he wrote:

“THE relationship between President Michael Sata and his Cabinet ministers is raising serious concern among many people. Last week, the Commission of Inquiry that was set up to investigate former communications and transport minister Dora Siliya’s cancellation of a contract to deliver airport surveillance radar equipment presented its findings to the President.In receiving the report, President Sata publicly condemned it as “useless” and wondered if commission chairperson, Sebastian Zulu, who is also Minister of Justice, was trying to protect Siliya.

“Later, the same week, Sata refused to receive another report from the Napsa Commission of Inquiry that was tasked to investigate possible irregularities in Napsa’s purchase of land from Meanwood Properties for US$98 million.

“The President’s justification was that Commission chairman, Sebastian Zulu, was not present at State House to hand it over to him. Sata deferred the presentation of the report but only after making an off-the-cuff statement that it has ‘a lot of dust which has been swept under the carpet’. What do we make of all this?

“First is that the frequency with which President Sata is making off-the-cuff remarks is unprecedented and a matter of grave concern. The phenomenal rate at which he is issuing needless pronouncements at the official receipt of Commission reports raises serious questions about whether or not the President has advisors, the nature of these advisors and their competence.

“There is no space here to review the President’s many slip-ups in the past seven months, but what is irrefutable is that most of the mistakes that he has authored since his election have resulted from off-the-cuff statements.

“Who really advises Sata? Or is it that it is Sata himself who does not seek and listen to professional advice? Whatever the case, there is urgent need for those who have been tasked with advising our President to tell him that off-the-cuff speeches are reducing his standing and that of his office in the eyes of many.(end of quote)

“Such type of manners are very crude and don’t show that he has any regard for other people’s feelings and status.

“Don’t forget that Mr. Sata humiliated the former inspector general of Police Martin Malama openly right on Public media ZNBC Television like a very small child. The president publicly rebuked the newly-appointed inspector general of police Martin Malama for not quashing the secessionists’ attempts to form “a state within a state”.

“Mr Sata can surely say anything at any time and anywhere.


Whenever, Mr. Sata leaves Zambia to the diaspora, we are always worried of what next will come out from the unpredictable character.

When our president Sata was in Botswana he forgot that he was in a different country and told off the Zambians living in Botswana including demeaning the Botswana government.

Most media organizations reported except the government controlled ones. Even the some media houses in Botswana, Zimbabwe, South Africa reported the displeasure of many Tswana as a result of Sata’s uncontrolled tongue.

For instance, NewsdzeZimbabwe, 28th March, 2012 reported on how unhappy Botswana MPs were with the Sata’s sentiments to their residents and citizens.

I quote,

President Michael Sata is said to have said:

‘All of you who are here with fake questions am very disappointed with you and embarrassed, are you not even ashamed of yourselves? You ran away from Zambia and thought we couldn’t find you and now today we have caught you. You are refugees in Botswana being exploited by the Botswana Government. You left Zambia to come and work here for an extra K1?’…end of quote

Definitely what Sata said to those professional is his honest opinion. We argue that he broke all the rules of diplomacy, more so that he was in a foreign land. We expect visiting heads of state to carry themselves in a certain manner, but not the way Sata did when he addressed his countrymen in Gaborone.

How can a sensible person a president for that matter, would say some thing like that to his citizens who excitedly flocked to meet and talk to him, as their president only to be greeted with several insults. So we never knew that Botswana government is exploiting Zambians in Botswana. But then to be factual, the Zambian professionals in Botswana are far much better paid than the Zambians in Zambia.

The latest hit of Sata’s antics fell on the former USA president, George.W.Bush.
The treatment which Mr. Sata. gave the former US president was extremely embarrassing and humiliating to G.Bush, Americans and Zambians.
What picture is being portrayed to the world on the type of new Zambia?

This crude and lack-of-regard behavior by our president is not for this century but for sure befits the stone age era where people saw themselves as enemies.
It is not only that this was George Bush but Mr. Sata has for a long time now has shown a very undiplomatic conduct decorated with filthy words towards other people and leaders.

By today Zambia has the worst and very embarrassing president in the world apart from Mugabe. Despite being bad Mugabe is more diplomatic than this type of character.

Mr. Sata should have just chosen to ignore George Bush instead of inviting him at the State just to humiliate this American.

We know that Sata is a very courageous man, just like the Cobra itself, but he must know when to apply his courage and to which people.
Laing.A.Johanesberg on Telegraph.co.uk 07/07/2012 reports that,

George W. Bush, the former US president, has received a dressing down from Zambia’s Michael Sata over the colonial legacy of Western countries whom he accused of “abandoning” Africa having stripped it of its natural resources.Mr Bush arrived in the southern African country last weekend with his wife Laura to promote the work of their cervical cancer prevention foundation, and paid a courtesy visit to the president at Lusaka’s State House. There, Mr Sata, known as King Cobra for his sharp tongue and quick temper, told the 66-year-old Texan that his charitable efforts represented “payback time for colonialists”. Mr Sata, 75, also complained about “the young man” Mr Bush being late for their meeting, adding that were he not bringing money to Africa, he would not have waited.

