SOLVING THE WAYEYI PEOPLE OF BOTSWANA'S OPPRESSION
2.1 The Wayeyi are one of the 45 tribes in Botswana. ‘It is agreed that they form a separate tribal group with their own ethnic language and culture (Misca 377/99). There are about 60 000 Wayeyi and they live mainly in Ngamiland (Northwest District), with some in the Central district. Tlou (1985) estimates that Wayeyi must have come to Botswana around 1750, while Murray (1990: 4) estimates that the Wayeyi must have come as early as 1000 AD, and stayed long enough with the Khoesan to the extent that their language (Shiyeyi) acquired clicks from the San languages. The Wayeyi are reported to be “the first Bantu-speakers to emigrate to the Okavango delta” (Tlou, 1985:11). They found the Basarwa (Khoisan) of Xanikhwe ethnicity. They came in three groups each with its leader, Hankudze led the first group of Wayeyi who settled in Ncame (lake Ngami) where they hunted and did fishing. Here they also met the Basarwa (Khoisan).
2.2 The second group was lead by Qhunku and his brother Qhunkunyane. This group came via the delta and settled at Tubu and later Gumare, Karwanga (Nokaneng) and Tjau (Tsau) (Tlou, 1985, Mandja, 1997 video presentation). They later met with the Hankuze people. Matsharatshara led the last group (with his brother Matshara) and it came through the Sankuyu, Matlapaneng area, spread along Ngamiland and finally settled in the Boteti area with the Deti (another Khoisan group).
2.3 Around 1820 the Batawana (an offshoot of the Bamangwato tribe) invaded the Wayeyi from the Central District who took their land and cattle and subjected them to slavery. A Wayeyi family would cultivate their field, harvest it and give all the produce to their Motawana master. One such family was stopped from producing food for a Motawana family by the Kamanakao Association in 2002. They would hunt during the winter season and make tons of biltong and be expected to give all of it to their Motawana master while his family remained in poverty. A Motawana would come into the Wayeyi family a choose a slave. MmaMotamedi (a Muyeyi old lady) told a story of how her parents had to dig a grave and pretend that she was dead in order to avoid being taken as a slave by a Motawana called Monawane. She passed away in 2006.
2.4 As time went on, the Batawana informed the Wayeyi, according to their culture they should be a paramount chief who can rule over everyone else in the territory. Some Wayeyi found the idea attractive while others wanted their chief Hankudze to be the overall leader. The Batawana took Hankudze on a hunting expedition, and he was never to return.
2.5 In preparation for the 1936 population and Housing Census, the Batawana started harassing the Wayeyi and forcing them to identify themselves as the Batawana. In each village, the kgotla meeting would be called, people would line up and each person would be asked to say what their tribal affiliation was. Those who said they were Wayeyi were beaten up and threatened with imprisonment (Story told by Samati Samoka, Puso Meti and Zhamu Marotse, 1999). It was during this time that the Wayeyi started to fight for their freedom from Batawana bondage. Despite this gross amount of intimidation, the Wayeyi made 39% (16 496) of the population of Ngamiland, making them the largest group in the reserve, while the Batawana made 17% (7072) (Tlou, 1985) including Wayeyi and other ethnic groups who succumbed to the pressure.
2.6 The struggle went on for a period of ten years in which the Wayeyi women refused to clear the Batawana kgotla, some families were now refusing to give their produce to their masters and Wayeyi girls were no longer given as slaves to Batawana. However, the use of Shiyeyi language had declined and most young people were identifying themselves as Batawana.
2.7 In 1946, another population and Housing Census was underway and the same intimidation was carried on. The population of the Wayeyi declined to 13,261 and that of the Batawana was increased to 8, 124 (Tlou, 1985:9), still making the Wayeyi the most numerous in Ngamiland. In 2004, RETENG conducted a study on ethnic identity in Maun (capital of Ngamiland) and most young people while stated that they speak Setswana, still identified as Wayeyi. This was also the same with Hambukushu and Herero. Batibo (et.al 2005) conducted a similar study at Sepopa (a Hambukushu and Wayeyi village) and he found that most students at junior secondary school, identified themselves according to their ethnic groups and not as Batawana. It is for this reason that the present Government is reluctant to include ethnicity in the Housing and Population census, but rather ask people what language they spoke.
