Find us on Google+

Friday, 30 March 2012

The Loss of Skilled Talent through the Brain Drain (Guest Blog)

African countries like Zambia are continually losing the very people they need to facilitate their economic, social and technological progress. This is perhaps the main reason why President Michael Sata recently called on Zambians living in Botswana, and in all countries worldwide as a matter of fact, to return home and help develop the country.

Between 1974 and 1985, for example, over 12,146 technical and professional personnel were admitted to the United States from various countries in Africa. And between 1993 and 1995, the United States admitted 32,317 of the continent’s skilled human resources. According to the World Bank Group in a 2005 publication, nearly 70,000 qualified Africans leave their home countries every year to work in industrialized nations.

Thursday, 29 March 2012

Corruption Watch (Various)

A number of recent "corruption watch" related news :

Former Zambia Postal Services Corporation (ZAMPOST) postmaster general, Paul Simfukwe, has been arrested for alleged abuse of K1.1 billion. He has been charged with abuse of authority of office, contrary to the Laws of Zambia. The charge is "in connection with his approval of renovation works done on house number 52/12 Mungule Road, Northrise in Ndola amounting to K1, 142, 135, 634.00 without following tender procedures”. Simfuke appearing before the local magistrate denied the charge.

Wednesday, 28 March 2012

Defaulting mining companies

Over 400 mining companies are facing the prospects of ceasing their operation in Zambia for failing to meet statutory obligations as required by law. The Ministry of Mines and Natural Resources has issued default notices to the companies specifying that they risk having their mineral processing or exploration licences cancelled if they do not remedy the defaults within 60 days starting from Friday, March 16, 2012:
“In accordance with provisions of section 102 of the Mines and Minerals Development Act number 7 of 2008, the director of Geological Survey hereby gives default notices to the under-listed holders of prospecting licences and mineral processing licences with the following defaults: Non-payment of area charges on the anniversary of grant, contrary to section 143 of the Mines and Minerals Development Act, failure to commence and carry out prospecting operations contrary to section 19 of the Mines and Minerals Development Act, and failure to submit quarterly and annual exploration reports, contrary to provisions of the Act….”
On the list includes First Quantum Minerals (FQM) Zambia Limited, Equinox Zambia Limited and ZCCM-IH, BHP Billiton World Exploration Incorporation Zambia Limited, Zhonghui Mining Industry Limited and others. The new government has signalled its intent to tighten the grip on statutory obligations.

Tuesday, 27 March 2012

Procedural fairness

Some fascinating reflections from Dani Rodrik on the importance of procedural fairness in analysing issues, in this context free trade. The point he continues to make is that people care not only about the outcomes but also how those outcomes are reached. Indeed often it is the how that trumps the what.

I was recently invited by two Harvard colleagues to make a guest appearance in their course on globalization. “I have to tell you,” one of them warned me beforehand, “this is a pretty pro-globalization crowd.” In the very first meeting, he had asked the students how many of them preferred free trade to import restrictions; the response was more than 90%. And this was before the students had been instructed in the wonders of comparative advantage!

We know that when the same question is asked in real surveys with representative samples – not just Harvard students – the outcome is quite different. In the United States, respondents favor trade restrictions by a two-to-one margin. But the Harvard students’ response was not entirely surprising. Highly skilled and better-educated respondents tend to be considerably more pro-free trade than blue-collar workers are. Perhaps the Harvard students were simply voting with their own (future) wallets in mind.

Monday, 26 March 2012

Energy Watch (Luapula Investment)

A Nigerian investment bank is partnering with Copperbelt Energy Corporation, which distributes power to mines in the financing and development of six new hydroelectric power stations worth over $1 billion. The project would have capacity of around 800 megawatts (MW). Among the projects include the $150 million Kabompo gorge hydro power project in north-western Zambia and five Luapula river projects estimated to cost $1 billion. The feasibility studies are underway with construction 2013/14. 

Saturday, 24 March 2012

Readers Weekly: How has PF performed in the last six months?

The PF led government of President Michael Sata has now clocked 6 months in office. It is usually the case the first few months in government sets the tone for years to come.

This week we asked our readers how well PF has performed so far and what the expectations are for the next six months. The following is a selected sample of “properly identified" responses.

Emmanuel Mutoya :
They are scoring success in some areas but missing the important issues especially the strength of the kwacha against major currencies that is affecting imports because they are now expensive though exporters are celebrating. This will in the end give a picture that Zambia has a trade surplus in the balance of trade account statistically for the people at Central Statistics Office I just hope they won’t be boasting about it because it’s hurting the economy a lot. For the student who wants to pay for his ACCA, CIMA, CFA or any other exam quoted in foreign currency, not to mention a lot of goods not available or produced by the small manufacturing sector we currently have.

Friday, 23 March 2012

Corruption Watch (ZAMTEL)

A recent media report that the team investigating plunder of national resources arrested a Zamtel official in connection with the K1 billion which disappeared from the company during the disturbance in operations at the height of the repossession of the telecommunications company by the government. More detail via The Post.

Thursday, 22 March 2012

Arguing against federalism properly

By Chola Mukanga

Wynter Kabimba (PF Secretary General) recently commented , "the population is small… the country and its economy are also small and can not be compared to countries like Nigeria and the United states of America which have huge populations… Zambia has not yet reached the level to move from central government to federal system of governance because of limited resources…". 

It should be immediately apparent to many people that Mr Kabimba, though he may have good reasons for his misgivings, has stated the argument rather poorly. There are a number of flaws, which all begin stem from his poor use of terminology. Mr Kabimba treats federalism as a uniform phenomenon, when in practice it is not. At the basic level federal structures are any structures that exist at two distinct levels – the “central” and “local”, each within a well defined scope so that it enjoys autonomy with respect to that scope. When that is understood it immediately becomes obvious that nearly all governments, including Zambia, have an element of federalism. The issue is the degree of federalism that is needed to support social and economic progress.

