Marital problems can lead to mental disorder - Dr Simenda

DID you know that marital or relationship problems can lead to a mental disorder? Well, according to Dr Francis Simenda, Chainama Hills College Hospital head of clinical care, the number one cause of mental illness among women is mood disorders that are primarily triggered or maintained by life events like marriages and divorces. Dr Simenda, a specialist psychiatrist, says marital discourse; problems in marriage, general dissatisfaction in marriage, lack of children, unresolved problems with husbands, families and extended families can lead to a mental disorder.

"Actually the big one is the death of the spouse; when a husband dies, the women don't take it properly. Sometimes even when they lose a boyfriend, so life events contribute a lot in the genesis and maintenance of these disorders," he explains.

Mental illness
Dr Simenda says mental illness is a group of disorders or illnesses that affect the mind and the brain. He says there are many classes and types of mental illnesses. Dr Simenda says the first group under the World Health Organisation (WHO) classification is mental disorders that are related to loss or decline in brain functioning.

"These are called dementias; so the memory fades away and the general function to control the motor and the speech abilities of a person slowly decline. When we use the word dementia then we are describing a disorder where the loss of memory primarily is irreversible," he says.

He says under this class, the other disorders are just amnesic syndromes, retrograde or anterograde amnesia which is a technical term of loss of memory. "We also have what we call deliriums under the same group. It is an acute confusional state, acute loss of brain function. It arises after surgery, acute infections, septicaemia; so the brain function recovers quickly after treatment," he says.

Dr Simenda says the second group of mental illness arises from the use of poly-substances like alcohol, cannabis, nicotine, glue, cocaine and heroin. He says the third group or class of disorders is called schizophrenia and related psychosis.

"We have mood disorders - mental disorders that are primarily characterised by a disordered mood or emotions, so these include depression or mania which is the opposite of depression," he says. Dr Simenda says in the fourth group, are personality disorders.

"We have disorders or adult personalities. Like you say this man is stubborn or quiet. When these human straits become a problem or so pronounced that they interfere with occupational or social wellbeing, then we call it a disorder and it needs treatment. Then we have histrionic disorders. These are mainly women who very dramatic in the way they carry themselves. They are cheerful but at the same time can quickly change and become sad. So they exhibit swings in their character," he says.

He also says there are disorders related to sexual orientation. "Maybe we haven't described them very well in Zambia but all these cases where someone might just like to have sex in a bizarre way. We have heard of masochism (receiving pleasure - often sexual - from acts involving the infliction or reception of pain or humiliation), vouryerism (sexual interest in or practice of spying on people engaged in intimate behaviours, such as undressing, sexual activity, or other actions usually considered to be of a private nature); frotteurism (a paraphilia in which sexual arousal or orgasm is achieved by actual or fantasised rubbing up against another person, usually in a crowded place with an unsuspecting victim) and sexual preference with children (paedophilia) like you've heard nowadays. That's an illness," he says.

Dr Simenda says that for men with paedophilia, (it could include women) they have a tendency to have sex with minors or watching naked minors on the internet or circulating some materials to gratify their sexual pleasure. "They get satisfaction...some just watch videos, some just take pictures but in our Zambian case, they actually have sex with them. It could be that people are reporting more now and these cases have come to light. I suspect these offences used to happen but they were not reported but with the coming of the NGOs, the police's VSU Victim Support Unit and general awareness, these cases are no longer in the dark," he says.

He says it is yet to be seen whether these people reform when they are sent to prison because if it is a disorder then it needs to be treated.

However, Dr Simenda says if it is sheer criminality then the outcome is also different. Dr Simenda says it could be a man or a woman who prefers to have any form of sex which is outside the normal form.

"There are some who like to exhibit their private parts and they obtain gratification from that. Others whip themselves in the bedrooms; so there are many forms but you must note that nowadays homosexuality and gayism were removed from the list as a disorder of sexual orientation, that is WHO removed it. It was classified as a medical illness in the beginning but in the latest classification it was removed," he says.

He says masturbation was also removed as it used to be classified as a mental disorder.

Dr Simenda says there are also disorders that are normally related to early childhood. The perversion mental disorders. "You have heard of autistic disorder. It starts after two and half years. This is a child who does not develop communication skills especially on the outside world, they remain withdrawn, within themselves. Most of them are associated with very pervasive mannerisms like banging of the head and talking to themselves. They are in their own lost world," he says.

"There are times it is associated with epilepsy that is fits and when that happens, there is usually an element of mental retardation. We also have intellectual disabilities in children. When the child is failing to cope like others, we look for specific disorders. We have children with reading disorders, mathematic disorders and speech disorders."