Do you call this joking…how about this these Sata’s words as reported by Zambia Reports

President Sata also expressed anger at Bush for keeping him waiting at State House. President Sata walked to the State House main entrance and , holding his hands in the pocket, told United States Embassy public affairs officer Priscilla Hernandez that he did not like being kept waiting.

“I cannot be waiting here. He [Bush] is former president; he is not the current president [of the United States] so I cannot be waiting for him. I’m not an American for me to be waiting for him, and I don’t intend to be an American,” President Sata told Hernandez as Bush’s security kept communicating with their colleagues who were with Bush on their way to State House.

“The young man is lucky that he is the first American leader to have brought money to Africa through his Millennium Challenge [Account]; that’s why I’m standing here. Otherwise if it was somebody else I would have handed him over to one of my ministers to meet him.”(end of Quote).

You can Google in easily and see the rest of the Drama.

Finally, it has become clear that His excellency,Mr.Sata has a serious diplomatic problem which we as Zambians really need to work on. If this guy is left free with his crudeness, it will destroy all that we have worked for, for a long time, which is peace. How can it be if the chap goes outside the country then gets humiliated?

Iam sure with his character of being shameless; he can feel nothing at all.

Let his church mates, Archbishop Mpundu, Frank Bwalya, Mwewa etc who tirelessly campaigned for this non-diplomatic character sit him down advise and pray for him to cast away the evil spirits controlling his life. Otherwise many Zambians when things go bad just as the way we are seeing things, they will rise against you, the catholic clergy who were his campaign managers and advisers.

This is U.Gaga
Concerned Zambian

Prophet T.B. Joshua
Prophet T.B. Joshua
Prophet T.B. Joshua
Prophet T.B. Joshua

By Ihechukwu Njoku

Controversial Nigerian Prophet T.B. Joshua has hit the pages of newspapers again – this time in the United Kingdom – after rising boxing star King Davidson revealed that he had prophesied his victory in a recent world title bout in Southampton, UK.

Nigerian cum Australian boxer King Davidson revealed to UK Newspaper, ‘The Daily Echo’ that Prophet T.B. Joshua was the inspiration behind his WBO International light middleweight victory on Saturday 30th June against Ghanaian fighter Joseph Lamptey, and had predicted in the early stages of his career that he would become a world champion.

King Davidson

According to the report titled ‘Nigerian Prophet T.B. Joshua Predicted King Davidson’s WBO World Title Win’, “Joshua has backed Davidson, both financially and spiritually, and called the Southampton-based fighter moments before he entered the ring to defeat Joseph Lamptey and win the WBO title.”

Davidson said: “He called me five minutes before my fight and said, ‘Be very careful of your opponent; he will try and hit you in the stomach.’ He then asked me what I would do if someone tries to fight like that. I told him ‘to put up a good guard and keep out of reach.’ He then said ‘You’ve got the key, now just do it. I know you will win.’ It inspired me to go out and win. I want to thank him so much for following me throughout my career; everything he has said about me has come to pass.”

It took Davidson less than 15 minutes to gain the title, after knocking out Lamptey in the final stages of the second round. Davidson, who is a Commonwealth Games bronze medallist and tipped as a real contender for the WBO world title, said that Joshua, whose activities are followed by millions across Africa on Emmanuel TV, had actually prophesied his ascent to world recognition in boxing. “He said to me I would become a world champion. He told me from the start that this is written in the heavens and no one can change this destiny other than me if I take the wrong path in life.”

According to online sources, before Davidson’s encounter with Joshua, his career was experiencing major setbacks. After being scheduled to fight, he would sustain an injury that would force him to withdraw. These recurrent injuries prompted his promoters to write him off, casting a great pall of doubt on his career. However, after watching Joshua on Emmanuel TV and visiting The Synagogue, Church Of All Nations (SCOAN) in Nigeria to receive prayer, his career began to turn around.

His victory over Ghanaian Lamptey has guaranteed Davidson will rise to the top 15 in the world WBO rankings, putting him on course to eventually challenge for the full version of the world title, which is currently held by Zaurbek Baysangurov. He has now won 15 of his 16 professional fights, nine of them being won by a knock out. According to the article, Davidson is also preparing a return to his native Nigeria to stage a fight. “He is adamant he would like to make one defence in Nigeria, in front of T.B. Joshua, and then hopes to quickly follow that up with another big fight back in Southampton.”