Wednesday, 21 March 2012

The Barotse Question - What Should Be Done?

By Mbita Chitala (PhD)  

Both the recommendation by the Rodger Chongwe Commission that the Barotseland Agreement be restored and the off the cuff comments by President Michael Chilufya Sata that he would not recommend that view to his cabinet, are both legitimate. The Chongwe Commission’s recommendation is anchored on the Commission’s interpretation of the law, namely, status of the abrogated Barotse Agreement 1964, while President Sata’s view is anchored on the political realism of the present day Zambia as a sovereign united nation. The challenge is to harmonize the two world outlooks and still end up with a united and prosperous Zambia.
There is generally little debate on the colonial history of Zambia. Between 1600-1800 when Bantu speaking peoples from the citadel of Bantu civilization in the Congo occupied Southern/Central and Eastern Africa displacing pre-historical peoples such as the Bushmen, Twa, and Hottentots, one could not reasonably define the boundaries that different Bantu nationalities occupied. This only became possible with European colonization which was effected during the late 1800s when major European powers claimed territories of influence on Africa. This scramble for Africa culminated in the Berlin Conference of 1884-6, when the whole of Africa was formally divided and shared by the colonial powers. The territory we started calling Zambia in 1964, was part of Land in Central Africa ceded to the British on 19th September, 1893 in a Land and Mineral Concession Certificate of claim signed by Henry Hamilton Johnson - the Commissioner and Consul General for the territories under British influence on behalf of British Government and witnessed by James Francis Cunningham - Manager of the African Lakes Company Limited and Lord Monteith Fortherington - the Manager of the African Lakes Company Limited. The whole Region was then known as British Central Africa. The name Barotseland was formulated by the British to distinguish the land where the Litunga Lubosi Lewanika I, rather than go to war like the other tribes to defend his area of influence, chose to sign an agreement with the British colonialists in which he ceded the land rights of his nationality peacefully to the colonialists.