2.8 The Wayeyi submitted their demands to Chief Moremi III of the Batawana in May 1948. This Chief was sympathetic to the course of the Wayeyi as his mother was reported to have been a Muyeyi. He had at some point ordered all Batawana to move back to Kgwebe Hills – their settlement. However, Chief Moremi died in a mysterious car accident before the Wayeyi could submit their demands to him. His wife Elizabeth Pulane Moremi became Regent. Wayeyi then submitted the following demands to her on July 15th, 1948:
a. They should have their own dikgotla in and around Maun
b. To have representation in all tribal activities & secret meetings
c. To have and use land freely
d. That no Motawana should inherit Muyeyi property after death.
2.9 On September 13th, 1948 Pulane delivered the judgment on these demands. Wayeyi were allowed to have their headmen in and around Maun (their capital town). They identified Mbwe Baruti from the Hankudze genealogy as their paramount chief. On the eve of his installation, he changed his mind and detracted due to intimidation from the Batawana. The Wayeyi then installed seven headmen in seven villages, hoping to identify another person as paramount chief in the future. Moeti Samotsoko was installed as headman at the Boyeyi ward in Maun, Mpho Moyungwe at Tsau,Motlalentwa Zimwana at Nokaneng, Naga Uvuya at Gumare, Zhamu Marotse (Maruzhi) for Sepopa and Taolo Mafoko for Seronga. Each village had a stamp written on the outer circle ‘Batawana administration’ and in the inner circle ‘Boyeyi ward’and the name of the village. This indicated that the Wayeyi were still under the Batawana rule since they failed to identify a chief (paramount chief in colloquial terms).
2.10 All the Wayeyi dikgotla did not have offices or staff, only a table under a tree. As time went on, each case tried by a Muyeyi headman had to be judged at the Batawana kgotla by a Motawana headman or the Batawana Chiefs’ representative. In 1965, just before independence, the incumbent government revoked all warrants/licenses from the Wayeyi dikgotla. The only dikgotla to try cases were those of the Batawana. The Wayeyi dikgotla were only to arbitrate. This disempowered the Wayeyi and perpetuated the dominance of the minority Batawana over the majority Wayeyi to the present. The land in which the Batawana found the Wayeyi and Basarwa was declared Batawana’s territory by the present government, following the colonial Tribal Territories’s Act. It is currently administered under the Tawana Land-board.
2.11 Serfdom, affected the use of Shiyeyi language in social domains. The Wayeyi were beaten up for speaking Shiyeyi to Batawana and as a result, most Wayeyi made all efforts to speak Setswana. In 1962, Mr. Pitoro Seidisa (a Muyeyi from Gumare) started some work with Professor Ernst Westphal of the University of Cape Town to develop the writing system for Shiyeyi. The Batawana thought that this was another effort to challenge their rule. Mr. Seidisa was arrested and imprisoned for developing the Shiyeyi language and Professor Westphal wrote in his will that all Shiyeyi materials should be burned.
2.12 In those areas where the Batawana were not resident, Shiyeyi continued to be used for daily life, though an endangered language since it is not being passed on to children. In Sankuyu, Ditshiping, Seronga, Sepopa, Ikoga and Zhawo, children under the age of 5 understand the language, but cannot speak. In these areas, adults between 15 and above are fully bilingual in Shiyeyi and Setswana. In areas such as Tsau, Nokaneng, Maun and Shorobe, adults above 40 speak Shiyeyi while others do not. In Maun, a predominantly Wayeyi town, its cosmopolitan and tourist nature was instrumental in the disappearance of Shiyeyi. Most residents of Maun do not speak Shiyeyi except those who have just settled in from other villages such as Seronga in search for jobs. With revival efforts which began in 1995, one could hear Shiyeyi more often than it was the case ten years ago in Maun.
Section 3 : The Kamanakao Association and the Wayeyi Struggle
3.1 Kamanakao Association was formed in March 1995 by Wayeyi to continue the work started by Seidisa and Westphal and address the socio-cultural needs of the Wayeyi. Its main aim is to develop and maintain the remnants of the Shiyeyi language and culture, as part of the overall national culture. It currently has published an orthography and developed 20 pre-school materials ready for printing and many other adult literacy materials.