Davidson’s revelation is not the first from a sportsman testifying to Joshua’s prophetic insight. Ghanaian football coach Sellas Tetteh publicly said that Joshua had given him prophetic direction during the Black Satellites remarkable victory at the 2009 FIFA U-20 World Cup. He is also said to be behind the rise to stardom of Sani Emmanuel, the MVP of the FIFA U-17 World Cup and altar boy in The SCOAN, who is currently playing for SS Lazio in Italy. Joshua also prophesied, against all odds, the remarkable victory of Zambia in the African Cup Of Nations in 2012, specifying Didier Drogba’s shocking penalty miss in the final.

T.B. Joshua has become a household name in many African countries due to the immense popularity of his Christian television station, Emmanuel TV. Numerous African politicians and personalities have visited his church in Lagos, including Malawian President Joyce Banda, Ghana’s John Atta Mills and Zimbabwe’s Morgan Tsvangarai.

SOURCE: The Daily Echo -http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/9797718.Nigerian_prophet_predicted_King_s_world_title_win/?ref=nt

Ihechukwu Njoku is a freelance Nigerian journalist.

By by Sakala Jacob

I was reading one of the articles in one of the tabloids in our Zambian papers after the recent President’s visit to UK which allude to the Zambians in attendance at the meeting to have come from Nursing Home jobs in a derogatory manner.This prompted me to shade some light on what a Nursing Home is and what is involved.

Nursing Home

In the developed world,the UN employment rate is very small they are highly industrialized to an extent that even the 18 year olds are absorbed in the job sector.Because of the advance in medicine and good economies the life expectancy is very high for example UK -80.It is not uncommon to see 90 year olds walking the streets and going about life.People are living way into the 100s.Will not talk about our life expectancy.

Because of high industrialization,whilst we are able to look after our elderly for reasons already explained it is not always possible for the elderly to be looked after in their own homes in the developed world.They are prone to be left alone incur falls,dehydrate as they may not drink or cook for themselves etc.Reluctantly the families take them into Nursing Homes to be looked after so that they can be able to go about lives with the peace of mind that their Grand parent or father is being looked after by trained and qualified people.

Regularly they come in to check on them and spend time with them.They love their people just as much as we do.Its something they do not enjoy doing.Do we know were our senior citizens are in Zambia and under what conditions they live in?who regulates there care?do we have a prominent social services for the elderly?thus the bigger picture.

The biggest problem in the health sector today in the developed world is care for the elderly as they live longer.The longer they live the more ailments they incur.Dementia or mental illness being the commonest.The more medication they take the more Nurses they will need the more Carers.
The Nursing Home is therefore a well designed home for people who could as well be young e.g the disabled people whose needs cannot be cared for at home or the elderly who may have other ailments that entail 24 hours care.I have worked for 15 year old disabled people in a nursing home in England.Don’t we have Disables people in Zambia?how do we look after them?another Bigger Picture.

A Nursing Home has en-suite rooms for occupants,clean environment.Medical equipment that are to a standard of a clinic or hospital for managing the residents.it’s not a dumping place as it is insinuated.

Maybe because we do not grow old in Zambia old age is often ensnared at and those that care after the elderly are looked down upon.Time catches up with all,in a flush of the pan we grow old and we depend on other people to look after us and this is what it is.To mock anybody working in a Nursing Home looking after the elderly is missing the tangent and being cheap to the lowest core. We all do have our Grand parents our own fathers and mothers,we need to respect and set a good example to the young ones.For tomorrow our turn comes.

Reminds me of an old adage of a man who had a son 12 years old and kept his 90 year old Father.Every day the man quarreled with his wife who complained of how dirty the old man her in-law was,mucus from his nostrils,defecating and urinating in his pants etc making his house smell.The wife gave the man an ultimatum to chose between him and his 90 year old father.

The man decided to do away with his father,he got a wheelbarrow put the old man on it and asked his son to escort him to the River which was crocodile infested.He took the man there and tipped him into the river.After he had done that he said now we will have peace in the House he is gone no more arguments no more bad smells.The Son agreed with him but asked him just one more favor -to keep the wheelbarrow so that when he grows old too he can tip him in the same river.

The Nursing Home often employs a Nurse and a Health Care Assistant.The Nurse gives medication to the residents and sometimes a Health Care Assistant does as well if trained.Washing and cleaning someone vulnerable is a responsibility we all undertake even in our own homes,for a Nurse thus the reality thus part of the job we gladly do and swore to do even in Zambia.Nursing does not change just because it’s being practiced in England or Zealand,it has never been a white color job and will never be.Hence sticking our hands in the mud is part of the game whether on planet Mars or Pluto.

Nurses and Carers are respectable people in the western world who cannot be ensnared at by any ignoramus.The community is well vested in what they do even if they do not attract a footballers wage.Their job is very very important.

A Nurse in England earns a minimum wage of £12 per hour whether in a Nursing Home or Hospital whilst could even go up to £50 or £150 per hour on Agency or locum shift depending on day of the month,area of work etc.