The Barotse Question
The Barotse question has its origin with the Lochner Concession of 1887 and later the signing of the treaty in June 1890 when Frank Elliot Lochner as the representative of the British South Africa company (BSA) signed a treaty with the Litunga of the Barotse people for protection against slave traders and against war with the British. The Litunga in turn gave mineral exploration and mining rights in the land he claimed to control to the BSA company. These were the rights which the BSA company kept enjoying and extending at their will until they were revoked by the new Zambian government after independence.
The land of the Litunga where the Barotse people had sovereignty was first defined in 1878 by Litunga Lewanika (who ruled from 1878-1916 with one break in 1884-5). In describing the Barotse Nation, he described true Barotseland as the Land in the Zambezi River Flood plain and about 40km East of Limulunga and Senanga (Gann, Rotberg). This characterization is historically correct as it agrees with the fact which affirms that from 1864 when the Basotho led by Sebitwane and who spoke kololo and had ruled Barotseland since 1838 were defeated and expelled by the Barotse (who now spoke a lingua franca known as Lozi and in some quarters came to be referred to as the Lozi people), the Boundary of the Lozi Nationality was restricted to the Zambezi valley. It was an enclave on the Barotse plains.
In subsequent years, the boundary of what the British Colonialists named as Barotseland kept shifting and was extended unilaterally by conquest or request for protection as other Bantu tribes were brought and made subject peoples of the Barotse Nationality. Francois Collard of the Paris Missionary Society is quoted by Nicholas Katanekwa in an unpublished manuscript that Coillard described the boundary of Barotseland as being, “on the south, the Zambezi River and the Chobe River; on the west the 20th degree longitude east; on the north the watershed of the Congo and the Zambezi Rivers; on the east the Kafue River”. The principal tribes in these areas according to him were the “Mayeey (Mayei), Mashaiyo (Mashanjo), Mashi, Mawiko (North Western Mbunda), Makoma, Ba Moenyo (Mwenyi), the Baubale (Luvale), Barunda (Lunda), Balukoloe (Lukolwe), Ba Kaonde, Makoea (Mankoya), Liamba (Lamba), Mashikulomboe (Ila), Bawe or Matomoe, Malae (Leya), Ba Subiya, Mukuangoa (Kwangwa) and Matotela.
In the same paper, Katanekwa reported that: “According to Adolphe Jalla, another PMS Missionary in Barotseland at the signing ceremony there was gather from west and east the principle headmen of the tribes who acknowledged Lewanika’s power. They had come from the banks of the Lungwebungu, Luwoloshi, the Kapombo, etc. The Baubele and the Kapombo, etc. Jalla, further describes the boundaries of the Lozi Kingdom as, the Luvale and Lunda countries to the source of the Zambezi in the north, Kwito river to the Okavango in the west, the Chose to its confluence with the Zambezi and along the Zambezi to the junction with the Kafue River in the South. In the East along the Kafue River from its junction with the Zambezi to across the  hook. After the hook further to the west of the Kafue River, but east of the Lunga River”.
Other documents and peoples have given their own spatial differentiation of Barotseland. This includes such documentation and people like : the 11 June 1891 Treaty between Britain and Portugal; the Anglo – Portuguese Protocol of 1893; Major Goold Adams who in 1896 attempted to define the boundaries on behalf of the British; and, Major Robert Coryndon who was appointed in 1897 as the first BSA representative in Barotseland. All these interpretations appear to be subjective and had many omissions which Lewanika pointed out.
On 25thJune, 1898 at a meeting held at Victoria Falls, the Litunga Lewanika together with 7 of his Counselors and witnessed by 5 other people on behalf of the Barotse Nationality, signed with R.T Coryndon - representing the British South Africa Company - a concession in which he ceded Land to the BSA Company that included “the whole territory of the Nation or any future extension there of including all subject and dependent territory.” In term of Geographical Boundary, the Barotse Nationality’s Boundaries were defined as:
a)      Northern Boundary – from the Headwaters of the Dongwe along Kabompo Rivers to the junction of the Kabompo and Zambezi rivers.
b)      Western Boundary – from the junction of the Kabompo and Zambezi Rivers along the Zambezi River to its Junction with the Majili River.
c)       Eastern Boundaries – from the Junction of Zambezi and Majili Rivers along the Majili River to its head water hence northward along the line of the watershed at the Headwaters of the Dongwe River.
In 1899, the British through an Order in Council created a new territory with new boundaries and called it “Barotseland-North Western Rhodesia”. The territory comprised of Barotseland as variously defined and North Western Rhodesia which comprised of the lands of the lands of the Lunda, Kaonde, Mushukulumbwe, Toka, Lamba, Lenje, Swaka, Lala and Soli.   The territory was first administered from Lelui by Robert Coryndon but shifted later to Kalomo in 1902 and to Livingstone in 1907. In 1900, Litunga Lewanika signed a concession with the BSA co. which gave him certain powers according to Katenekwa:
[Lewanika] retained – Barotseland proper (excluding the Portuguese claim) whose boundaries ran from the junction of the Machili and Zambezi rivers northwards along the Machili river to its headwaters hence north ward along the line of the water head at the headwaters of the Dongwe river onwards to the headwaters of the Kabompo river, then along the Kabompo river, then along the Kabompo river to its junction with the Zambezi river thence along the Zambezi river to its junction with the Machili river – for the exclusive use of the Lozi and to be reserved from prospecting and white settlement. Lewanika also ceded the rest which had earlier been claimed as part of Barotseland in the East from the Machili River to the Kafue River in the lands of the Kaonde, Mashukulumbwe, and Toka to the Queen and Her Majesty’s government through the BSA Company.” [This became the Eastern Boundary of Barotseland].
In May, 1900, the North Eastern Order in Council created a new territory known as North Eastern Rhodesia  under the North Charterland Company made of lands of the Ushi, Ngumbo, Mukulu, Chishinga, Bwile, Tabwa, Eastern Lunda, Bemba, Lungu, Mambwe, Bisa, Namwanga, Tumbuka, Chewa, Nsenga, and Ngoni.  The control of these areas was achieved by forcing Bantu Chiefs to sign concessions or by force of arms, namely by war. This was what befell the Ngoni of Mpezeni, the Lunda of Kazambe and the Bembas. This territory was administered from Fort Jameson, now Chipata, up to 1911.
In 1900, Britain formally annexed Barotseland and governed it as part of North Western Rhodesia. The people of Barotseland enjoyed equal rights as all other peoples of the territory as the British declined to give any special status to Barotseland. Later, Lewanika appeared to have been troubled by the British claims over what he considered his land. In a letter of complaint by Lewanika to Coryndon dated 23 January, 1906 Lewanika reiterated what he had conceded to the BSA Company in the concession of 1900. In defining the territory where he had jurisdiction, that is to say, the boundaries of his Nationality “Barotseland”, he noted that his nationality comprised of” Barotse Valley and round Sesheke.” The letter acknowledging this fact was signed by Lewanika and witnessed by his Ngambela – Masika and Ford Aitkens.
Later in another concession dated 11th August, 1909, Lewanika extended his authority to include:
a)      The Country on the West lying between the Zambezi River and the Anglo Portuguese Boundary
b)      The Boundaries of Barotseland as defined in 1900
c)       North Western Rhodesia as defined by the BSA Company particularly the areas of Batoka and Mushukulumbwe countries in which according to Art 3 of the concession , Lewanika retained right to graze Cattle in unoccupied Lands.
The tribal and linguistic map of Zambia is also very clear on the identification of peoples of the Barotse Nationality. The Barotse nationality did not include lands of other tribes such as that of the Kuanga, Kuandi, Nkoya, Totela, Shanjo, Subiya, Toka, Leya Lumbu, Mashi, Kwandi, Nkoya, Totela, Shanjo, Subiya, Simaa, Ndundulu, Mbunda Nyengo, Mwenji, Makoma, Mbewe, Lovale, Lukolwe and Lushange. The Litunga and the Barotse people in general, having defeated the Kololo and who were now enjoying British protection, were concerned with keeping their original home as described in the 1900 concession inviolate. The Litunga and his people realized that with the advance of colonialism, they would no longer be able to retain any influence outside those initial boundaries. They wanted to protect the Barotse Reserve from European settlement. And this, they succeeded as, unlike the other areas under British rule, no European or Indian settlement was allowed and no private ownership of Land was ever permitted.
The claim by the Litunga Lewanika in his letter dated 11th August, 1909 that his authority included North Western Rhodesia, is not borne by historical evidence. At the time Lockner signed a concession with Lewanika in 1900, other Chiefs of other tribes of the British Central African Protectorate also signed concessions with another envoy of the BSA Company named Joseph Tomson. The concessions were so numerous that the British Government decided to issue to the BSA Company “Certificate of claim” for each area where Tomson had signed concessions with chiefs who could not be identified . The areas were identified as A, B, C, D etc and the Company built forts in those areas such as Fort Rosebury and Fort Abercorn representing present day Mansa and Mbala respectively.
The area covered by certificate of claim ‘’A’’ which included present day Copperbelt, Central and parts of Eastern, Southern Provinces, the BSA Company decided to transfer for administrative reasons, to the “suzerainty of Lewanika as the Land was inaccessible from Fort Jameson. The Administrative move affected on 30th March, 1905 by the BSA Company enabled Lewanika to benefit as he was now entitled to the share of the Tax Money that other Tribes people paid to the BSA Company. Lewanika never claimed ownership of the Copperbelt or any other Lands outside Barotseland.
In 1911, the two territories merged into the Protectorate of Northern Rhodesia. The name “Barotseland” was not featured in the new entity. However, the Amalgamation Order contained specific provisions securing the Litunga Lewanika relative authority over Barotseland of which no map to show its extent was provided. The 1911 Order in Council defined the new amalgamated entity of Northern Rhodesia as land  “Whose limit were defined as the the parts of Africa bounded by Southern Rhodesia [Zimbabwe], German South West Africa [Namibia], Portuguese West Africa [Angola], the Congo Free State [Congo DR], German East Africa [Tanzania], Nyasaland [Tanzania] and Portuguese East Africa [Mozambique]”.  This order vested power in the High Commissioner for Northern Rhodesia who was based in South Africa to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the country. Section 40 of the Order stated that, “all the rights conferred and obligations imposed upon the company and upon the chief and the people of the Barotse respectively by various concessions as approved by the Secretary of State in the British Government shall continue to have full force and effect”. Section 44 stated in particular that “nothing in the provision conferring power to regulate the conduct of the natives shall be deemed to limit or affect the exercise of the Chief of the Barotse of his authority in tribal matters”. This order created for the first a time a country – Northern Rhodesia, with a semi-autonomous Barotseland theirein enjoying its concensiion time / 1990 treaty rights.
In 1942, the boundary of Barotseland was further  altered when the Luvale and Lunda territories were excluded by the colonial government as a settlement of the dispute between the Luvale/Lunda chiefs and the Barotse Native Government.  In 1953 with the creation of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, the Litunga caused that Barotseland was recognized as a Protectorate within a Protectorate. The traditional ruler of Barotseland was by this recognition formally titled the Litunga of Barotseland.  Up until the independence of Zambia in 1964, Barotseland comprised of five districts, namely, Kalabo, Mongu, Mankoya, Senanga and Sesheke. It excluded Balovale, Kabompo, Kasempa, Mumbwa, Namwala and Kalomo. This was the state of affairs up to 1964.
During the time of colonial rule, Barotseland had features of a charter colony although the Treaty and the Charter gave the territory protectorate status but not as an official protectorate of the United Kingdom government. Britain granted Barotseland semi autonomous status and made it a Protectorate within a Protectorate of Northern Rhodesia and administered as part of Northern Rhodesia. Other ethnic groups in the country such as the Bembas, Ngonis or Chewas did not ask for this status from the British. Barotseland was also denied recognition as an independent Kingdom in contrast to Lesotho and Swaziland which were recognized as such. This fate is shared by Zululand and the Baganda . The British refused to recognize the Litunga as a King. The British designated them as simply Paramount Chiefs. The British recognized only one King in their Empire- King George then and later Queen Victoria.
There is also a text description of the Boundary of Barotseland as at 1953 during the short lived Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasasand and an accompanying map drawn at the same time. This is probably the same spatial definition of Barotseland which Article 125 of the Zambia Independence order used to define Barotseland as the territory that as at midnight 23rd October, 1964 is comprised in the “Barotseland protectorate”. Documentary evidence of this description of Barotseland protectorate is not readily available anywhere. It certainly does not include Copperbelt, Central, Southern and parts of Western and Northern Provinces. What is evident is that the Barotse Nationality had influences in adjacent areas of its Borders. “From the Tribes which the Barotse subjugated, they exerted tribute in kind but in exchange, their vassals received gifts , loans of Cattle and protection from their enemies and the region remained relatively safe from the Slave Trade. Subject Tribes participated in the system as many had specialized products for exchanges.” ( Ghan ) These Tribes, as was the case with the Barotse, also enjoyed, relative autonomy and practiced different Governance systems.
As the wind of change which began with the independence from colonialism of Ghana in 1957, it was evident that this wind of change would come to Northern Rhodesia too. The African Welfare Societies first formed by Dauti Yamba in 1920’s at Mwenzo in Nakonde grew in stead and culminated in the formation of the African National Congress (ANC) in 1948 where one Mbikusita Lewanika who was later to become the Litunga of Barotseland was elected as the first President of the nationalist movement.
The Barotseland question, namely, that Barotseland should have relative autonomy as was the case with the British High Commission territories of Bechuanaland, Basutholand and Swaziland has always been the demand of the Litunga but was always refused by the British colonialists. They preferred that Barotseland was administered by the Commissioner of North Western Rhodesia at Kalomo and later Livingstone, the Governor of Northern Rhodesia at Lusaka and later the Prime Minister of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland in Salisbury. This demand by the Litunga for autonomy was rejected by the British had merit. Martin Meredith (2006) has observed that in Africa, there were over 10,000 African polities which the European colonialist amalgamated into 40 European colonies and protectorates. Zambia alone had more than 73 ethno linguistic groups. The British were correct in merging Barotseland into Northern Rhodesia to create a viable modern state.
However, in spite of use value of this unity of the people of Northern Rhodesia, the Litunga and the BRE continued to demand for autonomy of Barotseland. This demand became a side event at the independence talks at Lancaster House in London. Earlier in 1963, the Litunga had hired a lawyer named L.K Wilson to prepare the Barotse case for secession. Three records were prepared.
a)      A record of guarantees of Barotseland‘s status as set out in various concessions signed and affirmed by constitutions of 1911, 1924 and 1953.
b)      The Barotse case for secession presented along the lines of the High Commission territories of Swaziland, Basutholand and Lesotholand;
c)       Barotseland’s existence as a nation prior to the creation of Northern Rhodesia; failure of the colonial government to develop Barotseland; unsuitability for Western democracy for African conditions; and advantages of becoming an independent state of Barotseland.
The British government rejected the Barotse case. The UNIP delegation also refused to entrench rights, privileges and status that the Barotse demanded in the Zambian Constitution. Instead the three parties (UK, Northern Rhodesia and the Litunga representing Barotseland) opted for a separate agreement as an annex to the Independent Constitution. The three parties signed the agreement on 18th May, 1964. The Cabinet of the new Zambian government reaffirmed the agreement at its 63rd meeting on 30th October, 1964 to formally bind it to the Republic of Zambia.

