The Litunga of the Lozi people says the Barotseland Agreement of 1964 is actively being addressed with Government and the Barotse Royal Establishment to resolve any perceived differences. This is in a matter four Lozi loyalists petitioned the Constitutional Court to compel the Litunga to vacate the throne alleging that he was reluctant to address the issue of the Barotseland Agreement with Government.

In their application filed in the court, Nabiwa Imikendu, Litia Mutemwa, Mukubesa Ilukena and Mumbisho Liswaniso want the Litunga to relinquish his position, accusing him of gross misconduct and abuse of authority. But Litunga Lubosi Imwiko, through Muimanema Mwenda, the Ngambela of the Barotse Royal Establishment in his affidavit in opposition to their claims, said the process of removing the Litunga was a preserve of the established systems of the Lozi people.

He said it is not true that there was a survey that was conducted across the province where 92 percent of the Lozi people disapproved of the Litunga’s leadership as claimed by the quartet. “I deny the claims outlined in the purported action on account of lack of merit and I will demonstrate at trial that a process of removal of the Litunga is a preserve of the Lozi people,” Ngambela Mwenda said. Ngambela Mwenda also dismissed allegations that ever since the Litunga ascended to the throne on October 13, 2000, he had been sneaking out of the palace to attend to his business fortunes.

He said the economic and infrastructure development was the responsibility of the central government of Zambia. Therefore, claims that the Litunga is a stumbling block to development in Western Province are misconceived. Meanwhile, the Lusaka High Court has quashed the decision by the Registrar of Societies to deregister Democratic Party (DP) and has directed it to issue the party with a duplicate certificate of registration. The DP, through its national secretary Precious Ntambu, commenced judicial review proceedings challenging the registrar’s decision to cancel the registration of the party, arguing that it was illegal.

But in her judgment delivered yesterday, Justice Sharon Newa said the decision to cancel the registration of the party was illegal, irrational and procedurally improper. “I accordingly quash the registrar’s decision and direct the registrar of societies to issue the party with a duplicate certificate of registration,” she said.