Northern Rhodesia Institute for Colonial Research

11/05/2026

By the end of the year 1917, Yeta was asserting his right to be called ‘King’ of Barotseland, as his father originally had been called; his proposal was rejected harshly and unequivocally. Nor was the Administration pleased with Lozi ‘inter-meddling’ outside the reserved area. District officers were reporting Lozi attempts to ‘boss up’ Ila and Sala chiefs in the Kafue District and to interfere in the succession to the Mumbwa chieftaincy."

24/10/2025

Welensky's "New Federation" Plan of 1962.

This map, currently being circulated in the media by unscrupulous and ill-informed individuals bent on misleading masses in a transparent bid for relevance, depicts Sir Roy Welensky’s 1962 proposal for a new federation. It is crucial to understand that this was never a formal, published plan, but rather a desperate, last-ditch political gambit. Welensky's primary objective was to salvage a rump federation from the collapse of the larger one, specifically to protect the economic interests of Southern Rhodesia and its white settlers by securing the massive revenues from the Copperbelt—a region that geographically lay within Northern Rhodesia.

In 1962-63, as the Central African Federation collapsed, its Prime Minister, Sir Roy Welensky, proposed a desperate new federation to preserve a white-dominated bloc. His plan sought to combine: Southern Rhodesia, the Copperbelt, Katanga, and North Western . Using the traditional authority of Barotseland as a key pawn in a high-stakes game, Welensky even offered to arrange a meeting between the Litunga and Katanga's leader, Moïse Tshombe, but Mwanawina rejected the plan to avoid alienating his allies in Lusaka and London.

Undeterred, Welensky presented the same proposal to Colonial Secretary Duncan Sandys in February 1963. He offered to let Nyasaland and North-Eastern Rhodesia secede in exchange for a new federation where Southern Rhodesia would provide governance, the Copperbelt the wealth, and Barotseland cheap labour and a “cooperative African leader and Katanga to add to the resources”. Sandys apparently adopted this "manifestly absurd" scheme, flying to Barotseland and securing a signed document from the Litunga requesting secession from Northern Rhodesia but to remain "within the new Federation."

UNIP condemned these negotiations as a manoeuvre to turn the Lozi rulers against nationalists. Sandys soon reneged, stating separation was not in the Barotse people's interest. Despite this, the Lealui , urged on by Godwin Mbikustta, continued to demand secession.

Subsequently, Welensky and Mbikustta travelled to London for talks with R.A. Butler the new Colonial Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. They were informed that while Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland could leave the Federation, Barotseland could not secede from Northern Rhodesia. Mbikustta protested that this broke Britain's treaties with the Lozi, and Welensky declared that "the Barotse have been sold down the river."

Why the Plan Failed

The scheme was "manifestly absurd" for several reasons:

• British Opposition:- The British government, under Macmillan and then Home, had accepted the "winds of change" and would not agree to a plan that deliberately fragmented a Northern Rhodesia destined for majority rule, especially one that so blatantly used Barotseland as a Bantustan.

• UNIP's Strength:- Kenneth Kaunda and UNIP were too powerful and would never have accepted the amputation of the Copperbelt, the country's economic heartland.

• International Pressure:- The international community, and the UN, would have condemned a plan that reinforced white minority rule and balkanized an emerging African nation.

• Litunga's Caution:- Litunga Mwanawina was wary. While he wanted to secede from Northern Rhodesia, he was ultimately more trusting of the British Crown than of Welensky's settler government, fearing that this alliance would alienate his ultimate protectors in London.

07/09/2025

THE LAMBA PEOPLE.

Whereas in the past it was usual to put a large number of tribes into this group (Lala-Lamba Group)—on the grounds of common origin and common language—it is more customary to separate the two tribes and attach to each its offshoots of close kinsmen.

The Lala group includes the Lala, Swaka, Ambo and Luano; the Lamba group, Lima and Seba. The Swaka, a buffer tribe between the Lala and Lamba.