A Health care assistant earns minimum of £6.50 per hour but could earn up to £15 per hour on Agency or locum.Varying Nurses with varying experiences and specializations are on varying salary scale.Would however not surprise me that they are Nurses who earn as much as £70,000 per annul.Now I know this is pocket money for sweets for a lot of people back home with farms and loads of building investments to show off for,but the point is these are British,Australian,Canadian or wherever developed country tax payers whose money is sent back to our country Zambia in the form of aid or donor funds and goes to enrich a few people’s pockets in the form of all manner of corruption.

Seminars,workshops,programmes and projects etc, working in a Nursing Home does not mean one is poor or impoverished?

Its a misconception which needs to be cleared.My Sister visiting me from home was of the view that only Zambians and other foreigners do these jobs,some form of slavery??another myth,the owners of the country do these jobs too and they are in the majority and the pattern of shifts and work hours are the same.What I can get out of this is that as Zambians we are not so entrenched into hard work,we are quick money orientated.We need a cultural re-orientation,to respect work no matter what type of work it is.

A Kamalasha (man who burns charcoal) deserves respect it’s a job as well.

The bulk of Zambian nurses practicing in UK or other developed countries have got dealings with Nursing Homes including myself writing the article.My most fulfilling role as a Nurse in my 21 years of nursing has been caring for the elderly,they are such a wonderful lot.The level of appreciation you get from caring for the elderly is so addictive.I work in hospitals in the United Kingdom and In Nursing Homes and I do not find any of the two inferior to the other.The care staff as well do an insurmountable job.The amount of ignorance is what boggles my mind and the perspective of what a job should be.Just as the old adage goes the richest place is the Grave yard as thus were a lot of unfinished plans lie;the Nursing Home for the elderly is the other.

It is always important to discuss the core issues of a subject matter without being derogatory.The developed world respects any job done by anybody.It is a world were a plumber gets married to a medical Doctor.Were a man who unblocks sewer pipes comes in a Mercedes Benz to work.A security guard is respected.If we respect every job in Zambia some of these retrogressive utterances will phase out of our mouths and we will focus on what builds the country.

I remember in 2001 Doctors were loaded on a truck in Lusaka and locked up in cells for striking and requesting for an increased supply in Medical and surgical supplies today most of those Doctors are abroad they left.Were they are they are treated like celebrities.Some people who are in Government today were in Government then when that was happening and a more re-conciliatory approach and apologetic approach would be expected in dealing with the Diaspora issues.Being derogatory does not help:and as PK Chishala sung “Ichalo lifupa bakolokotakofye bwasha.”We seem stuck in the past approach to issuea who loses out?not the people we target but the vulnerable people.

The world is like a bone enjoyed after a meal you cannot swallow a bone but only pick out the meat and the sinews,the bone is left and true we will all leave the bone in what state God knows.

Finally Dual Citizenship.This is a subject that all those who are into the future must support and those in the past may not support.My Dad who is 78 now for obvious reasons and obvious fears due to obvious old school of thought does not support.Modernity entails to allow dual citizenship.No country is an island Developed countries of the world entice the best skilled to be it’s citizens.We must as a nation retain the citizenry of our skilled citizens and entice the best to our country that will spur the nation forward.Examples are there for all to see:Ghana,Kenya,Brazil,USA,UK etc these nations are doing well.

Migration has taken place all over the world British people are in Australia and vice verse and so on and so forth.Even in the Biblical time-Abraham times people migrated-with Gods seal upon them.Lets not criminalize migration by being narrow minded.If I cannot control those in my household from leaving my little village in Kalabo going for greener pasture in Lusaka what more the Nation?

People will always migrate just as in our homes our children will choose to go and live with an Uncle.The best we can do is to thank the generous uncle for looking after our children and still insist they are still our children.


Written by Sakala Jacob
Registered Nurse Working in the United Kingdom.

By Joseph Sondashi

Allow me to express my thoughts on the issue of Barotse. It is heartening by the hitch the calls for secession have hit bearing that Zambia should remain a unitary state. There are grave consequences of allowing Barotseland to be a separate state from Zambia.

If Barotseland only included one tribe, maybe the calls for secession could have been tolerated. The fact that Barotseland includes other tribes both in western province and abroad makes the call for a separate state, a scary dream.

I am happy that this move has been condemned by the Nkoya Royal Establishment and the the Alliance for Democracy and Development (ADD) led by Charles Milupi, a Lozi and seasoned politician.

I don’t subscribe to secessions that have been simmering in many African countries like Kenya, Congo DR and Malawi as doing so is retrogressive and would not bring development to the troubled continent.

Politicians have always been instigators of tribalism, regionalism and other divisive practices that can drag the country into a political turmoil that would only be solved by the outside world.

I would like to reinvent the abandoned slogan mooted by Zambia’s founding party -UNIP of One Zambia, One Nation!