However, despite there being an agreement which provided among others for the Litunga of Barotseland to continue to have power to make laws for Barotseland in relation to the Litungaship, Barotse Native Government, Barotse Native Authority, Barotse Native Courts, the Litunga’s Council, local government, Land, Forests, traditional and customary matters of Barotseland, Fishing, control of hunting, game preservation. Control of bush fires, native treasury, supply of beer, reservation of trees for canoes, local taxation, and Barotse local festivals, the agreement was not implemented by the UNIP government.
The UNIP delegation and later its cabinet did not sign the agreement and affirm it respectively in good faith. As soon as Independence was granted and the new leaders were confident of their power, they quickly moved to abrogate the agreement by introducing the Local Government Act of 1965 which abolished the Barotse Government, the Barotse Native Authorities, he Barotse Native Courts, the Barotse Native Treasury and provided that Barotseland would from then on be administered through a uniform local government system applied in all districts and provinces of the country. Barotseland was renamed Western Province. The Barotse National Council was abolished by statutory instrument and five district councils were established.
The Litunga and the Barotse opposed this unilateral move and insured that in the elections of 1968, UNIP lost all seats to the ANC. In the Referendum of 1969 which removed all entrenched provisions that gave the Litunga rights on land, the people of Western Province gave a 75% NO verdict to allow the UNIP government to wrestle land from the Litunga. Furthermore, the Litunga and the BRE continued to promote the Sichaba(National) Party or the Barotse National Party (BNP) whose political aims were to lobby for secession.
In July, 1991, just as the MMD was coming into power, in order to entice the votes of the Barotse, the BRE met President Kaunda and demanded that if he won the multi-party elections and formed government, he would accede to their demands to restore the Barotse Agreement and refund UK Sterling 400,000 which Finance Minister Arthur Wina had taken from the Barotse Native Treasury in 1964. President Kaunda agreed and undertook to meet all the demands. (Sichone and Simutanyi, 1996:188). Unfortunately, President Kaunda lost, but the demands of the Litunga and the BRE did not end.
The new government of President Frederick Chiluba viewed the demands of the BRE as unimportant and irrelevant. The Minister without Portfolio Brig. General Godfrey Miyanda now leader of the Heritage Party, was appointed to negotiate with the BRE. The effort failed and in 1993, President Chiluba threatened that anyone making demands for the restoration of the Barotseland Agreement 1964 would be charged with the high crime of treason.
In the successive governments of President Levy Mwanawasa and President Banda, the National Constitutional Conference which had been set up unilaterally by President Mwanawasa (it was boycotted by the Catholic Church and the PF among others) ignored the submissions of the BRE. The draft Constitution that was made excluded principles of regional autonomy or devolution of power. President Banda’s government had absolutely no time to consider the BA 1964 question. The NCC contemptuously ignored the BRE demands and chose instead to continue with the divisive doctrine of unitary state.

