Northern Rhodesia Institute for Colonial Research

Northern Rhodesia Institute for Colonial Research Who We Are:
Northern Rhodesia Institute for Colonial Research is a consultancy firm. What we do
We are historical investigators.

We conduct research on how the Northern Rhodesia government was established and how its administration evolved over time. Northern Rhodesia Institute of Colonal Research operations are organised into three technical areas:


1. Legal Documents and Maps:- historical interpretation of - Treaties, Orders in

Council, High Commissioner’s Proclamations and Notices, Administrators

Notices, Maps for

North-Western Rhodesia, North Eastern Rhodesia, Northern Rhodesia


2. African Political Systems (Chieftaincies) and the Tribes of Northern Rhodesia:- focus

on tribal rule and tribes under European administration.


3. Government Administration - focus on political history of and

establishment of Government administration.

23/07/2026

Here is UPND Government Spokesperson Cornelius Mweetwa, demonstrating government's lack of understanding on the Barotseland issue. Ironically, this is the same government that is expected to find a solution to the Barotse question. Listen to him at this link https://web.facebook.com/reel/606211735589682

The British government clearly and plainly stated their position on "Barotseland" to avoid confusion. It's all right her...
04/07/2026

The British government clearly and plainly stated their position on "Barotseland" to avoid confusion. It's all right here! In our own private archives.

02/07/2026

ORGANISATION OF THE BEMBA CHIEFTAINCY STRUCTURE (TOP TO BOTTOM)

The Bemba chieftaincy structure is organized as a hierarchical, pyramidal system of delegated authority, built upon a foundation of kinship, ritual, and territorial divisions.

Here is a breakdown of how it is organized:
________________________________________

1. The Paramount Chief (Citimukulu)

• At the apex of the entire Bemba structure is the Paramount Chief, known as The Citimukulu.
• He is the supreme ruler and ritual head of all the Bemba. His overlordship of the entire Bemba territory is unquestioned.
• He lives in his own district (icalo), called Lubemba, which is the central "homeland" of the Bemba.
• He is the highest court of appeal, the ultimate ritual authority, and the symbol of tribal unity. However, he does not rule directly over all the people; his authority is exercised through subordinate territorial chiefs.

________________________________________

2. The Territorial Chiefs – The Senior Chief

• Directly beneath the Citimukulu are the Territorial Chiefs, who rule over the major divisions of Bemba country. There are five or more of these chiefs.
• Each of these chiefs’ rules over his own district (icalo), which is a self-contained political, judicial, and ritual unit. Each has his own capital, his own court, his own sacred relics, and his own followers.
• These chiefships are arranged in a fixed order of precedence, based on the antiquity of their office and their nearness to the central district of Lubemba. The most important of these are the Mwamba, Nkula, Nkolemfumu, and Mpepo chieftainships.
• Crucially, the Citimukulu appoints his nearest relatives (brothers, maternal nephews) to these most important territorial chieftainships. In fact, holders of these high offices often succeed one another in order of seniority, with the Mwamba usually being the one to eventually succeed to the paramountcy itself.

________________________________________

3. Sub-Chieftainships – The Chief

• Below the major territorial chiefs are Sub-Chiefs, who rule over smaller tracts of country, often just a few villages.
• While the major chiefships circulate among the paramount's immediate family, these sub-chieftainships tend to become concentrated in local branches of the royal clan (the Crocodile Clan, Bena ‘ngandu within their own districts.
• Each sub-chief maintains a smaller version of the same administrative and ritual structure found at the larger courts.

________________________________________

4. Headmen ( Village Heads)

• At the base of the structure are Village Headmen.
• They are in charge of the local village (umushi), which typically consists of 30-50 huts. A village is a kinship unit, and the headman is usually the senior relative of most of its inhabitants.
• A headman's duties include maintaining discipline, hearing cases informally, organizing local economic activities, and acting as the ritual head of the village (blessing seeds, performing sacrifices to ancestors, etc.).
• They are politically crucial because they are the direct link between the chiefs and the common people. They transmit the chief's orders, organize tribute labor, and accompany villagers to court. They can be "new" headmen (appointed by the chief's favor) or "old" headmen (whose families have held the position for generations).
________________________________________

5. The Role of Kinship (The Royal Clan)

The entire structure is underpinned by kinship:
• All chieftainships are limited to members of the royal clan, the Crocodile Clan (Bena ‘ngandu, who are the descendants of the original immigrant group that founded the Bemba state.
• Because the Bemba are matrilineal (descent traced through the mother), succession to chieftainship passes through the female line. A chief is succeeded by his brothers (in order of age), then by his sister's children (maternal nephews), and failing them, by his maternal grandsons.
• Women of the royal line (banamfumu)—such as the paramount's mother, sisters, and nieces—are highly honored. The paramount's mother holds a fixed title (Candamukulu), has her own villages, sits on tribal councils, and can veto the ex*****on of a man.