He says there are also eating disorders though not common in Zambia but are common among models. "We have anxiety disorders, panic disorders common with near death experiences. We have phobia like if you have a person that is afraid of heights or animals. The disorder is named according to that specific animal or fear. Among the young, we have conduct disorders where they behave unacceptably," he says.

Dr Simenda says there are also disorders that are not classified in any specific group. Dr Simenda says the common causes of mental illnesses in Zambia vary with some inheritable.

"Almost all of the them can be inherited and there is research currently going on to continuously identify which chromosome, which genes and in what combination but these you will note that genetics alone does not mean that there will be an outcome of disease so there is an interaction between the genetics, the environmental factors that person is living in and of course the lifestyle, what we take in. So there is an interaction between the genes, the hormones and the neural transmitters. This is what we think leads to a manifestation of a mental disorder. So it's a collection of a number of factors," he says.

He says the hospital admits about 4,000 patients per year.

"Last year we received about 3,700 patients. On a daily basis, since we struggle with bed space, we admit a maximum of 150 patients. We keep people for a short time and discharge them due to the unavailability of bed space. So our capacity right now is about 150 and the majority are male. It is not to say that women do not have mental disorders. It's because women in most parts of the world are less violent," he says.

Dr Simenda says when men develop psychosis, they tend to be violent.

"Women suffer quietly in the homes or they are manageable as outpatients," he says. He says the cause of the disorders vary and are a combination of different things. Dr Simenda says for men, more than 60 per cent of those admitted have a combination of different things.

"They will be using either alcohol, cannabis, or some other substance or abuse and as we are becoming open at the border, we are beginning to see drugs that were less common in the past like cocaine, heroin and others," he says.

He says women do not use much of the substances but a few do.

Dr Simenda says when a person develops even a mild mental disorder, the stigma from the family and the community sometimes fuels or continues to fuel the disorder.

"Even from the employers if they know, you can imagine even in church, people with mental disorders are highly discriminated against and this actually makes the disease outcome worse," he says.

For treatment, Dr Simenda says there is promotive treatment - health promotion in mental health.

"We also educate that most of these diseases are actually treatable," he says.
He says the next stage is prevention.

"We want people to attain self-actualisation, that is living a life that is very productive and being at the pinnacle or going through the stages of life successfully until old age. We do physical treatment that is provision of medicines, that's actually treating most of these disorders and controlling the symptoms associated with these disorders. Mostly we call them anti-psychotics. We use mood stabilisers, anti-depressants, that is drugs that are able to lift the mood when it is depressed," he says.

"We use drugs called anxiolytics that abolish anxiety disorders so they help when you have anxiety disorders. With personality disorders most of the time the treatment is psychotherapy but in severe cases, we use medicines to control the behaviours and compulsions and obsessions"

For the pervasive development disorders, Dr Simenda says they combine a number of strategies like school education therapy with parents and caregivers.

He says mental retardation, has its own special treatment.

Dr Simenda says conduct disorders in the youth are mainly treated using psychotherapy and other educative programmes.

"In short all the mental disorders have a treatment of some kind. We also have other physical treatments called electric convulsive therapy. It is an old treatment where we introduce a surge of electrical energy in the brain to induce a fit and that helps in the symptom control of some mental disorders like severe depression and suicide," he says.

He says mental disorders destroy the core function of the brain.

"So we want to rehabilitate our patients. We do a number of rehabilitation services by bringing back the skills, occupational therapy and physiotherapy if the muscles were affected. And these therapies are nowadays recommended to be done in the communities where people stay. We follow up these patients," he says.

Dr Simenda says getting better is a measurement.

"We have what we call rating scales where we measure the symptoms and then we see from the time we started and where we are now in terms of improvement. I am sure for the community, they want 100 percent recovery but in some cases it's not possible but we control the symptoms especially the most common symptoms of self-grooming, violence, staying outside, not eating, being a danger to themselves as a mental patient and to the community," he says.

He says sometimes patients escape from the hospital because the very nature of all mental disorders is that they attack the personality.

"So they don't realise that they are actually unwell so the first thing when they are brought to Chainama is to plan to escape. They must go out and continue what they are doing, they don't have the ability to perceive that they are unwell. Some of them we get them back, some their relatives bring them back because they go and cause problems in the homes, fighting, breaking property," he says.

Dr Simenda says those found on the streets are chronic schizophrenic patients where the families would have abandoned them to roam the streets.

"Now there are challenges with collecting them against their will because of the legal system and as I speak to you, the law that governs mental illness was done in 1951, the Mental Disorders Act, but right now, we are repealing it and there is a new Bill coming out. We now have a Mental Health Services Bill that is currently in development. Maybe this law will make us develop the service even better but by order of a Magistrate you can get them off the streets," he says.