3.2 One of its first activities was the development of the Shiyeyi language. Workshops were conducted to collect data on the language to enable linguists to analyze and describe its linguistic system. In order to do this, elderly people made presentations on their histories, oral traditions, stories, poems and songs. Many presenters in several villages described issues of servitude and recalled them with great sorrow. It became clear from these that Wayeyi were still unhappy about the issue of chieftainship and they felt that they were not free for as long as a Motawana chief was imposed on them by government. They looked upon Kamanakao Association as their savior. A special meeting was called to address this issue at Seronga on November 28th, 1998. The meeting was to clearly indicate whether or not Wayeyi want to revive their chieftainship and have a Muyeyi paramount Chief. The meeting agreed unanimously that they wanted a paramount chief.
3.3 After extensive consultations with relevant government officials including the Minister of Local Government Lands and Housing responsible for Chieftainship issues, Vice President Khama and Chief Tawana of the Batawana Tribe, the Wayeyi installed their Chief Calvin Diile Kamanakao on April 24,1999. They submitted his name to government for recognition, in addition to other demands. The government responded in a letter from the Deputy Attorney General Ian Kirby dated July 15, 1999, essentially informing them that current laws do not recognise the Wayeyi as a tribe that could have a chief.
3.4 Earlier on in April the Deputy Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Local Government had written a letter to the Coordinator of Kamanakao Association stating that the Wayeyi could not install a chief since “Chief means a Chief of one of the tribes. And Tribe means the Bamangwato tribe, the Batawana Tribe, the Bakgatla Tribe, The Bakwena Tribe, The Bangwaketse Tribe, the Bamalete Tribe, The Barolong Tribe. Bayeyi Tribe do not fall under this interpretation (page 2 of letter dated 19th, April, 1999).
3.5 The Wayeyi then resolved to challenge the constitutionality of Sections 77-79 of the Constitution, the Chieftainship Act and the Tribal Territories Act. They launched a court case at the High court in June 1999. While waiting for the date of the case to set, they wrote to the UN Secretary General in March of 2000, informing him of the cultural discrimination enshrined in Botswana laws and their efforts to fight these in court. In June 2000, the Botswana representative to the United Nations wrote to the Botswana Government to provide its version of the story. In July 2000, the President appointed a Commission of inquiry (The Balopi Commission) into Sections 77,78 and 79 of the constitution as a response to the UN enquiry. The Commission began its work in August 2000 and submitted a report to the President in November. Before then, a motion had been passed in Parliament in 1995 to amend these sections, but no action had been taken to implement the motion. The same motion had been tabled and failed to pass in 1969 and 1988.
3.6 After several postponements, the case was heard on September 12-13th, 2001 and judgment was delivered on November 23rd, 2001.
3.7 The court observed that:
In regard to the present case the breach which the applicants have successfully demonstrated is that brought about by the provisions of Section 2 of the Chieftainship Act in defining ‘tribe’ and ‘chief’ in terms that exclude the Wayeyi and other tribes and ethnic groups. They have proved in our opinion that these definitions omit them and as such they are not treated equally under this law and therefore there is a contravention of their right to equal treatment and equal protection of the law as ordained in Section 3(a) of the Constitution (page 60)
3.8 The court further observed that
the right to the protection of the law means more than simple assistance by law enforcement agencies. It connotes equality before the law, as well as equal treatment under the provisions of the law. Any inequality which is entrenched by law is not equal protection under the law for those disadvantaged by that law’ (page 49-50).
3.9 It went on to say that
the discriminatory effect of the definitions we have referred to in Section 2 of the Chieftainship Act leads to serious consequences when it is remembered that this Act is one of the three laws that define which tribal community can be regarded as tribe, with the result that such a community can have a chief; who can get to the House of Chiefs and that only a tribe can have land referred to as a Tribal territory’ (page 51).
3. 10 This statement exposed the deep meanings of the definitions contained in Section 2 of the Chieftainship Act, how they translate into practice and link with other two laws (the tribal Territories Act and Sections 77 to 79 of the Constititution). Embedded within the definitions are all the rights and privileges that come with the recognition and protection under that law. The definitions resulted in the current discriminatory tribal administrative structure, which recognises the chief of the Tswana only as well as their language and culture and made the rest of the ethnic groups invisible and unable to bring their culture to the public sphere.