By Lubasi


The Litunga


Almost all ordinary people with origins in Western Province and those living in outside the province are rejecting the recent Barotseland resolution. How did the royals arrive at such a resolution? 90 percent of people in western province opposing BRE resolution.

As person from the province; I did not hear any local consultation about decision. I visit my home village outside Mongu, and I talk to my relatives living in the province, no one was consulted. So, “is BRE secede resolution a reflection of the people of western province?

The firstly, there are other tribes in the province beyond the Lozi. We have Nkoyas, Luvales, Nyengo, Chokwe and Mbundas. These tribes are not supporting this resolution to secede from Zambia. Yes, the Nkoya Royal Establishment decision as reported, reject BRE resolution and it the view which majority of the people in Western Province support. Word of mouth poll has about 90 percent of people in western province opposing BRE resolution.

Instead of putting pressure on PF MPs and Government to deliver on the campaign promises to bring development to the province and create opportunities to all people in the province; now all the energy will spent on a cause which is not supported by majority of the people. If BRE resolution called for new colleges, better roads and more better equipped hospitals in the province; everyone in Zambia would be supporting them today.

Legally, after 47 years of sealed agreement, the Royal establishment cannot abandon that agreement which they signed and agreed to follow. The agreement was to form one country between Northern Rhodesia and Barotseland. Action to secede was not part of the original agreement, therefore for the Royal establishment to start calling for “secede” breaks the terms of the BRE agreement. The only option stated in the agreement if issues or concerns arise in the agreement is to approach the Highest Court of Republic of Zambia. This means that the BRE will actually be in default if it continues to call to secede.

BRE must honour the agreement, which it legally signed just before Independence Day in 1964. The bottom line is the BRE agreement is valid and legal, and must be honoured by all signatories which the Royal Establishment and Northern Rhodesia (Republic of Zambia).

Today, people in the Western province enjoy the right to vote for elected leaders in Government of Zambia. So far, Barotseland agreement wants to take away that right. If secede, people would not be allowed to vote for leaders because royal families are not elected and would assignment themselves government positions in the new government for life. This is about royal families, not ordinary people living in the province.

Third, charity begins at home. With all due respect to the BRE, which development project can the Royals point to as having built for the people in Western Province in the last 47 years? Who built clinics or schools in the province? With all due respect, it will be a difficult task for BRE to take the role to build the province. Where do all the millions of Kwacha raised from the Annual Kuomboka ceremony go? Who benefits from this ceremony?

BRE resolution is not about ordinary people. The same families who have benefited from deals with past government want to increase their riches by holding all powers in the province.

Western province has other challenging issues. We need more colleges, better hospitals and build roads to connect peoples and markets. This Barotseland resolution is a total and big distraction from real issues of development. There is an opportunity now especially with the new Government, which has shown great interest in developing the province.

The entire country of Zambia should not be dragged into royal family secession problems. Let the royal families deal with their own issues. The people of western province are Zambians and will continue to belong to Zambia. The province has produced Ministers and MPs who held strategic cabinet positions in education, health and Agriculture, even a highest position as Speaker of Parliament. But these people forgot the province once elected and continue to stay in Lusaka. So, let’s blame those people for failing the deliver development.

I am proud to be a Zambian Lozi, married to a beautiful Mabwe-Tonga woman, living and working in Lamba land.

Kafue Province: The Background History
The following article is a petition submission that was re-submitted to His Excellency Mr. Michael Chilufya Sata, the President of the Republic of Zambia regarding the problems between the Nkoya and the Lozi.
Your Excellency,

Mr. Michael Chilufya Sata
The President of the Republic of Zambia,


Dear Your Excellency,

We the undersigned persons, being citizens of Zambia and committed to the security and peace of and in our beloved country, do hereby ( and on behalf of the Nkoya Royal Council, the Nkoya Ethnic speaking people) petition Your Excellency vis –a- vis the recent negative developments in Kaoma (formerly Mankoya) District.


Your Excellency Sir, the Nkoya People are deeply disappointed with the Government’s recent recognition of a Lozi by the name of Amukena as a Chief and later on as Senior Chief for the first time in the History of Kaoma.