________________________________________

6. The Unifying Role of Hereditary Ritual Officials (Bakabilo)

A unique feature of the Bemba system is the powerful role of the hereditary councillors and ritual officials, known as the bakabilo.
• They belong to the oldest non-royal clans and trace their ancestry back to the first immigrants.
• They hold the ultimate ritual power. They are in charge of the paramount's sacred relics, perform the installation ceremonies for new chiefs, and must purify the chief before he can perform his ritual duties.
• Because they cannot be removed by the chief (their offices are hereditary), they act as a powerful check on his authority. If a chief acts against their wishes, they can refuse to perform the rites necessary for his mystical powers, effectively paralyzing his rule.

01/07/2026

Chief Monze's Defiance of Lozi Rule

1. Historical Context: The Monze Chieftaincy
The Monze chieftaincy occupies a unique position in the history of the Tonga people of southern Zambia. Unlike other Tonga leaders who were primarily political figures, the Monze was originally a spiritual and religious office centered on rain-making and prophecy. The titleholder served as a "rainmaker" who could intercede for the community during times of drought and illness, commanding spiritual authority rather than political power.
The Monze's role evolved during the 19th century from a purely religious office into a dual politico-religious authority. The Monze became a figure of Tonga ethnic cohesion and independence, symbolizing resistance to external domination.

2. Chief Monze Ncete's Defiance (c. 1890–1916)
Chief Monze Ncete reigned from approximately 1890 to 1916. His period of leadership coincided with the consolidation of British colonial rule in Northern Rhodesia and the ongoing assertion of Lozi claims of overlordship over the Tonga.

Monze Ncete's act of defiance centered on the collection of taxes. By collecting taxes, he was directly challenging Lozi claims of authority over the Tonga people, as tax collection was a fundamental function of a ruling authority. The colonial administration, which governed through a system of indirect rule, had effectively endorsed Lozi claims of overlordship over the Tonga by recognizing the Litunga's authority over the region. Litunga’s men were allowed by the Company to collect tax Tongaland / Batoka on behalf of the BSA Co.

In 1903, Monze Ncete was arrested by British colonial authorities for his actions and subsequently imprisoned. The British authorities, operating in cooperation with the Lozi administration, viewed Monze Ncete's tax collection as an act of rebellion against the established colonial order.

Monze Ncete's defiance—collecting taxes to assert Tonga autonomy—resulted in his arrest by British colonial authorities, who were enforcing Lozi claims of overlordship through the system of indirect rule. Monze Ncete's imprisonment did not end Tonga resistance to Lozi claims of authority. The legacy of this defiance continues to resonate in the region today.

01/07/2026

The Resistance of The Mwene Mutondo - Muchayila

The 1937 creation of the Naliele court was a major catalyst for conflict. The most direct act of rebellion against this new order came from Chief Muchayila. in this case the rebellion against Lozi rule was a more drawn-out process, involving intellectual mobilization, legal challenges, and direct and costly defiance.

The case of Chief Muchayila (Mwene Mutondo) was a direct confrontation over Lozi overlordship. He was deposed and exiled for ten years after he openly refused to recognize the authority of the Litunga and the new Lozi administrative structure imposed on the Nkoya people.

The legacy of this resistance continues to shape ethnic and political dynamics in the region today.

• Refusal to Recognize Overlordship: His Royal Highness Mwene Mutondo Muchayila, influenced by the successful secession of the Balovale district from Barotseland in 1940, openly refused to recognize Lozi overlordship.
• Consequences: For this act of defiance, he was deposed and exiled to Kalabo for ten years (1948-1958). His punishment remains a powerful and dominant topic in Nkoya historical consciousness.

01/07/2026

The 1937 Nkoya Rebellion after Establishment of the Naliele Court

For years Nkoya refused to recognise the overlordship of the Lozi. The 1937 conflict was rooted in the establishment of the Naliele court by the colonial administration and the Litunga. This new Lozi royal establishment was placed in the heart of Nkoya territory and headed by the Litunga's son, making the existing Nkoya chiefs, including Mutondo, subordinate to it. This was seen as a profound humiliation .

• Purpose: The Naliele court was created to serve as an appeal court and the seat of the Native Treasury for the Mankoya (now Kaoma) district . It was to be headed by Mwanawina, a son of the Litunga, making it a direct and visible symbol of Lozi administrative control .

• Nkoya Reaction: This was seen as a profound humiliation and a major escalation of Lozi "internal colonization." The Nkoya chiefs, Mutondo and Kahare, were effectively reduced to sub-chiefs under the new Lozi authority . The Naliele court is still remembered as "the most hated symbol of lozi suppression" .

The Context of Resistance

These acts of resistance were rooted in several factors:
• Pre-Colonial History: The Nkoya, Luvale, and Lunda had their own distinct political structures and chieftaincy traditions, many of which predated Lozi expansion .

• Colonial Collaboration: The British administration chose to rule all non Lozi tribal groups through the Lozi aristocracy, thereby reinforcing lozi claims of overlordship over other groups to create a more streamlined system of indirect rule .