3.11 It is due to these definitions of who can be chief, who can be tribe and who owns the territories as contained in Section 2 of the Chieftainship which provide all cultural rights to the Tswana and denies the same to the non-Tswana tribes. In this regard, languages of the non-Tswana cannot be taught in schools or used in the media since they do not exist. Their histories, traditions and customs do not form part of the school curriculum since they do not exist. Thus a challenge to the Chieftainship Act is the door way to all cultural rights and not just chieftaincy. Thus in order to achieve equality, the tribal structure must also recognise the Wayeyi and other tribes in their own right and their chiefs.
3.12 The court therefore ordered
that Section 2 of the Chieftainship Act (Cap 41:01) be amended in such a way as will remove the discrimination complained of and to give equal protection and treatment to all tribes under the Act. If other laws have also to be amended to accord the applicants this right, then necessary action must follow’ (pages 60-61 of the judgement).
3.13 Obviously the ‘other laws’ was referring to Sections 77 to 79 of the Constitution and the Tribal Territories Act which are closely related to the Chieftainship Act as observed earlier.
3.14 The Court further observed that ‘
‘…having section 2 of the Chieftainship Act declared ultra vires the Constitution does not necessarily mean that the Wayeyi will be included therein to be the ninth tribe. It may well be that the legislature, in its wisdom, will create equality between tribes by removing the special status of the eight tribes… and undertake such consequential amendments as shall be necessary (page 58).
3.15 The first Draft White Paper to amend Sections 77 to 79 of the Constitution in 2002 did remove the special status of the eight tribes and made all chiefs to be elected at the regional level. The second White paper reversed this suggestion and maintained the status quo. Bill number 34 amending these sections of the Constitution was passed by Parliament on April 14, 2004 and implemented on February 1st 2007. This Bill did not attempt to achieve equality in any manner but rather entrenched discrimination into the Constitution.
3.16 While the government stated that the purpose of the amendment was to make the sections tribally neutral, the Bill went rather far in projecting Tswana supremacy. It simply translated the definitions of ‘chief’ from English to Setswana and to be inclusive of sub-chief. The definition of ‘tribe’ was made part of the territorial phenomena, in which all former ‘tribal territories’ have now resumed the names of the eight Tswana speaking tribes. In other words, names of tribes which were stated as nouns in the constitution were morphologically transformed into locatives by adding ‘Ga- or Goo-‘ before the name of the tribe or ‘ –ng’ at the end of the tribal name.
3.17 In Setswana, such locatives carry the double meaning of both the name of the place and the people to whom the place belongs. For instance, the word Goo-Tawana means the place of the Batawana tribe. Semantically, therefore, this morphological exercise is a continuation of the recognition of the Tswana tribes and their sovereignty over the districts (Republic of Botswana, 2003). The transfer of the concept of ‘tribe’ into the Constitution in this manner did not eradicate the embedded discriminatory meaning it carried while it was still in the Chieftainship Act, but rather protected it by inserting it in the Constitution. Thus the amendment of the Constitution was not a progressive move in a democratic spirit but rather a further violation of the right to identity on the part of the non-Tswana tribes.
3.18 The amendments of Sections 77 to 79 of the Constitution only increase the number of headmen elected by other headmen from 4 to 22 and no other tribe was recognised. The Wayeyi and other tribes are, therefore, not given equal protection and treatment, either under the old definitions contained in Section 2 of the Chieftainship Act, or under the new meanings contained in the revised Sections 77 to 79 of the Constitution.
3.19 The elections for the 22 members were held on November 16, 2006 and the New House of Chiefs was inaugurated by the President on February 1, 2007. The Wayeyi are not represented in the House (Appendix 2). Before the elections, the Government engagement Mr. Gaerolwe Kwerepe to take a tour of Ngamiland and influence the elections. He met with most of the Senior Chief’s Representatives, Headmen of record and paid headmen of arbitration. He informed them how the government would like the elections to go on. When he met with the Wayeyi Chief, who is a Headmen of record at Nokaneng, his story was different, he informed the Wayeyi chief that he is campaigning to be elected and has been sent by the Batawana Chief to seek the support of those who will take part in the elections.
3.20 Another incident that took place was the payment of those headmen who were seen to have accepted the Batawana identity. An oldman at Tubu informed the Kamanakao Committee on the 10th of October, 2006 that he has been paid P1,900.00 and he does not understand what the money is for. He stated that he did not know that by not opposing Batawana he was to transfer his identity and that he would like now to join the Kamanakao Association because he is a Muyeyi.