This has greatly demoralized and injured the pride of the Nkoya People who now feel their own Government has not only sidelined them but has taken the side of the Nkoya’s long time tribal enemy who through deceit, manipulation, misinformation and deliberate lies have always portrayed Nkoyas as being anti Government. To these tribal cum political gymnastics by our enemies, the Government has been persuaded to punish the Nkoya people on all fronts namely:
1. Recognizing a Lozi not only as Chief but as Senior Chief to preside over the Nkoya tribe so as to frustrate the local Nkoya Chiefs in Kaoma District.
2. Dismissing Nkoyas from Government and / or quasi Government jobs so as to cripple them financially. This way Nkoya people will have no capacity to participate in the current capitalistic nature type of politics.
3. Endowing and empowering all other tribes loyal to the Lozi in Western Province.
How else can you explain the fact that out of more than 700 Government jobs, the Nkoya tribe does not feature anywhere in those jobs except one District Commissioner who has since been transferred out of Kaoma?
Those who purport to speak on behalf of the Nkoya People must be misinforming the Government that Nkoyas are anti Government and that therefore don’t deserve Government jobs, Diplomatic jobs and anything to do with Government.
Your Excellency, we the Nkoya people would like to work directly with you in your Government and not through other tribes who are misinforming Your Excellency that Nkoya people are their property. We are a distinct Ethnic group in Central Western Zambia now commonly referred to as Kafue Province and we deserve a fair share of dignity in Government.
Your Excellency, if it is not asking for too much, we would like to reproduce in this document the origins and the root causes of the historical conflict between the Lozi and the Nkoya so that once you appreciate these historical facts you will be able to challenge anybody who will attempt to mislead your office into doing their self bidding as the case is now over the recognition of a Lozi imposter called Amukena not only as Chief but as Senior Chief in Kaoma District – the known District of the Nkoya people- Our District.


1936: Prince Mwanawina half brother to the then Lozi Chief Yeta III, was sent to Kaoma (then called Mankoya) District as a Tax Collector in Chief Mutondo’s area.
1939: Prince Mwanawina started posing as a Chief which behavior the then Nkoya Chief Mutondo (Kanyincha) could not tolerate.
1940: The Nkoya Chief Mutondo (Kanyincha) complained to the then District Commissioner Croford who in turn reported to the Provincial Commissioner about the unbecoming behaviour of Prince Mwanawina.
1942: The Provincial Colonial Administration in conjunction with the District Administrator decided that Mankoya District should be separate from Barotse Province if peace between the two tribes Lozis and Nkoyas was to prevail. The ceremony to effect the separation of the two peoples was set for the winter of 1943 in the then Mankoya District.
1943: Just on the eve of the signing ceremony to separate the two areas, Lozi Agents arranged to assassinate Chief Mutondo (Kanyincha) through food poisoning which led to the passing out of Chief Mutondo. This rendered the signing ceremony irrelevant as Chief Mutondo was the other signatory to the separation process.
1946:Prince Muchaila the son of the late Chief Mutondo (Kanyincha) took his father’s reign as the new Chief Mutondo and immediately challenged the new traditional authority of the Lozis in Mankoya District through the entrenchment of Naliele Village as a Royal Post of the Lozis.
1948:The new Chief Mutondo (Muchaila) was discreetly (and without the prior knowledge of his subjects) deposed and sent into exile to Kalabo District for ten (10) years by a Lozi Kangaroo court. This the Lozi Royal Establishment said was punishment for inciting his (Chief Mutondo’s ) subjects to remove Prince Mwanawina from Naliele Village in Mankoya District.
1948: Prince Mwanawina was enthroned as the new Lozi Chief i.e. the new Litunga after the passing out of Imwiko Lewanika.
1949: The Lozi Royal Establishment unilaterally replaced Chief Mutondo (Muchaila) who had been sent into exile with a puppet Nkoya Chief Mutondo (Kalapukila). This action by the Lozis resulted into the deaths of several Nkoya men at the hands of the then Lozi Mafias called “KUNU” for opposing and resisting the enthronement of a puppet Nkoya Chief who was later to do the bidding for the Lozis in the subsequent years.

1950: During the summer of that year, the Lozi installed another Lozi chief called Siteketo at Naliele Village to replace Prince Mwanawina who was by this time the new Litunga of the Lozi. The new puppet Nkoya Chief Kalapukila was made to endorse Siteketo as Chief of Naliele village in then Mankoya District.

After the death of Siteketo, he was placed by Mwendaweli, followed by Litia and now the man called Amukena who has just been recognized by our Government as Lozi Senior Chief of not just his relatives at Naliele village but also a Senior Chief of the Nkoya people!


Your Excellency, the analysis of all these as seen from the Nkoya perspective is that the Lozis learnt the art of hegemony over other tribes in the current Western Province after they themselves had been victims of the Kololo under King Sebitwane’s war mongering who successfully drove them (Lozis) out of some parts of present day Southern Africa Regions south of the Zambezi River in the 19th century in 1845.

When the Lozis under the traditional leadership of Sipopa re-organized themselves with significant help of the Nkoya people 19years later, Sebitwane and his occupying Kololo forces were defeated and driven back further south of the Zambezi River.

This defeat of Sebitwane’s Kololo people by the Lozi traditional army led by Sipopa gave the Lozi another criminal impetus to launch indiscriminate killings of especially elderly persons in the expanded region around Mungulula area (now known as Mongu).
This area was originally occupied by the Nkoya tribe before the Lozi were conquered and were driven there from the south by Sebitwane’s army. It was so named Mungu after the staple food Mungulula (pumpkins) the Nkoyas used to feed on in those years. Mungu was derived from the long Nkoya name Mungulula (pumpkins).