• Ethnic Consolidation: Resistance to Lozi domination became a key driver for the development of a stronger Nkoya, Luvale, and Lunda ethnic identity. Ironically, the colonial system that imposed Lozi rule also provided the tools (like education and written history) for these groups to fight back .

The Luvale and Lunda: A Successful Secession

While the Nkoya's 1937 rebellion was crushed with BOMA support, the Luvale and Lunda people successfully challenged Lozi rule .

• The MacDonnel Commission (1938-1941): This commission was established to investigate the claims of Luvale and Lunda autonomy. A generation of mission-educated intellectuals presented detailed historical evidence to argue for their independence from the Lozi .

• The Outcome: In 1941, the commission ruled in their favor, leading to the creation of Balovale District and separate Luvale and Lunda Native Authorities. They effectively seceded from Barotseland .

MAP OF BAROTSELAND IS BASED ON LIES.In my last post I talked of an “EXAGGERATED” map of Barotseland which Lochner , the ...
15/06/2026

MAP OF BAROTSELAND IS BASED ON LIES.

In my last post I talked of an “EXAGGERATED” map of Barotseland which Lochner , the BSA Co Representative, produced at the negotiation with the Lozi on 27th June 1889 (having discussed it with Coillard on 25th June, 1889). I thought my position would be incomplete if I never reproduced here the said MASTER map (yellow lines) from which many maps of Barotseland evolved.

In a letter dated 6th July 1888 addressed to the Foreign Office, a mysterious figure by the name of HENRY FORBES JULIAN, claimed that he had acquired certain concessions in the Barotse district around 1883. This district granted to him by the Barotse Chief Lewanika, Forbes alluded to as the Barotse Empire.

in his “NOTES ON THE BAROTSE EMPIRE RELATIVE TO ITS COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT” Forbes claimed that the Barotse Empire was situated between parallels 19° S. and 11° S. and was from 19° E. to 30° E. of Greenwich. It was bounded on the north by the watershed dividing the Zambesi and Congo River systems ; on the north-west by the Kasai River and the water shed dividing the Zambesi and Quanza River systems ; on the west by the River Kwando ; on the south by the Rivers Kwando and Zambesi ; on the east the boundary was undefined, but Forbes lied that Chief Lewanika maintained that his territory extends to the River Loangwa and that Lewanika demanded tribute of all chiefs to that point. Zumbo was considered outside the territory, but the “towns” Maashi, on the west side of River Kwando, and Kalende, on the north bank of the River Kasai, belonged to the Barotse chief, forbes lied. [Please check the visual representation of the extent of the map rendered with Google Maps based on this historical description. The area approximately 288,000km sq is six times bigger than England. Certainly larger than many modern African countries and comprised land belonging to many sovereign African tribes unknown to Chief Lewanika].

The provinces (tribal areas) Forbes claimed were eleven in number, viz. Mamboii, Mambunda, Macei, Barotse, Masubia, Matutala, Makuangua, Mankoia, Mashikulumbi, Matoka, Mashapatan.

**Actual extent of Bulozi where Lewanika had jurisdiction in blue lines.

07/06/2026

The beginning of Tribal Conflicts in Barotseland is administrave. It is a result of the historical imposition of Lozi hegemony on non lozi tribes through BSA Concessions.

…….. On 27 June, 1890, Lewanika, his son Litia, Ngambela Mwauluka, and thirty-eight indunas thumbed the concession with the BSA Co. The Company received ‘the sole, absolute, exclusive and perpetual right and power’ to ‘search for, dig, win and keep’ any and all minerals in Barotseland. Coillard later recorded what Lewanika and Council considered to be the extent of their kingdom; they made a very DUBIOUS claim that Lozi authority was recognized by the Lunda and Luvale in the north, the Kaonde to the north-east, the Ila to the east, and the Tonga and Toka to the south-east and all tribes in the barotse plain. In effect, then, through the Lochner Concession, the Company assumed the whole of what was to become North Western Rhodesia; its (company’s) authority over all the peoples named by Lewanika rested solely on its agreement with the chief of the Lozi; no independent agreements were ever signed by chiefs of the Lunda, Luvale, Ila, Tonga or Toka, who nevertheless had to submit to Company overrule.

In return for this vast accretion to Rhodes’s empire—estimated by Coillard at some 200,000 square miles 74 — the Company undertook ‘to protect the said Chief and nation from all outside interference and attack’, but pledged not to ‘interfere in any matter concerning the Chief’s power and authority over any of his own subjects’. …….

( BSA Company that impressed on Lewanika that his “kingdom” extended into south west Belgian Congo, to the frontier of portuguese west africa (angola) with Germany West Africa (cameroon), to the hook of kafue and zambezi. Using Lewanika as a pony. BSA Co desire was to acquire as much land as they could in accordance with the mission on their charter).

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."

Address

Empire Avenue
Livingstone
10101

Telephone

+260955510047

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Northern Rhodesia Institute for Colonial Research posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Business

Send a message to Northern Rhodesia Institute for Colonial Research:

Shortcuts

Share

Category