The Lamba people possess a rich history deeply intertwined with their northern kin, the Lala, with whom they were once a single unit. Their origins are explained through foundational legends. One tradition tells of a man named Nkonde who had two wives; one from the Nyendwa clan and the other from the Mishishi (hair) clan. The descendants of the latter wife became the Awena-Mishishi, the ruling clan of the Lamba. A more dramatic legend states that a chief named Chipimpi once ruled the entire Lala-Lamba group. His son, Kawunda, killed a slave described as "a man with hair on his head" and then slew his own father to become the founder of the Lamba ruling clan. This patricide led to a powerful spiritual legacy, as Chipimpi's head refused to be disposed of. After many magical manifestations, it was enshrined and is said to remain at the headwaters of the Kafulafuta River in the Congo, where it is still greatly revered by the Lamba people today.

The chiefs of the Lala, Lamba, Swaka and Seba are alleged to be the descendants of five famous sisters: (1) Mushiri; (2) Ngosa Mupeta; (3) Nampongela alias Musonda, who appears to have been of the least significance; (4) Mwewa Mumba; and (5) Nkana. The first four women all belonged to the Mwina Nyendwa clan but the clan of Nkana was the Mwina Mishishi. The line of Lamba chiefs is descended from a woman named Nkana, one of five famous sisters from whom the chiefs of the Lala, Lamba, Swaka, and Seba all claim ancestry. The “Paramount Chief” of the Lamba, Mushiri, belongs to this lineage and is acknowledged as the senior Lamba chief in Zambia. However, the Lamba are a transborder people, also inhabiting the Belgian Congo. Historically, the more important of the two Congo chiefs, Nselenje, was considered the most influential of all the Lamba chiefs.

Their history was marked by external conflicts and raids. Along with their Lala neighbours, they were saved from extermination during the raids of the Ngoni, Chikunda, Mbunda, Arabs, and Banyeke by the famous Lala chief Bwashi, who died around 1890. The Lamba area itself was raided by the Chikunda, and well into the early 20th century, a few scattered Chikunda families remained in the region. The raids of the Arab slavers under Chiwala also caused considerable confusion. Notably, there are no records of the Ngoni or Lozi empires ever reaching the Lamba area. The impact of the Swahili-Arab slavers is still visible near Ndola, where a Swahili Reserve is now almost completely under Lamba influence. Very few true descendants of the original invaders remain, as most have intermarried with the local people. While the Swahili ruling family clings to its Muslim regalia, few other relics of their language and culture persist.

The colonial and modern era brought significant change to the Lamba, primarily due to their proximity to the burgeoning Copperbelt. This made their homeland the most ethnically mixed area in the territory. A village census taken in Ndola in 1948 revealed that there was not a single entirely pure Lamba village in the district, and Lamba chiefs commonly employed alien councillors as a matter of course. This pattern of assimilation led to the effective absorption of one isolated pocket of Lamba people in the Kasempa District. Under Chiefs Kalasa and Chinsengwe, this group was separated from the main Lamba area by a block of Lima people. The Kaonde intermixture there became so dominant that the government eventually placed the area under Chief Kasempa, and the people are now officially referred to as Kaonde, representing a clear example of total cultural absorption.

05/09/2025

Government Directive on the Use of Formal
Traditional Titles of Chiefs in Zambia

The traditional titles for Chiefs in Zambia are diverse and reflect the rich cultural heritage of its numerous ethnic groups. The titles are often specific to the particular chiefdom and the people's language.

In a Circular No.: 12 OF 2024 REF: MLGRD/CD/102/4/78, dated 12th March 2024 addressed to all Heads of Government Institutions, Government gave a Directive on the Mandatory Use of Formal Traditional Titles for recognized Chiefs in the Republic of Zambia.

2.0 DIRECTIVE

“. . . . . it is hereby directed that:
All Recognised Traditional Leaders in the Republic of Zambia must henceforth be addressed officially and in all formal correspondence by their correct and formal traditional titles. This includes, but is not limited to, His Royal Highness, Chitimukulu, Litunga, Mpezeni, Kalonga Gawa Undi, Senior Chief, Chief, Mwami, and all other specific traditional titles as recognised and registered by the Government through the Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development.”

3.0 Specific Traditional Titles and Their Ethnic Associations:

Chief is most widespread English designation for a traditional ruler in Zambia. This is the generic title used across all ethnicities also called tribes. You may wish to note that the labels Paramount Chief, Senior Chief or simply Chief are all Government effort used to categorize or designate the level of jurisdiction within a tribe not across tribes. The title of “King” is not hierarchical, not even recognised in Zambia. It is important to note that the specific traditional title for an individual chief is an integral part of their identity and the history of their people.