It is therefore claimed by the Nkoyas of Old that in fact Lozis did seek refugee from the Nkoya as they ran away from the rampaging army of Sebitwane. The Nkoyas looked after them well. When the Lozi Royal Family fell ill and needed traditional medicine while in exile in Mankoya land, the Nkoya people provided and cured everyone right from the Royal Family to the very last common man. Sipopa the traditional leader who led the Lozi army to defeat Sebitwane’s army was trained in the art of hunting and warrior fighting by the expert Nkoya warriors and great legendary hunters of that time.

During those years and before the Lozis were forced into the present day Barotse Plains by the Sebitwane army from across the Zambezi, there were only four Chiefs in the present day Batotse Plains. These are:
1. Shihoka Nalinanga – Paramount Chief of the Nkoya People
2. Mange – Chief of the Kwangwa tribe
3. Libebe – Chief of the Mashi tribe
4. Imenda – Sub Chief of the Mbowe tribe
Smarting from his defeat of the Kololo under Sebitwane, the New Lozi Chief Sipopa started encouraging his warriors to systematically eliminate the native tribes who were refusing to accept his self appointed Chieftainship.

Among the tribes that, fell victim to this criminal and cruel project by Sipopa were the defenceless elderly Nkoya men – because the Nkoya people were the only tribe that refused to submit to the authority of these new Settlers in their native territory.

Over a period of time, the Nkoyas were increasingly growing uncomfortable sharing Mungulula (Mongu) with the hostile Sipopa. So Nkoyas of that area slowly but surely started migrating towards to the uninhabited lands and to join their other Nkoya relatives on the eastern side of the present day Mongu District.

This is the area which eventually became known as Mankoya District. This area was not assigned to the Nkoya People by another tribe but it was the Nkoyas who on their own volition chose to settle there if only this move would help reduce hostilities between the Nkoyas and the Lozis in the then Mungulula ( Mongu) District originally inhabited by the Nkoya People and the Kwangwa People.

This and the Chronology of events between 1936 and to date are some of the true historical facts which some of the current generation of Lozis will never admit.
This is because this type of history would sound malicious and demeaning to the Lozis current status and image which they have fraudulently built for themselves over a period of time.

Secondly, the records that the Lozis thought would work against their tribal project of dominance over other tribes were systematically removed from public eye especially those concerning Kaoma (Mankoya) District.

This destruction of vital history was done soon after Independence and the Lozis taking advantage of their numerical superiority in the field of European education which the obtained by selling Zambia through the redundant Barotse agreement which the obtained from a private company BSAC and using the plundered money and agreements to send to school only members of the Lozi Royal Family at the expense of other tribes and their God given heritage, the have quickly moved to rewrite the history of the Western Part of Zambia to suit their ego.


• The Defeat suffered by the Lozis at the hands of the Kololo’s Sebitwane in 1845 and the subsequent Lozis dramatic revenge defeat of the Kololo in 1864 under the new Lozi leadership of Sipopa spurred them to want to displace the tribes who had already settled in the present day Barotse Plains including Mongu (Mungulula) area.

• The Lozis were further encouraged by the British Colonial Government to feel superior over other tribes in the area when their new Litunga Mwanawina was in 1949 knighted “ Sir Mwanawina III” in appreciation of Mwanawina’s role during the World War II. During the World War II era, Mwanawina made material contributions to the colonial Government in the form of honey, elephant tusks, leopard and lion skins towards the cost of the World War. All these Mwanawina achieved through the efforts and labour of Nkoya hunters.

• At an early stage in the Nkoya – Lozi history, the Lozis saw the value of education which subsequently helped them to join and participate in the struggle for Zambia’s freedom. When Zambia attained its Independence in 1964, Lozis were already among the recognised pioneers of the freedom struggle and this earned them some political rewards by giving them high leadership roles that Lozis used to their advantage and benefit and at the exclusion of other tribes in the area. The Lozis used their new added political influence to suppress, to misinterpret, to misjudge and to erase any truths and history especially of the Nkoya ethnic group in Western Zambia.

• The Lozis did it during the 27 years of the Kaunda era, the repeated it during the Chiluba era and are aggressively misleading and manipulating our current Government through misinformation campaign to disadvantage especially the Nkoya people in all spheres of life. The Lozis are very good at wishing to be believed by the powers that be as the only torch bearers of other ethnic groups; or as a tribe that reports gospel truth about how other tribes in the current Western Province are anti Government of the day.

• In all these manoeuvres, the Lozis have always maintained a very consistent strategy namely that if the Government of the day does not deliver to them influential political leadership positions, they normally would put up their usual tribal secessionist stunts accusing such a Government of failing to recognize their infamous and redundant Barotse Agreement. But as and when the Government responds by delivering jobs to the Lozis as a nucleus tribe they now would use those influential positions to malign especially the Nkoya people so that in perception of the Government of the day the Nkoyas are truly anti Government.