What should be done?
President Michael Chilufya Sata and the PF government have the opportunity to resolve this question of Barotseland. The demands of the Litunga and the BRE cannot be casually dismissed or ignored or wished away as has happened since 1964. As the Barotse National Council meets on 26th March, 2012 at Limulunga, a vocal section among the attendees will probably demand for a radical resolution of the Barotse question. Similarly, there will be voices of reason who may argue for liberal solutions to the question. However one looks at the challenge, in trying to resolve the impulse, the following questions must be addressed.
1.       Was the Barotseland Agreement ever repealed or revoked? Could the Parliament of Zambia repeal the BA 1964 which was simply an annexure to the Independent Constitution? Was its abrogation by the Zambian Parliament supported by law? If the agreement is alive as observed by the Chongwe Commission, how can it be implemented without destabilizing the country?
2.       Is the Litunga and the BRE justified in demanding for the restoration of the BA 1964 agreement? If relative autonomy as demanded is granted, what political institution will be in place – multi party democracy or a return to monarchical hegemony? What will be the response of other nationalities in Western Province such as the Nkoya, Mbunda, Nyengo, Luvale and others who are not Barotse? What will be the view of other nationalities like the Chewa, Bemba, Tonga, Ngoni, and so on that constitute the totality of the peoples of the Republic of Zambia?
3.       What is the consensual view of the BA 1964 in Western Province? Are present demands of the BRE representational of all the people of Western Province including the Nkoya, Luvale, Mbunda Nyengo , non indigenous peoples who have settled there and so on.
4.       Should the dispute be taken up by the High Court of Zambia as provided by Art. 9 of the BA 1964 in resolving any disputes on the agreement? What is the dispute and how does it impact the wider Zambia?
5.       To what extent should the Right to Self Determination including secession as provided in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights relevant to the BA 1964? Are the Barotse nationality an oppressed people in Zambia? Has Barotseland been treated equitably with respect to development by successive governments?
6.       What should be done?
For sure, valuable lessons can be learnt from the experience of other countries. Some examples include the case of Serbia and Kosovo which after a war, ended up with Kosovo declaring UDI in 2009; Sudan in which South Sudan emerged as an independent state after such a long and terrible civil war; Canada and Quebec in which Quebec has been recognized as a nation within a United Canada; Tanzania and Zanzibar in which Zanzibar is relatively autonomous; the example of South Africa where local government has been integrated within federated structures, and so on.
For many observers and analysts, there are three possibilities in resolving the Barotse Question.