Some of the commonly known titles and their tribal associations are listed below:

o Mwine Lubemba /Chitimukulu (Bemba Nation)
o Litunga (Lozi Nation - meaning 'Of the Earth')
o Nkhosi Mpezeni (Ngoni Nation)
o Kalonga Gawa Undi (Chewa Nation)
o ###X (Leya People)
o ###X (among the Ushi, Lamba, Lala, and Swaka peoples)
o Kankomba (Among the Ambo people)
o Mwata (Used by chiefs in the Lunda chiefdoms)
o Nkosi (Among some Ngoni and Nsenga groups)
o Mwene (Common in several languages of Western and Southern Provinces, e.g., Nkoya, Mbunda)
o ###X (among the Mambwe – Lungu Nation)

Hence:
o (Bemba Nation) Mwine Lubemba Kanyanta Manga II Henry Sosala or Chitimukulu Kanyanta Manga II Henry Sosala.
• Never Paramount Chief Chitimukulu.

Chitimukulu is the name of an inherited Office (Title). The Occupier of that Office have their own name. Bemba Nation is led by Office of The Chitimukulu.


(Post is under development)

30/08/2025

KNOW ALL ZAMBIANS WHOM IT MAY CONCERN, THE POLITICAL FIGHT OF BAROTSES: - BAROTSELAND AGREEMENT 1964.

I. Early Demands For Secession Of Barotseland From Northern Rhodesia

a) The secession of Barotseland from Northern Rhodesia was formally and repeatedly rejected by Her Majesty's Government (HMG) of the United Kingdom, specifically by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in the years 1961 and 1962.

b) The primary reasons for the rejection were pragmatic and political. In a letter dated 18th April 1961 from the Secretary of state for Colonies addressed to the Governor of Northern Rhodesia, the British government argued that “Barotseland” was not an economically viable unit and would not be so in the foreseeable future, making it incapable of sustaining itself as an independent protectorate.

c) Furthermore if barotseland was to become an independent state, it was argued it would be logistically impractical for the UK to provide the necessary protection and administrative services to a landlocked territory surrounded by Northern Rhodesia, South-West Africa, and Portuguese West Africa.

d) Politically, HMG feared that secession would provoke intense hostility from African nationalist parties within Northern Rhodesia and expose the traditional, unrepresentative “government” of the Litunga (the Paramount Chief) to the full force of African nationalism, potentially destabilizing the region and jeopardizing the ruling regime itself. The UK's position, as stated by the Colonial Secretary in an April 1961 letter, was that the best interests of the Barotse people would not be served by separation from Northern Rhodesia. This stance was reaffirmed throughout subsequent correspondence and discussions into 1962.

II. Secession Of Barotseland From Zambia – Barotse National Freedom Alliance (BNFA) Petition

a) Based on the provided position paper from the Barotse National Freedom Alliance (BNFA), the petition made by the Lozi people is for the complete and unconditional disengagement of Barotseland from the Republic of Zambia and the recognition of its sovereign statehood.

b) They argue that the Zambian government's unilateral abrogation of the 1964 Barotseland Agreement—the foundational treaty that secured Barotseland's autonomy within a unitary Zambia—effectively nullified the legal basis for Zambian jurisdiction. Consequently, they assert that Barotseland is now a territory free from Zambian rule.

c) Their central demand is for the Zambian government to constitute a working party to negotiate the modalities of separation, leading to the establishment of an independent Barotse state. They explicitly reject the notion of a Zambian-run referendum on independence, arguing that Zambia has no legal or moral authority over Barotseland and instead reserve the right for a future Barotse Transitional Administration to hold a referendum on its own constitutional arrangements.

III. Secession Of Barotseland From Zambia – Barotse National Council (BNC) 2012 Resolutions

Based on the resolutions document from the Barotse National Council (BNC) held in Limulunga on **March 26-27, 2012**, the Lozi people made the definitive resolution to formally accept the Zambian government's unilateral abrogation of the 1964 Barotseland AgAgreement and,s a consequence, declare Barotseland free to pursue its own self-determination.