• To this end, any Government that is prepared and willing to buy the Lozi machinations would swiftly proceed to disadvantage the Nkoya people socially, economically and politically. We believe this is what is happening to the Nkoya tribe today.

Soon after Zambia’s Independence in 1964, Lozis quickly moved in to impose their political authority on the whole of Western Province. Lozis believe they are superior and that all other tribes are subservient to them hence think that leadership must be under the Lozi custody. We think this is not correct but Government has allowed this scenario over a period of time.


The Barotse Plains are no longer tolerable to many Lozis of today. Even fishing which is a Lozi passion is no longer profitable. So the only safe haven for the Lozis in Western Province is fertile Kaoma District which happens to be the heartland of the Nkoya people. In order for the Lozis to gain easy access to fertile land of Kaoma the must first get the Nkoyas out of their way using whatever method at their disposal sometimes with the indirect help of the Government which seem bent on turning a blind eye to the tribal machinations of the Lozi.


A people’s identity is the realization of their language, their values, their life style and the fulfilment of the code of conduct that is unique to them.

In Kaoma District, Lozis in 1966 just 2 years after Zambia’s Independence in 1964 combined their intellect with deceit to dupe the Nkoyas under the pretext of wanting to update Nkoya literature (Books) into believing that the new Government had directed to have vernacular books updated. The ploy worked because Lozis managed to destroy all Nkoya books by fire. From then on, Nkoya children were forced to learn from Lozi text books instead. This single act completely destroyed the Nkoya identity and language in schools of Kaoma District.

In order to consolidate their language in Kaoma District, the Lozis have used their influence to push all Lozi teacher graduates into Kaoma schools and all Nkoya graduates have unfortunately been pushed out of Kaoma District.


• Eastern Province has two paramount Chiefs; Undi and Mpezeni and each of them has authority over their own ethnic grouping without imposing their respective authority on the other.

• In Northern Province Paramount Chief Chitimukulu does not infringe upon the freedom of Namwanga, Mambwe, the Lungu or the Bisa etc.

• In North Western Province each tribe have their Senior Chief who does not cross tribal borders to impose their respective authority over other ethnic groupings.

• It is only in Western Province where one Lozi tribe has been allowed hegemony over other tribes whose customary laws and traditions are different from those held by the Lozis and their Chiefs.


Your Excellency, our view is that the Government should be the parent of all Zambians, poor or rich, weak or strong and when the Government appears to gross over tribal problems such as those in Western Province, then there is a big problem in the offing because here we are talking above very grave violations of human rights, oppression and slavery committed by the Lozis against the Nkoyas. This silence by the Government, we can only hope shall not degenerate into the injured tribe employing acts of taking the law into their own hands.


Your Excellency, we have made this presentation in this manner because we feel that your office and through you Sir, our Government needs to see our perspective and correct the mistake of recognizing so called Chief Amukena as Senior Chief or even as mere Chief in Kaoma.

In view of our submission which is not entirely thorough anyway, we nevertheless wish to make the following suggestions and recommendations:

1. The Lozi Chief Amukena of Naliele Village under Chief Mutondo’s area in Kaoma District should be removed from Kaoma with the minimum of further delay and the village disbanded. Afterall the previous Governments of Zambia NEVER recognized a Lozi Chief at Naliele Village as a Senior Chief despite pressure and manipulation from the Lozis.

2. Chief Mutondo who is considered by the Nkoya as their Paramount Chief be officially recognized by the Government as the Senior Chief in Kaoma District.

3. The Barotse Royal Establishment should be advised by the Government to stop transferring Lozi villages from Senanga, Mungulula (Mongu) and Kalabo in a bid to turn the Nkoya into a minority tribe in their own district.

4. Government should seriously consider appointing Nkoyas to senior leadership positions in Western Zambia particularly in Kaoma District to ensure equitable representation and development. At the moment and in the past leader-ship positions in the current Western Province have been exclusively for the Lozis or if not other Zambians from outside the Province.

5. If Lozis resist these proposals as they have done in the past, then the Government should make a bold landmark decision by seceding Kaoma from Western Province which Lozis keep calling Barotseland. This is what the Colonial Administration had wanted to do in 1943.

Because Nkoyas are not Lozis, we have never and we shall NEVER EVER subscribe to the Lozi redundant and archaic concept of Barotseland Agreement. We have always supported the Government over this matter. We shall always be on the side of Government over this issue.

Your Excellency, we are fully aware that we are writing from a point of weakness purely because we lack the necessary political leverage over your Government but we trust that you will give us a hearing. We also trust that you will soon give us chance to work with you at all levels of political and civil leadership.

We remain committed to working for peace.

Yours faithfully,

Kafue Province Nkoya Royalists