3.21 The Wayeyi have continued to face serious discrimination and intimidation ever since the installation of their Chief in 1999. The idea of government is to deny them their identity and accept that of Batawana who are almost extinct. The following are some examples of how they have continued to suffered acts of oppression:
Acts of Oppression
3.22 On May 6, 2003 the Wayeyi Chief, Calvin Keene Diile Kamanakao died mysteriously. He was brought to the hospital dead, with watermelon spills on his shirt, jacket and vest and a green substance on the collar of his shirt. This same green stuff was also found on the passenger door he seated when arriving at the hospital. On May 8th, 2003 the investigating officer went on leave after the case was reported and was assigned the matter on May 7th. On the same day the lady who had brought Calvin to the hospital moved out of her house. The police did not carry out any investigations in her house, they said it was not important.
3. 23 The lady acknowledged that she invited him to her place. She first denied any information about the watermelon. Later she reported that she ate a melon before the arrival of Calvin. This was after Mr. Supang reported having found watermelon remnants in her kitchen on the day Calvin died. She however continued to deny that Calvin did eat a watermelon. An autopsy was carried out on May 13th revealed that he was hypertensive and the cause of death is heart failure. It also revealed watermelon seeds and juice in Calvin’s stomach. The family pathologist, recommended that the mode of death should be investigated further since the story from the lady, did not augur well with someone dying from a heart attack nor were the stains on his clothes.
3.24 The Police were not interested in investigating his clothes or the car he was driven in, until the story appeared in the papers seven weeks later, then they agreed to take the clothes for testing. The forensic report indicated that the clothes had been washed before submission to the laboratory (see Appendix 3). Despite requests by the family and the Wayeyi, to appoint a corona to investigate the death of Shikati Kamanakao, the Government has not responded.
3.25 Following the Death of their chief, Wayeyi designated another chief, DL Samagabadi, (a councillor for the ruling party) on September 28th, 2003. He also died of ‘heart desease’ on January 11th, 2005. On March 25th, 2005, they designated Shikati Fish Malepe Wuzuwo and his name was submitted to the Minister of Local Government and there has never been a response.
3.26 After the passage of Bill No. 34 of 2004 on April 14, 2005, the Tswana speaking Batawana Regent Kealetile Moremi undertook a tour of the Northwest District (Ngamiland). The purpose of her visit was to inform the tribes that she is their paramount chief and she has come to introduce herself and see her people.
3.27 The Wayeyi informed her in no uncertain terms that she is not their chief, and they are awaiting government to recognize their own chief. They shall not accept a chief from another tribe to be imposed on them at any time (Wayeyi Reject Batawana Regent (The Mirror, July 27- August 2, 2005, page 8).
3.28 okaneng, the Tswana speaking Batawana Senior Chief’s representative, Mr. Charles Letsholathebe summarized the Wayeyi position when he said ‘We have heard the same story since we our meeting at Beetshaa. It is only at Xauxau where we did not hear these words, that you have your own paramount chief. Please note that we are not against that, it is your government which has sent us here to tell you that Kealetile is the only recognized paramount chief who will rule all tribes in Ngamiland’ (the Mirror op.cit) .
3.29 T he Batawana Regent has imposed a headman on the people of Makalamabedi, a Wayeyi dominated area. They have rejected the headmen (Ngami Times May 20-27, 2005 – Villagers in astonishing attack on Kgosi Moremi).
3.30 A headmen died in Tubu, the government has imposed someone elected by six (6) people and has refused to recognize the one elected by 179 people (Mr. Seepetswe Aaron), simply because he supports the Wayeyi struggle for recognition. Two other headmen died in Gumare at Boyeyi(Mr. SP Seidisa) and Legonono ward (Mr. Bontlebokae Motlalentwa). In May 2006, elections were held for the two wards and Mr. Edule Khumalo Ovuya and Mr. Boikhutso Mosimane were elected respectively. Since they both support the Wayeyi struggle, they have not been paid to-date. The plan is to impose puppets in the two traditional courts in Gumare, the capital of the Wayeyi tribe.