The key resolutions were:
1. To declare that the abrogation of the agreement has freed Barotseland from Zambia, reverting it to its original status as a sovereign nation.
2. To mandate the Barotse Government to immediately engage Zambia for the sole purpose of working out peaceful transitional arrangements leading to self-determination under UN auspices.
3. To call on the international community (including the UN, AU, SADC, and the Commonwealth) to support this right to self-determination and to request the UN to oversee the transition process.
4. To begin an internal transition process to take over all government functions in Barotseland and establish a modernized, accountable government.

In essence, the 2012 resolutions are a formal declaration of intent to secede from Zambia and establish Barotseland as an independent, sovereign state.

IV. Conclusion

Based on a synthesis of all the provided documents, a clear narrative emerges: the fundamental conflict between the Lozi leadership and successive governments stems from a critical divergence in interpreting historical agreements. The Lozi position, passionately argued from the 1960s to the 2015 petition, is built on the belief that treaties like the Lewanika Concessions and the 1964 Barotseland Agreement established a conditional, reversible partnership with first the British Crown and then Zambia.

However, a conclusive analysis must emphasise that this perspective misunderstands the core constitutional history. The evidence shows that Barotseland was never a sovereign state. Throughout the colonial era, it enjoyed dubious autonomous status within the larger protectorate of Northern Rhodesia, enjoying a ”special status” but not independent statehood. This is unequivocally stated in the 1960s British despatches, which rejected secession not only on pragmatic grounds of economic viability but on the legal principle that Barotseland was an inseparable part of the Northern Rhodesian territory. The 1964 Agreement was therefore designed to protect this “internal autonomy” within the new unitary sovereign state of Zambia, not to create a sovereign entity within it or establish a conditional union.

Consequently, while the Zambian government’s unilateral abrogation of the agreement in 1969 was a grave breach of trust and a revocation of guaranteed rights, it did not—as the Lozi claim—automatically dissolve the state or revert Barotseland to a “sovereign status” it never possessed. The Lozi narrative mistakes “autonomy” for “sovereignty” and misinterprets the abrogation as a termination of a bilateral treaty between equal partners, rather than a central government reneging on a domestic constitutional compact. This misunderstanding of Barotseland’s historical and legal position as a part of Northern Rhodesia and then Zambia—not as a separate nation state in a voluntary partnership—lies at the heart of the enduring deadlock. The struggle is thus not a reclamation of lost sovereignty, but a political fight for self-determination based on a distinct historical grievance.

Send a message to learn more

29/08/2025

FIXING THE CHIEFS ACT CAP 287 OF THE LAWS OF ZAMBIA

From a historical perspective the Chiefs Act, CAP 287 of Zambian Laws, is a poorly conceived law. It was written without understanding how traditional Bantu political systems work. Lawyers drafted it without input from historians, whose knowledge would have been essential.

This law is fundamentally flawed. Therefore, any court judgment based on it could be seen as a farce and would be riddled with controversy.

The Act's main problems are:

1. The Concept of a "Deputy Chief" is Culturally Wrong.

In Bantu culture, a Chief's position is hereditary hence it cannot be deputized. A Chief's authority comes or is rooted in his birthright. All power and responsibility are personal and united in that one individual. It's either you are a “chief ” or you are not. A "Deputy Chief" would have no legitimate source of authority, no royal lineage, and no acceptance from the people. By creating this role, the government through this Act essentially promotes treason.

2. The Law is Vague on duties of Deputy Chief

When describing the actual duties of a Chief or this invented "Deputy Chief," the Act provides no useful detail.

3. The Law Misrepresents the Litunga's Title.

A particularly ignorant section of the law creates the title "Litunga of Western Province." This title is incorrect and offensive. The Litunga is, and always has been, the Litunga of Barotseland. "Barotseland", a colonial shady title of the homeland of Lozi people, and "Western Province" are not the same thing. Barotse Province (mistakenly called Barotseland) renamed Western Province in 1969, was/is one of the administrative division of the Zambian State.

4. The Law Violates the Rights of Non-Lozi Tribes.

Most outrageously, the law states that the Litunga and the Lozi Traditional Council must approve the recognition of every chief from every tribe in Western Province. This provision is a direct attack on the sovereignty of non-Lozi tribes. It is a repeat of colonial-era policies that deny these tribes the right to exist and govern themselves according to their own traditions. Selection and appointment of a chief of a non-Lozi tribe must be the sole and exclusive right of that tribe itself. No external chiefly authority should have the power to approve or reject their chosen leader.