Dr Simenda says the public should appreciate that mental health and mental illnesses exist.

He says people should start appreciating that these groups of diseases are treatable. He says eliminating stigma and discrimination is key.

"We need to mount a campaign so that people know and become supportive of mental programmes in schools, universities, in the work place and communities. We must be talking about mental illnesses everywhere. In this country most of the time we act when it is too late or when there is violence; evident of broken windows but really all the mild mental illnesses, anxieties should be treated by a professional, the outcome is better that way," he says.

"There is also stigma, they don't want the neighbours to know because they think their daughter will not get married and so on. They actually deny mental patients, they go and hide them in the village and don't educate them but we want even someone with a mental disorder to undergo some education and find a meaningful occupation in future other than withdrawing patients because they have epilepsy and they couldn't go to school." http://www.postzambia.com/post-read_article.php?articleId=26142&highlight=mental disorder in marriage

Blogging vs ethics: A case of the Zambian Watchdog and the Lusaka Times

By Malama Katulwende

Blogs have recently gained increasing notice and coverage for their role in breaking, shaping and initiating news stories on the Internet. Blogging has thus become a distinctive, alternative media form in its own right – as distinguished from, say, the mainstream media such as newspapers, television and radio stations.

To quote Goldfain and Van der Merwe in Prof. Fackson Banda’s presentation, “Alternative media: a viable option for Southern Africa?”, blogging is “an aggregator of information that encourages dialogue and participation in a society that is flooded with information dispersed by authoritative voices. It is a media platform and has the potential to give minorities a voice.” For all its potential good, however, blogging can result in legal liabilities, defamation, unethical media practices as well as political and social dangers. Let us take the case of The Zambian Watch Dog and the Lusaka Times. According to the website http://www.zambianwatchdog.com the Zambian Watchdog is owned by private Zambian journalists who publish breaking news on Zambia and about Zambia on a 24 hour basis.

They also publish ‘investigative special reports’ and at times ‘aggregate news’ carried by local media. Their guiding principle is – “We write news regardless of who or what the subject is. We fear no one. We favor no one.” Recently – on the 20th August 2010 – the Zambian Watch Dog posted an article titled, “Mwanawasa was not a great president” by Malama Katulwende on their website. The post coincided with the late Levy Mwanawasa’s memorial and became an instant success. It was read by millions of people around the globe and inspired a flood of comments. The article was also reproduced by another blogger, The Lusaka Times – again as ‘breaking news’.

What the Zambian Watch Dog and the Lusaka Times did not inform their readers, however, was the source of the article, when it was published, and who authorized its use on their blog. As the author of the article I was shocked to read this post in its current form. The original title, “Reinventing Levi: Mwanawasa as a memory site” had been altered to read, “Mwanawasa was not a great president”. Furthermore, the first three critical paragraphs had also been removed so that the piece started somewhat in the middle. Yet what was even more puzzling was the fact that contrary to the recognized norms of journalism, UKZambians was not credited as the publisher and copyright owner of the article. For me personally, though, I was disheartened that the readers presumed the article was recent when, in fact, it was published in September 2008.

The work in question was preceded by “Measure for Measure: Levi’s Legacy on Trial”, which I’d written to dispel the wild claims associated with the late Mwanawasa’s legacy. The reproduced article, however, was not prefaced to place the text in context – though I still stand by every word I wrote. The Zambian Watch Dog and the Lusaka Times had done nothing but copy and paste. They even allowed their readers to throw a cascade of verbal abuse, offensive language and other types of obscenities on the author, late president Dr. Levy Mwanawasa, and some of the current leaders in the Zambian government. I also read remarks which demeaned the Bemba people of the country (of which I am a part) as thieves and plunderers.

Concerned, UKZambians emailed the Zambian Watchdog: “Can you stop to copy and paste old articles from UKZambians without permission? The article you have reproduced was written a year [and half] ago when this topic was important. Right now, things have changed and people have moved on. Now because you cannot be resourceful enough to produce your own original articles, shamefully you start on this irresponsible way of pasting old article and opening old wounds. This is damaging the image of our respected columnist and UKZambians association with him as can be seen from comments on your website. We demand that you withdraw the article immediately and write an apology about your careless behavior to your readers.” The Watchdog Team responded like this: “You are an idiot and if you want go to court. Why don’t you ask the one who sent that thing to us. Moron.”