3.31 The Wayeyi have suffered open discrimination from government due to the fact that they took the government to court (MISCA 377/99) they have successfully denounced Tawana rule and it is currently surviving only due to government’s imposition, as it was the case during the colonial rule.
3.32 The cause of Wayeyi is a struggle for identity, for freedom to profess their culture and use their language in education, the media and other social domains. They have been forging their struggle peacefully for 71 years and they remain hopeful for a positive change.
Section 4: Recommendations
4.1 The State should review Sections 77 to 79 of the Constitution in order to meet its obligations under International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and recognize all tribes;
4.2 The Wayeyi Chief should be admitted to the House of Chiefs and so should be chiefs of other tribes;
4.3 All Headmen elected by the people should be paid
4.4 Government should develop a pilot program in mother tongue education in public school system, for at least three linguistic groups and seek for donor funds to implement it.
4.5 Other languages should be used on national radio and newspaper.
4.6 The school curriculum should be reviewed to teach the histories and customs of all ethnic groups in Botswana.
Lydia Nyati-Ramahobo
FIND OUT OF WRONG INFORMATION GIVEN TO AFRICA. Pan Africanism And The King Atabua of Lado
1945 - The Pan Africanism Association was formed .
Agofe / King Atabua of Lado became the Chairman of the African Chiefs / Heads in the Conference which was held in Manchester in 1945 , and Kwame Nkrumah ( His first name was Francis ) became the secretary and Jomo Kenyatta ( His real name was Johnston Kamau) he became assistant secretary. But the Agofe / King will be Assassinated because He asked USSR to raise the question of Lado at the UN in 1947 for Independence . Why did the British Kill the Chairman and this King is not even recorded in the African History even yet as a founder member of the Pan Africanism ?
Lets find more about this Man - King of Lado then
A British Imperial Army ( King's African Rifles ) was established in 1891 under the Kavalli Agreement of 17 September 1891. The Agreement was signed by the English Captain Frederick D. Lugard who later became the Governor- General of Nigeria and Major Selim Matera , a Citizen of Lado
It was him Governor - .General. Lugard who developed the British Colonial Doctrine called The Dual Mandate ( Indirect Rule ), which is still in force through the Commonwealth Pyramid Divide-and-Rule System with the Queen / King on top, and under the Sovereign Head are the British Administrators, and below them the Local African Chiefs. The only difference today is that the British Administrators are replaced by the African Presidents who are operating as Governor -Generals dancing to the tune of Remote Control .
These British Commonwealth African Kings, Presidents and Prime Ministers rule in the firm belief that they are the True Sovereign Heads of their Countries. But in actual fact they have been reduced to mere Governor - Generals / Administrators ( International Public Law ). In Reality then this explains why the many different Indiginous Peoples of Africa, consisting of four Main Social Entities - " Races " ( Bantus, Hamitics, Sudanics and Nilotics ) believe they are Independent . That is also the reason behind the Conflict between the Tutsis ( Hamitics ) and the Hutus ( Bantus ) in Rwanda and Burundi. However, few people realise that the Real Owners of Rwanda and Burundi are the Indigenous People, the Twa People ( Batua ) , who are close counsins of the Pygmies. Rwanda and Burundi ( formerly Urundi ) used to be one Country, along with Tanganyika, before the First World War. The Territory belonged to Germany and was known as German East Africa.
In Colonial Legacy -
When the First World War ended, Rwanda - Urundi ( Burundi ) was given to Belgium, and Tanganyika to the British under the Versailles Treaty of 28 June 1919. To this , today's Conflict between the Tutsis and the Hutus is a direct result of the Division of the former German Colonies into two parts, one for Britain (Tanganyika) and one for Belgium ( Rwanda -Urundi ). . But for the Deliberate Discrimination , the Belgians chose to rule by appointing the Minority Tutsis " Most Favored Ethnic Group ", which carried them forward as the African Intelligentsia Class or the Ruling Elite, who as the new Slave Masters were used to suppress all the other Ethnic Groups. This is the Root of the Problem, and unless that is recognised and a Political Solution is found, there will be no end to the Bloodshed and Genocide in Central Africa ( which the Western / Europeans see it best lying within for their interest ) .