5. The Act Uses Ambiguous Language which Could Be Problematic.

The law confusingly states that any chief recognized by the Litunga must be from a "ruling family in the Western Province." The term “ruling family” is not defined. What is a "ruling family"? And what does "ruling family in the Western Province" mean? This vague language creates room for political interference by Litunga and further undermines authentic traditional lines of succession.

This Act is deeply flawed and must be either thoroughly amended or completely repealed and replaced.

19/08/2025

Kaondes of DR Congo.

https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1CHdKjkrRm/?mibextid=wwXIfr

31/07/2025

The True Lozi People and their Origins:

Untangling History from Colonial Distortions

The Lozi people—originally known as the Luyi (A-luyi or Ba-luyi)—are the true indigenous rulers of the Upper Zambezi floodplains, with a history distinct from the many other ethnic groups mistakenly grouped under the colonial label "Barotseland." British administrators exaggerated the territorial extent of Lozi influence, falsely presenting it as a vast kingdom stretching from the Kasai River to the Zambezi-Luangwa confluence. In reality, the Lozi (Luyi) were just one dominant group among many autonomous tribes in the region.

The Luyi: The Original Lozi

The Luyi migrated from the Congo Basin centuries ago, likely from the Luba-Lunda kingdoms, settling in the Zambezi floodplains by at least the 16th or 17th century. They established a centralized kingdom under the Litunga (king/chief), with their own language, Siluyi (Luyana), which remains distinct from the later Silozi (a Kololo-influenced language).

The Kololo Invasion and the Birth of the "Lozi" Name

In the early 19th century- 1824, the Makololo (a Sotho-Tswana group led by Sebituane) invaded from the south, conquering the Luyi. The Makololo referred to the Luyi as "Ba-rotse"—a corruption of "Ba-hurutse" (a Tswana subgroup)—which later evolved into "Lozi." After the Luyi overthrew the Kololo in 1864, they retained the name but reasserted their Luyana identity.

British Colonial Fabrications: The Myth of "Greater Barotseland"

The British, seeking territorial control, inflated Barotseland’s borders far beyond traditional Lozi influence. They claimed that Lewanika, a barotse chief, had given them his territory in 1890 treaties. And that his territory stretched from:
- Kasai River (DRC) in the north
- Zambezi-Luangwa confluence in the east
- Kwando River in the west

In truth, the core Lozi territory (aciently known as Uluyi later Bulozi) was the upper Zambezi floodplain (about 150 miles long and 60 miles wide), from the Kabompo confluence to the Gonye Falls. Beyond this, the region was home to independent tribes:
- Subiya, Tonga, Ila (south & southeast)
- Luvale, Mbunda, Luchazi (north & Angola border)
- Nkoya, Kaonde (Kahonde) (east)
- Chokwe (Va-chokwe) (traders & raiders from Angola)

Why the British Promoted the "Lozi Empire" Myth

1. Political Control – By exaggerating Lozi authority, the British could claim vast territories under a single "native ruler" (the Litunga).
2. Resource Exploitation – The Zambezi floodplains were agriculturally rich; the British wanted indirect rule over the region.
3. Divide and Rule – Grouping diverse tribes under "Barotseland" simplified colonial administration but erased distinct identities.

The Lozi Were Never the Sole Inhabitants

The "Barotseland" was always multi-ethnic, with subject and allied tribes maintaining their own languages and customs. Colonial records admit:
- The Bambowe, Bakwangwa, and Lunda were original inhabitants.
- The Subiya, Totela, and Nkoya had their own chieftaincies before Lozi dominance.
- The Mbunda and Luvale were independent some being incorporated.

Conclusion: The Lozi Identity is Unique, Not Universal

The real Lozis are the Luyi descendants, not all inhabitants of Western Province. The mix up only comes up as a result of British colonial distortion of Barotseland history by:
- Falsely expanding Barotseland’s borders
- Grouping unrelated tribes under "Lozi" rule
- Erasing the autonomy of the Nkoya, Mbunda, Luvale, and others

Today, recognizing this truth is essential for historical accuracy and respecting the distinct identities of all ethnic groups in the western region. The Lozi have a proud history, but it should not overshadow the rich heritage of their neighbors.