UKZambians then asked me whether I’d authorized the Zambian Watch Dog to reproduce the said article – and I said “no”. I emailed the editor of the blog and kept my editor in copy: “I have read your exchanges with my publisher, UKZambians in respect of the article, “Mwanawasa Was Not A Great President” which was posted on your website. I did NOT send you the said article, which I wrote in 2008, nor did I authorize the use of it. I think what you should have done was at least contact UKZambians for authorization, then do a write up to explain to your readers the context in which the article was written. It appears to me – from the comments – that they think the article was written a few days ago. Once they understood the mood at the time, they might have appreciated why it was written. As it is, I’ve received unwarranted attacks and all kinds of insults and some people have even misrepresented the facts about my private life. You did not even inform me nor UKzambians that you’d post this article. I just got a mail from someone I hardly know. I also think that as a media, we need to acknowledge each other’s works and not resort to insults. We are in the same business and we have to work together. I trust the Watchdog team will write UKZambians and apologize unreservedly.” I received a response from their editor: “Listen you fool, stop wasting my time. We told the other chap who was sending us nonsense to go to court. So why don’t you take your copyright to court? Coward.” I responded again: “Sir, when you use someone’s work, don’t you think you ought to acknowledge the source?

I am sure the Zambian Watch Dog believes in the ethics of journalism? Whoever sent you my article? Lots of Zambian websites use my work – I don’t mind as long as they acknowledged who published it. Don’t you understand copyright?” Again I received an acrid retort: “The article we publish did not come from that thing you are referring to. It was sent to us with the name of the author whom we put. Is that difficult to understand?” I challenged them on copyright once more – and the Zambian Watch Dog replied: “If you have nothing to tell us, please keep the silence [!] And how can we know that you are who you claim to be? And what is this UKZambians you are talking about? If people attack you for your work, well, why did you write it? You wanted to write something like that and hide it on a website read by 13 people? And now that it has been read by millions of people you are cowering and want to run away? Nothing has changed my friend from the time Levy died. Apologize? The Watchdog apologizing? You are joking.” Now the case of the Zambian Watch Dog and, to some extent, the Lusaka Times, raises some legal and ethical challenges of web-blogging. Is journalism all about copying news stories from various websites and tabloids and pasting them on blogs for your readers in defiance of copyright laws? Should blogs respect intellectual property rights at all? What might be some of social, political economic and legal consequences of this form of plagiarism? Again – is the conduct of the Zambian Watch Dog in respect of a reminder to acknowledge the source of information ethically justifiable? Copyright laws, as I understand them, are the basis on which intellectual property rights are created. To quote Wikipedia at length: “Copyright are exclusive rights granted to the author or creator of an original work, including the right to copy, distribute and adapt the work. Copyright does not protect ideas, only their expression or fixation. In most jurisdictions copyright arises upon fixation and does not need to be registered. Copyright owners have the exclusive statutory right to exercise control over copying and other exploitation of the works for a specific period of time, after which the work is said to enter the public domain. Uses which are covered under limitations and exceptions to copyright, such as fair use, do not require permission from the copyright owner. All other uses require permission and copyright owners can license or permanently transfer or assign their exclusive rights to others.” Copyright laws were enacted to encourage originality by regulating the copying of inventions, identifying symbols and creative expressions. Without copyright laws, nevertheless, incomes for musicians, authors, artists, scientists and composers would diminish from their intangible assets such as musical, literary, artistic works, discoveries and inventions, words, symbols and designs.

Thus copyright laws allow owners of such intellectual property to benefit financially from the labor of their minds, and pay for associated research and development costs. Other benefits are economic growth and innovation in countries where intellectual property rights are strengthened and guaranteed. The question to consider right now, though, is whether the rights accorded to the copyright owner (such as UKZambians in respect of the articles I write) are subject to the “principle of fair use” in the case in which the Zambian Watch Dog and the Lusaka Times, collectively, copied and reproduced my article “Reinventing Levi: Mwanawasa as a memory site” on their blogs? The answer is “No”.

In terms of Section 107 of the US Copy Right Law, for instance, the reproduction of the said article and its alteration may not be said to have been intended as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research. The two blogs plagiarized the article and simply pasted it on their websites to make money. According to the U.S Library of Congress home page, however, the reproduction of my article would have been regarded as “fair use” had the blogs used “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for the purpose of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”

In my view, therefore, the blogs failed to uphold the efficacy of media ethics which, among other things, required all practicing journalists and the institutions they represent to acknowledge their sources and respect the copyright laws. Yet granting that every blogger and individual stood in breach of copyright laws they way the Zambian Watch Dog and Lusaka Times had done, then I am afraid that institutions which invested in creating a viable and vibrant media would lose out. The bloggers would simply sit tight and wait for newspapers to gather news at great expense, and then copy it out once it were published and make money.