Option 1
To re-negotiate the Barotse Agreement so as to ensure more regional autonomy of all the regions of Zambia anchored on liberal democratic values and federalism. This will require that the PF government provides for Zambia a new constitution that entrenches federated structures in our governance. The Technical Committee appointed by President Sata can be requested to negotiate with the Litunga and the BRE and other Royal Establishments together with all civil society on the historical necessity of devolution and recommend in the new draft constitution the federated way in which Zambia would be governed. It is a notorious fact that no country has ever developed under the so called unitary state structures. In fact, this is a colonial legacy that suited despots. All serious countries only developed when they federated. This is true for the UK, Germany, Japan, India, RSA, Brazil. USA, France, Russia, India even small countries like South Korea, Switzerland and so on.

Option 2
To uphold the status quo holding Zambia as a unitary state with power concentrated in Lusaka. To continue giving lip service of support to decentralization and devolution demands of the people. To ignore the demands of the BRE and the Litunga and treat advocates of the restoration of the BA 1964 as treasonous. This option is not only reactionary and divisive, but will make Zambia forever poor. This plays in the hands of Zambia’s enemies who celebrate at our inability to manage our country efficiently and effectively. Only despots who want to continue stealing people’s resources in Lusaka and abusing their powers unfettered support the maintenance of a unitary state.

Option 3
To dissolve the state of Zambia and allow Barotseland to secede from the former Northern Rhodesia and divide the Zambian people into two or several balkanized separate entities. To divide the people of Zambia who since 1911 have lived and inter-married and created a unique Zambian national character? This is the demand of some separatist elements in Barotseland. This will require, among others, the determination of the boundaries of Barotseland, the holding of referenda in both Barotseland and other previously subject peoples like the Nkoya, Nyengo, Mbunda, Luvale to determine whether they would want to revert to be ruled by the Litunga again and so on. Such an option is obviously retrogressive and will tend to revise a backward and oppressive governance system of feudalism. This option does not support the development project and is inherently reactionary.
For sure, President Sata and the PF government can and should resolve the BA 1964 problem. Option one is not only historically necessary, but is also a historical inevitability as it is borne and steeled by history.

Dr Mbita Chitala is the Executive Director of the Zambia Research Foundation. Dr Chitala is a leading public intellectual with a distinguished career in academia, government and diplomatic community.  He regularly reflects on the state of the nation at

Copyright: Zambian Economist

Tuesday, 20 March 2012

TAZARA Shambles, 2nd Edition

It will not come as an unexpected development if the next thing we see is the total collapse of the company. The problems facing Tazara are not new and it is saddening to note that past governments never made any meaningful efforts to turn around the company. The problems are so huge that even the injection of US$39 million last year by the Chinese government in an attempt to revive operations of the company following the signing of the 14th protocol, has yielded nothing. Last year, a team of experts was put together to carry out a post-mortem of the troubled railway company but it seems the task was too difficult for the team; to-date, no report has been compiled on the way forward.

Tazara has unfavourable debt and equity ratio which closes opportunities for accessing long term operational loans from any financial institution.The company needs more than US$700 million to operate smoothly and apart from that, it owes National Pensions Scheme Authority(NAPSA) more than K300 billion, Zambia State Insurance Corporation(ZSIC) is owed more than $40 million and the Zambia Revenue Authority(ZRA) more than $10 million as well as, Tazara retirees more than K100 billion. The list is endless as this does not include legal fees and money owed to saving employees.
Except from a recent Times of Zambia piece that calls on the two governments to “live up to their full responsibility of ensuring that the company which was created for a noble cause, is totally rescued from total collapse”.

Related Posts:

Monday, 19 March 2012

Banning Tujiliji

Government appears intent on banning “Tujilijili”, atleast according to Local Govt Minister Nkandu Luo :
We shall not employ a piecemeal approach. The approach is to ban the production, ban the distribution and ban the consumption. As I had said in my earlier reply, we can also have a campaign in the communities and conversations with people to start addressing issues to do with, not only tujilijili, but also other alcohols. You may wish to know that even the producers are very worried. They have even been to my office to try and discuss with me issues to do with tujilijili. I have comprehensively studied issues to do with tujilijili. I have seen the distraction the tujilijili are doing to people in a number of communities. I have also been to Chainama Hospital, Block B, to see how young people’s lives have been curtailed. They will never have a chance to be like you and myself. I am very keen to not only enforce the law, but also to look at the distribution, production and the consumption of alcohol.
This appears to be the usual typical knee jerk reaction that we have come to expect from Zambian politicians. Its not that banning it has no merit, it is just that her assessment is one dimensional. It does not take on board broader questions. For example, wont banning it simply divert policing, court and jail resources from serious crimes ? It takes many months, sometimes years, before individuals see the light of day in court. Do we really need petty crimes like this one to add further pressure on our paralysed legal system? Crucially, is banning it the only way forward? As the debate here revealed, the issues are rather more complicated than Nkandu Luo thinks. 

Incidentally, the questions which we have previously discussed in the context of Kachasu also applies here. 