Final Thought

The name "Barotseland" was a colonial invention—not a traditional Luyi or Lozi concept. The British used it to justify territorial claims, but the real Lozi kingdom was always smaller and more ethnically distinct than colonial maps suggested. By correcting this narrative, we honor the true history of all Western Zambia’s peoples

08/07/2025

The Nkoya People: A Distinct Ethnic Identity Separate from the Lozi

The Nkoya, also referred to as the Mankoya in historical records, are an indigenous Bantu people whose origins, language, and political structures firmly establish them as a distinct ethnic group—not an offshoot or sub-tribe of the Lozi (Malôzi). Historical accounts, oral traditions, and ethnographic evidence all converge to demonstrate that the Nkoya existed as an autonomous society long before Lozi dominance reshaped the region’s power dynamics. Their story is one of resilience, cultural preservation, and resistance against assimilation, making it clear that they are not—and never have been—Lozi.

Origins and Early Settlement

The Nkoya trace their migration from the north, initially settling in what are now the Balovale, Mwinilunga, and Kasempa districts before gradually moving south into the Mankoya district. Unlike the Lozi, who consolidated their kingdom in the Barotse Floodplain, the Nkoya established themselves along the Luena River and its tributaries, forming a decentralized but cohesive society. Their presence predated the arrival of neighboring groups such as the Bashikalu, who themselves acknowledge that the Nkoya were already inhabiting the region when they migrated from the Barotse Valley around 1820. This early settlement history alone challenges the notion that the Nkoya were ever an extension of the Lozi people.

Language and Cultural Distinctions

One of the most compelling pieces of evidence separating the Nkoya from the Lozi is their language. While the Lozi speak Silozi—a language heavily influenced by the Makololo invaders of the 19th century—the Nkoya speak Sinkoya, a dialect with notable differences, particularly in the Mongu-Lealui region. Even among related tribes such as the Balushange and Bashikalu, linguistic patterns align more closely with Nkoya than with Lozi. The Bashikalu, for instance, maintain circumcision traditions that the Lozi never adopted, further underscoring cultural autonomy. These linguistic and ritual distinctions are not mere variations but markers of separate ethnic identities.

Independent Chieftainship Before Lozi Conquest

The Nkoya were not a stateless people but governed themselves under a line of chiefs known as the *Mwene-Mutondo*, a title that persists to this day. Records from 1939, provided by Mwene-Mutondo Kanyisha V, list sixteen successive rulers, some of whom were women—a practice that reflects a matrilineal tradition before Lozi interference. Chiefs such as Mwene Lukamba Nkulo, Mwene Lipepo Naboa, and Mwene Kayambila Tateyoyo ruled from well-defined settlements like Mayankwa, Mutondo, and Mumbwa, long before Lozi paramountcy extended into their territory.

The Nkoya’s political independence was violently disrupted in the mid-19th century, first by the Makololo under Mbololo and later by the resurgent Lozi under Sipopa. Following the defeat of the Makololo in 1864, Sipopa imposed a puppet chief, Munangisha, on the Nkoya and relocated many of them westward—a clear act of subjugation, not kinship. Some Nkoya royals were exiled to Kalabo, while others were absorbed into Lozi-administered regions, yet they retained their identity. This history of conquest, not assimilation, proves that the Nkoya were never Lozi but a subjected people.

Tribal Affiliations and Resistance to Lozi Hegemony

The Nkoya’s relationship with neighboring tribes further illustrates their distinct identity. The Balushange, for example, speak a language so closely related to Sinkoya that many of their villages now identify as Nkoya. Similarly, the Bashikalu, though settled near the Luampa River, assert Nkoya lineage and maintain customs absent in Lozi culture. Even the Bamashasha—originally from Kasempa—acknowledge that their resistance to Lozi tribute collectors under Sipopa marked them as a separate entity. These tribal connections reinforce the Nkoya’s historical autonomy rather than absorption into the Lozi fold.