This, I dare say, is not what journalism is about. This is fraud and ought to be punished. The reader will perhaps observe from the email responses we received from the Zambian Watch Dog that these guys are conceited, disrespectful, vulgar and hackneyed. Yet I do not believe that journalists, conscious of their craft and reminded of copyright laws in general, have very much to gain by offending the copyright owners and the creator of the said article. What bloggers ought to do instead is negotiate access to and fair use of news materials with different sources such as UKZambians, The Post newspapers, Times of Zambia, Daily Mail, Reuters, and so on, through mutually beneficial agreements. If they don’t then I am afraid the blogs will be inundated with lawsuits for copyright infringement. The other point worth of consideration is whether the blogger might be ethically excused for allowing obscene language and other kinds of insults to be posted on their website. From what I have observed so far, though, it is safe to suggest that the Zambian Watch Dog and Lusaka Times have become platforms where different people exchange insults around various topics and hurl obscenities at each other.

I have read, for instance, comments which demeaned Zambia’s republican president, Mr. Rupiah Banda and his ministers, the Catholic bishops, and the leaders of the opposition in the most indescribable manner. There are also comments which suggest that Bembas, for example, are thieves and irresponsible people. Tongas, Lozis and other tribes are also equally insulted or belittled. The blogs carry these ideologies of the tribe, discrimination, racism and other kinds of hatred against groups on the basis of their ethnicity, culture, race and religion almost every day. Although I am personally critical of the government and what our leaders do, I find all this ethically wrong and unacceptable. This is because providing media spaces for bigotry and other types of prejudices could inspire social strife. Blogs should therefore not publish such comments. Much as an individual should always exercise his or her freedom of expression, it is also important to remember that the liberties and freedoms of other people ought to be respected as well no matter how much one disagreed with them.

I have argued the legal and ethical challenges of web-blogging. Blogs such as the Zambian Watch Dog and the Lusaka Times should enter into agreements with other media institutions to avoid copyright infringement and lawsuits. They may also avoid legal liabilities by exercising the principle of fair use of copyrightable material. Copyright laws exist to foster innovation by regulating inventions, symbols and other creative expressions. Furthermore, the blogs and those who run them are better advised to be respectful at all times and delete offensive comments from their websites so that the rights and dignities of all people are respected regardless of their religion, culture, ethnicity and race.

THE BAROTSE QUESTION: What should be done?

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. Following the Berlin Conference of 1884, 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 BAROTSE QUESTION
The Barotse question has its origin with the Lochner Concession of 1887 when Lochner as the representative of the British South Africa company signed a treaty with the Litunga of the Barotse people for protection against slave traders and in turn gave mineral exploration and mining rights in his land 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 Zambian government at independence. The land of the Litunga where the Barotse people had sovereighnty was 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 Baroseland 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.

In subsequent years, the boundary of what the British Colonialists named as Barotseland kept shifting as other tribes were brought and made subject peoples of the Barotse Nationality.
On 25thJune, 1898 at a meeting held at Victoria Falls, the Litunga Lawenika together with 7 of his Counselors and witnessed by 5 other people on behalf of the Barotse Nationality, signed with R.T Corydon - 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 1900, Britain formally annexed Barotseland and governed it as part of North Western Rhodersia. 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. In a letter of complaint by Lewanika to Coryrdon 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 “Baroseland”, 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 Angust, 1909, Lewanika extended his anthority 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 particulary 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, 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 Abercon 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 “suvereinty of Lewanika as the Land was inaccessible from Fort Jameson. The Administrative move effected 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 Baroseland.

These administrative changes that gave Lewanika “care taker” status resulted in the creation by the BSA company of an entity known as “ Baroseland - North Western Rhodesia” and was initially headquartered at Kalomo. The other area known as North Eastern Rhodesia was Headquatered at Fort Jameson , now Chipata. In 1911, the two territories merged into the Protectorate of Northern Rhodesia. The name “Barotseland” was not featured in the new entity. However, the Almagamation Order contained specific provisions securing the Litunga Lewanika relative authority over Baroseland alone without North Western Rhodesia. 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 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. Ealier 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 quarantees 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 Teasury 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 irrerevant. 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. However, 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 annexure to the Independent Constitution? Was its abrogation 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? 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?
For sure, valuable lessons can be learnt from the experience of other countries. Some examples include the case of Serbia and Kosovo which 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.
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.
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 peoples resources in Lusaka and abusing their powers unfettered support the maintenance of a unitary state.
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.

By. Dr. Mbita Chitala Executive Director, Zambia Research Foundation