Friday, 16 March 2012

15 ideas that should underpin a new diaspora policy

By Chola Mukanga

  1. Creation of more opportunities for volunteering by the diaspora across all sectors, but especially health and education
  2. Creation of a government driven diaspora skills network linked to universities in Zambia and other areas where government sees fit
  3. Establishment of collaborative programmes between the diaspora and key business and civil society institutions
  4. Reform of Zambian foreign missions so that they become tools that engage more actively with the diaspora, rather just being "drinking centres"
  5. Establish an effective, de-politicised and more focused desk for diaspora affairs at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, with sole focus on economic and social matters related to the diaspora.
  6. A Diaspora bill in Parliament that focuses on issues related to the diaspora that sets clearly specific provisions in relation to the diaspora.
  7. Support the push for reform of citizenship laws, as part of a pro-diaspora constitutional reform programme. This would look not only at dual citizenship, but also marriage and citizenship requirements for public office.
  8. Establish partnership between government and diaspora on a small deliverable education project e.g. adopting a school. If such a project proved successful, it can be rolled out more widely
  9. Provide Government incentives to Zambian diaspora investing in culture (art, music); and, provision of general differential tax incentives for sending goods to relatives in rural areas from abroad.
  10. Zambian communities abroad to be conferred by government with honorary status as focal persons in promoting culture and identity among Zambians abroad.
  11. Development of e-governance systems that would help cope with administratively managing the identities of Zambians abroad. To facilitate this in the long term the Central Statistics Office should also be mandated to extend the national census through the embassies and through the Internet to collect vital statistics.
  12. The diaspora should be utilized to complement efforts in promoting Zambia as “the Real Africa”. Huge travel costs incurred through tourism promotion initiatives could be greatly reduced by engaging and employing the skills of Diaspora based in target markets abroad.
  13. The diaspora should be considered for appointments to diplomatic positions in their countries of foreign residence. As a first step they should be allowed and encouraged to apply and compete for these jobs.
  14. Support the expansion of Zambian banks to set up branches in key capitals around the world in order to facilitate greater remittances and encourage diaspora led investment in housing and other areas.
  15. Encouragement of the diaspora to signal more effectively to the government and Zambians at home that they are ready and willing partners of development e.g. encouraging a global indaba of Zambians abroad every two years as a government supported forum for networking and exchanging ideas.

Thursday, 15 March 2012

FRA Reform

There are signs from Agriculture Minister Emmanuel Chenda that the Government may be in the process of revising operations of the highly inefficient Food Reserve Agency (FRA) :
“The [Farmer Input Support Programme] has been revised in order to promote and market other cash crops apart from maize and we are also in the process of reviewing the operations of the FRA so that it reverts to its original mandate of purchasing food crops for strategic national reserves only…”
This appears to be a direct reading from the PF manifesto  which commits to review the Food Reserve Agency (FRA) Act in order to "rationalize its operations and functions". 

The case for reform is overwhelming, especially with respect to how it deals with small scale farmers. Small scale farmers have repeatedly complained that the FRA sets the price too low and thereby discourages small scale farmers from going into maize farming. To make it worse, the FRA rarely pays the farmers on time. The FRA has actually become a negative distortion in its own right, failing to provide the level of certainty in revenue streams that farmers desperately need to invest in more maize and other products.

As Mr Chenda hints, the FRA should be more directly focused on food security, rather than large significant purchases of maize in the market. It might also be good if some food purchases where done through the ZAMACE rather than directly with farmers to reduce price distortions (see Exchanging towards agricultural prosperity ). In recent times it has been forced to use ZAMACE, but perhaps going forward this should be a core part of the policy. Eliminating export restrictions should also be made permanent. When the incentives are correct and you have a fully functioning FRA you have nothing to fear. More exports more money in the pockets of rural dwellers to drive growth in other areas.

With a streamlined FRA the savings can be targeted at what we really need - physical infrastructure provision, especially transport to improve access to markets. We have previously discussed how this remains a key constraint to the developing of agriculture. On a previous post we discuss evidence from FSRP which notes : "Our analysis certainly supports the notion that market access is a key determinant of smallholder income-diversification and growth, and, for peripheral regions, improvements in market access require investments in infrastructure”. Another post presents the evidence on the abysmal and erratic spending on transport infrastructure.

Wednesday, 14 March 2012

IMF - Zambia Watch (March 2012)

Press Release No. 12/77
March 13, 2012

An International Monetary Fund (IMF) mission visited Lusaka February 29–March 13, 2012 to conduct discussions for the Article IV consultation*. The mission had fruitful discussions with Hon. Alexander Chikwanda, Minister of Finance and National Planning; Dr. Michael Gondwe, Governor of the Bank of Zambia, and other senior officials as well as representatives from the private sector, civil society and labor unions.

At the conclusion of the visit in Lusaka today, Mr. Trevor Alleyne, mission chief for Zambia, released the following statement:

“Macroeconomic performance in 2011 was positive and is expected to remain robust this year. Real GDP growth is estimated at 6½ percent in 2011 and is projected at 7.7 percent this year, reflecting strong growth in copper production and non-maize agriculture, and an expansionary fiscal policy. Inflation declined to 7.2 percent at end-2011, broadly in line with the authorities’ target, and is projected to end this year close to its February 2012 level of 6.0 percent. The 2012 budget targets a widening of the fiscal deficit to 4.1 percent of GDP driven by a significant ramp up of investment. Despite copper prices rising to record highs, the external current account surplus narrowed substantially last year, mainly reflecting a strong expansion in imports and a decline in grants. For 2012, the current account surplus is projected to remain broadly unchanged, while gross international reserves are expected to continue to grow, reaching the equivalent of 3.3 months of prospective imports.