This similar situation is what actually the British / Belgium ( 1947 ) long stated over Lado Kingdom in Africa but they still have not succeded ----- The Displaced Persons, the Stateless Persons and the Internal Refugee Problem, among them the so called Nubians ( the Lado Muslim Community ) who are being held mainly in Uganda and Kenya as Prisoners in Reservations, the so called Restricted Settlements ( Bombo, Soroti and Gulu in Uganda and Kibira near Nairobi in Kenya ) was started by the British since 1897 . These People are always referred to simply as " The Nubians " though they are Muslims of Lado origin ( Luu and Lui People ) who were removed by the British Colonial Authority because of their Mutiny the same year 1897 when they were ordered to go and fight against their own People in Lado .The leaders were executed in Uganda including their Military Commander, Bilal Amin, the Grandfather of Idi Amin ( The Sudanese Mutiny of 1897 ) .
The British have never forgotten nor forgiven the Lado Muslims for this Breach of Discipline, which explains why these displaced People referred to as " The Nubians in East Africa ", and are still being punished now as " Unwanted Persons." Apart from being held in the Special Settlements as Prisoners, the Lado Muslims ( Nubians ) are being heavily discriminated against, very much like the American Indians were treated by the European Invaders one hundred years ago .
When Lado the leader Agofe Atabua reached the military rank of Colonel, serving in the Kings African Rifles ( KAR ) 4th Regiment which was British, with headquaters in Bombo, Uganda , He went to fight for the British in Burma in 2° World War ( WWII ) with the 4th Regiment of the Kings Africans Rifles, which later was stationed in Jinja, Uganda. The Lado leader resigned to carry out the Independence of Lado in 1947. He was replaced by a British Colonel called Alan Knight, a man with humane feelings He was a sort of friendly to Africans : an Englishman, a rare case anyway. The Lado leader was assassinated on 14th April 1948, because he asked USSR to raise the question of Lado at the UN in 1947, and the British found that was not the right thing to do.
They said He was opening the eyes of many Africans and African countries , and above all his Role as the First Chairman known to be of the Pan Africanism Association was a deadly Snake poison to the global Western Anglo - American Political Interests in Africa . With the death of the King Atabua was actually the end of Pan Africanism with its founded Head Quarters at Arua - Arua in the Independent Kingdom State of Lado as Lado is Rightly situated in the Heart of Africa . All Members present in the meeting of 1945 agreed to that . The British had to do something quick inorder to cover up this most important History part of Africa in a most meditated way to draw the African Minds to establish a new system of a giving Independence to the African People by encouraging the Secretary of the King Atabua to take over to work on this issue of Indepedences but without Sovereignty issue at hand to the African people .
This Agreement with Nkuruma led to the initiatives of the formation of Organisation of African Unit in the African Independence Conference held in Accra in 1958 .
In 1961, the OAU Charter was drawn up by three African blocs : one called the Casablanca Group, another called the Monrovia Group, and the third called the Brazzaville Group. So the three Groups formed the Organisation of African Unity. The only concerned Organisation in Africa yet , therefore still , till todate is OAU
In conclusion OAU charter was concluded on 25th May 1963, in Addis Ababa, starting on 25th May, 1947 but picked up later by - because the leader John Anacleto Atobua Agami from Lado Kingdom was killed in 1948 on April . It was Francis Kwame Nkrumah later, was the one who organised the African Independence Conference in Accra in 1958 as He was the Secretary to the King John Anacleta Atabua Agami of the Pan Africanism . OAU took its roots from Pan Africanism .
Lado advocated and will continue to do so for Pan Africanism to live with one flag for the Unity of Africa . It is high time that be put in Existence .
The name Pan Africanism sounds good and in its History philosophy as was formed for the first time and the philosophy goes to generations and generations of Africa . Pan Africanism has been given to us Black people by our Grand forefathers to ensure and contnue to Safe Guard the Basic interests and Rights to the Existence of all Blacks on this planet and in this Universe as a whole . This is the Biggest Gift to us Blacks we can be proud of and therefore it is our due Rights to defend it with no Jokes . Many of our Forefathers have already been slaughtered by the enemies of Blacks for the purpose of Pan Africanism .
What the Hell is all about with such strage denominations like African Union ( AU ) and again now changing to another name United States of Africa ( USA) . I hope this is not the Madness of some of the Africa puppet Leaders ( Western Anglo - American controlled ) mentors thinking for Africa and all the Blacks , once again .
A. Ronald
LADO --- Institute of Sudanic Studies - ISS
|