Lozi Influence: Domination, Not Kinship

The Lozi narrative, as recorded by missionary Adolphe Jalla, claims an early conquest of the Nkoya, but Nkoya oral history disputes this, insisting that interactions began only around 1860. What is undeniable is that the Lozi, after reclaiming power from the Makololo, systematically dismantled Nkoya sovereignty. They confiscated royal drums, installed compliant chiefs, and relocated populations—all hallmarks of colonial-style control, not ethnic unity. Even Lewanika’s reign saw further suppression, with Nkoya dissenters punished and their territories carved into Lozi-administered zones. Yet despite this, the Nkoya never adopted Lozi identity, instead preserving their language, customs, and chiefly lineages. In a milestone rebellion, the Nkoyas rejected Lozi rule in 1937. This revolt was only quelled with the support of the Boma.

Conclusion: The Nkoya Stand Apart

The evidence is unequivocal: the Nkoya are not Lozi. Their independent migration patterns, distinct language, pre-colonial chieftainship, and resistance to Lozi rule all affirm a separate ethnic identity. While the Lozi Kingdom expanded through conquest and imposed its authority over the Nkoya, it never erased their cultural sovereignty. To claim otherwise is to ignore centuries of Nkoya history—a history that deserves recognition on its own terms. The Nkoya were not a branch of the Lozi but a people who endured domination while steadfastly maintaining their heritage. Their story is not one of assimilation but of survival.

06/07/2025

Official Statement on the Constitutional Recognition of Lozi Hegemony in Western Province

To the Esteemed Lozi Leadership and the People of Western Province,

The recent remarks by Ngambela Mukela Manyando in Kaoma, asserting the Litunga’s exclusive authority over the installation, discipline, and dethronement of chiefs in Western Province, have reignited a long-standing constitutional and administrative concern. While we respect the cultural heritage and traditional governance structures of the Lozi people, it is imperative to address the inherent inequities perpetuated by the current constitutional framework, which unjustly imposes Lozi hegemony over non-Lozi tribes in the region.

The Zambian Constitution, as it stands, erroneously entrenches the Litunga’s ownership and unilateral authority over Western Province, disregarding the historical and territorial rights of other indigenous groups such as the Nkoya, Mbunda, Luvale, Lunda, and Kaonde, among others. This colonial-era imposition—crafted without the consent of all affected communities—continues to foster systemic marginalization and undermines the principles of equality, inclusivity, and democratic governance enshrined in our national values.

Ngambela Manyando’s assertion that any individual declaring themselves chief without the Litunga’s approval is "breaking the law" is a direct consequence of this flawed constitutional provision. Such a stance not only suppresses the autonomy of other traditional leaders but also reinforces an archaic system that was never designed to serve the collective interests of all ethnic groups in the region. The Zambian government must bear responsibility for its failure to rectify this injustice in a timely manner, allowing an outdated and divisive system to persist unchecked.

**The Urgent Need for Constitutional Reform**

The current constitutional framework is in dire need of revision to dismantle the colonial vestiges that prioritize Lozi dominance at the expense of other tribes. A modern, inclusive Zambia cannot thrive while certain communities are subjected to the unilateral authority of a single traditional institution. The government’s reluctance to address this issue has only deepened historical grievances and fostered unnecessary tensions.

We, therefore, call for:

1. **Immediate Constitutional Review** – The Zambian government must initiate amendments to remove clauses that grant the Litunga exclusive control over Western Province, ensuring equitable recognition of all traditional leadership structures in the region.

2. **Recognition of Non-Lozi Chiefdoms** – The right of other tribes to install, oversee, and sustain their own traditional leaders without external imposition must be constitutionally guaranteed.
3. **Government Accountability** – The state must acknowledge its failure to act decisively in correcting this historical injustice and commit to meaningful dialogue with all affected stakeholders.

**Conclusion**

The Lozi traditional leadership, while culturally significant, cannot rightfully claim absolute authority over lands and peoples who have their own distinct histories and governance systems. The Zambian Constitution must reflect the diversity and autonomy of all its citizens, not perpetuate an outdated hierarchy imposed by colonial design.

The government’s inaction has allowed this injustice to fester for far too long. It is time for corrective measures—rooted in fairness, justice, and the true spirit of One Zambia, One Nation.

Chief Analyst
Northern Rhodesia Institute of Colonial Research
July 2025