Tuesday, 13 March 2012

Mine Watch (Maamba), 2nd Edition

Maamba Collieries, majority owned by Singaporean miner Nava Bharat Pte (65%), has pushed back to 2015 the completion of its 300 megawatt coal-fired power plant due to delays in "getting environmental approvals". Nava Bharat plans to revive the operations of the Maamba mine and build the coal-fired power plant. Construction, which was initially due to start last year, would begin next month and the power project is likely to be completed in 2015 instead of 2014. According to a detailed layout of the project, the plant would initially produce 300 MW and later add another 300 MW.

Related Posts

Monday, 12 March 2012

A reason to be hopeful?

Zambia Environmental Management Authority (ZEMA) recently ordered Mopani copper Mine, a unit of leading global commodity trader Glencore International PLC, to suspend part of its operations. It said it had inspected the site and that heap leaching—a process that involves metals being leached from a heap of crushed ore by applying acid to it—couldn't be resumed until the company had completed eight recommended measures to reduce its effect on the surrounding area (with over 3,000 residents). Mopani has been asked to prepare a comprehensive environmental and social management plan for the heap leaching process and submit it for approval.

Butondo residents had complained of pollution which had also affected vegetation for a long time. The agency's inspection of the plant revealed that there was no acid mist or vapour barrier to minimise effects on more than 3,000 local residents. ZEMA statistics show an increase in the number of cases of pulmonary, throat, nose and ear ailments.

We have long highlighted the appaling environmental damage by mining companies to nearby communities. Acid has even found its way into drinking water supplies leading poisoning. We should not have mines that have no proper environmental audits and effective agents of ecological genocide. Other groups such as CTPD recently threatened to launch legal action against the company if nothing was done about its claims that the 'leaching' process used in copper production was causing sulphuric acid to leak into water used by communities living and working near the mine. ZEMA’s decision is a move in the right direction. The only question is why no impose monetary penalties if damage is already being caused to wellbeing?

The reaction from Mopani has been predictably poor claiming it was surprised by at the action and may be forced to lay off staff following the closure, “every day of suspension is costing the company in the region of 525 million kwachaand unfortunately calls into question whether Mopani can continue to support 310 jobs created by the heap leach project”. What is the use of these jobs if the costs are merely being shifted to local residents through poor health? 

Sunday, 11 March 2012

Strike Watch (Mining)

There has been many strike disputes in recent months that it is now necessary to track these systematically so that we can have a broader picture of what is happening in the labour sector.

In the mining sector, recent strike activity has centre around First Quantum Minerals (FQM) owned Kansanshi mine, were 2000 workers down their tools on 1st March. They were demanding a higher pay increment of 25 percent.  This is the second time in two months that Kansanshi workers have gone on strike. Kansanshi is arguably our nation’s largest copper mine, producing over 230,000 tonnes per annum.

On 4th March the Government interved through VP Guy Scott  by appealing to “workers and management to resolve their differences as soon as possible in the interest of the country”. An interesting call considering Dr Scott’s government holds 20% through ZCCM-IH. Perhaps the 20% does not account for anything in terms of leverage. The workers for their part have been are being represented by Mineworkers Union of Zambia (MUZ) and the National Union for Miners and Allied Workers (NUMAW).

Dr Scott's intervention though appeared to have worked favourably for FQM. The workers resumed work on 6th March “pending the outcome of the mediation process”. MUZ president said the “investors should learn to take care of workers because production depended on them”.  Which is interesting considering that the final settlement is unlikely to be anywhere near 25% MUZ have been crying for. FQM believes the agreed deal is 15% and the only negotiations is how long it should stay in place. FQM wants it to last no more than 2 years. Not sure what happens after that!

Over the course of the five day strike, FQM claimed it lost US$5m per day in revenue and Government is lost US$1.5m in taxes. The concept of "lost" is neboulous, but not as bad as the suggestion that  FQM pays 30% taxes. 

If you are wondering what is happening at Glencore's Mopani in this area. It agreed a 17 percent pay rise with unions in February, which of course it is quick to point out is triple the rate of inflation.

Monday, 5 March 2012

Debt Watch (World Bank), 2nd Edition

The World Bank has recently agreed to lend Zambia US $50 million  for development of livestock production systems for smallholder producers in Eastern, Southern and Western provinces. The project will also cover the implementation of Disease Free Zones in Central, Lusaka and parts of Copperbelt provinces. The World Bank view this credit as part of  aiding the diversification process away from  heavy reliance on copper mining and maize production alone. More detail via The Post.

Friday, 2 March 2012

The Syrian Conundrum Part 3 (Guest Blog)

Dr Mpundu Mukanga continues his assessment of the current Syrian crisis with part 3 of the "sands of time" series.

The peasant girl with a rich lover, 4th Edition

We have previously likened China's relationship with Zambia as that of a peasant girl with a rich lover (here, here and here), with the MMD as the "shibukombe". That situation appears not to have changed under the PF government according to a new piece in the African Confidential that reveals a deepening love affair  between China and Zambia under the new government :

Thursday, 1 March 2012

Hope from Rwanda?

Kagame's government has lifted one million Rwandans out of poverty in the past five years, with poverty rates declining from 56.7% in 2005/6 to 44.9 percent in 2010/11, surpassing the target of 46% end of this year. What's more inequality between rich and poor Rwandans has been narrowing with improvement in health conditions among other indicators. These stunning results have come through a wide range of policies including increased agricultural production, agri-business, farm wage employment, increased off-farm jobs, increased diaspora remittance, as well as improvements in basic infrastructure such as roads and electricity. More detail here.