Login
Get your free website from Spanglefish

08 Mar 1939 Clay (5)

-1-

MR.CLAY'S STATEMENT TO THE COMMISSION            8th March, 1939.
ON BEHALF OF THE BAROTSE (continued}

[Numbers in (parentheses) presumably refer to documents previously laid before the Commission.  We do not have those, nor any list.]

[Numbers thus -23- are page numbers of the original typescript]

[Chitokoloki, mentioned below, was the Mission and School set up circa 1914 in the Balovale District by George Suckling, Counsel for the Lunda and Lovale.]

Before beginning to sum up the Marozi case concerning the period after the sending up of the Nawinda Kuta to Balovale, I should like to make a short personal statement. I have been seconded by Govt. to represent the Marozi case before the Commission, and you will remember, Sir, that on my arrival in Mongu last October I asked you what my position would be with regard to criticisms of Govt., and you informed me that in presenting my case I was entitled to make such criticisms. In dealing with the period during which the Nawinda Kuta was functioning, the larger part of the Marozi case is concerned with criticisms of Govt. policy. It will be my duty to criticise to you the actions and statements made by Governors, P.C.s and D.O.s. It is extremely distasteful to me to have to make these criticisms, and I wish to state categorically that I have used every endeavour to make such criticisms as inoffensive as is compatible with making a true presentation of my case. I feel that however I may word some criticisms, it would be possible for Govt. or for those criticised to take exception, and I can only say that having been seconded to represent the Marozi case, I have considered it my duty to make these criticism on behalf of my clients. I also wish to emphasise on behalf of the Marozi that in making these criticisms there is no question of disloyalty to His Majesty's Govt..

Nawinda.
The Nawinda Kuta was sent up to Balovale in 1933. As there was little or no trouble in the district between the indigenous tribes and the Malozi before the advent of the Nawinda Kuta, it must be admitted at once that that Kuta must be held largely responsible for the trouble which has arisen and which cannot be denied. To what extent can the Malozi be held responsible, and to what extent have the troubles been caused by the action and attitude of Government? It is my duty to point out actions of Govt. have added considerably to the troubles & difficulties of a Kuta which would in any case have had a difficult time at first, and that latterly the absence of a firm

-2-
policy has led to increased difficulties. As counsel for the Malozi I wish to emphasise the difficulties caused by the attitude of Govt., and I shall hope to show that Govt. must be held to be at least equally responsible for all the troubles which have ensued since the Nawinda Kuta entered the Balovale district.
 The suggestion that there should be a central kuta at Balovale originated in a letter from Sharratt-Horne, and another from Green as acting R.M. to the Paramount Chief. Before sending up Kufuna and the Nawinda Kuta, the Paramount Chief consulted the Provincial Commissioner & through him Govt., and we know that Govt. approval was given, & that in fact the Govt. attitude at the time was that it was very nice of Yeta to consult Govt. and as he had done so Govt. approved, but that at the same time the appointment was in accordance with the Treaty with Lewanika & that Yeta was merely exercising his constitutional authority (Balovale Conf. File 28, No.9). Further, the siting of Nawinda on the east bank on Crown Land was also approved. Yeta went further, for he proceeded to Balovale (Noad had suggested that he should pay a visit) and told the chiefs that he intended to send his son Kufuna up with an appeal court. Shinde objected at first but finally agreed, while the Lovale chiefs apparently agreed at once. All now say they thought that Govt. had approved of the design of Yeta & that Yeta told them so. Even this was not final for the D.C. Green also called in the chiefs again obtained the consent of nearly all of them. That the chiefs of the district should have agreed to the sending of Kufuna & an appeal court without the D.C. being present shows, I submit, that they recognised Yeta's paramountcy. One cannot conceive that independent chiefs would have agreed to another chief's son having an appeal court to which their people could go if dissatisfied with their judgments, without even confirming from the D.C. that Government approved & that it was the Govt. wish, and there is no evidence that any of them while Yeta was in the district did actually ask the D.C. what Govt's attitude was in the matter or that any of them protested that Yeta was not Paramount Chief. I would also draw attention to the fact that the P.C. at the time that Kufuna & the Nawinda Kuta went to


-3-
Balovale was Palmer, who had been one of the first D.C.s in the district, who knew it well, and who was always particularly interested in it (vide his letter commenting on Hudson's Human Geography). Green, the D.C. at the time, was a senior man, who had had all his service in Barotseland, had been stationed at Balovale before, and had acted as R.M.. On the arrival of Kufuna, Green writes to the P.C. (4,5) that Chief Daniel Kufuna had arrived. Before Kufuna arrived Green wrote to him personally & addressed him as Chief Daniel Kufuna (Nawinda papers). Green reported that Shinde behaved badly when going to see Kufuna for the first time & that his elders were thoroughly ashamed of the incident. Shinde has also admitted that he did not go at once to greet Kufuna with the other chiefs & says he was ill. He should have sent someone to represent him. It seems likely that Shinde attempted to assert his importance & gave offence to the members of the new elite.

Later in 1933 Sir Ronald Storrs visited Balovale as Governor. We are told by Mr. Suckling that he actually saw with his own eyes Green order Shinde to sit on a mat behind Kufuna at the Indaba. H.E. said "The Nawinda Kuta is not an ordinary Kuta but a court of appeal. I want it to be clearly understood that the jurisdiction & powers of the Nawinda Kuta will in no way interfere with the pre-existing Kutas. These would continue to do their work independently & the Nawinda Kuta would be, as I have said, a court of appeal" (48). I shall note later that in fact it was not long before Govt. was increasing the powers of Nawinda & that almost from the first the D.C.s were sending cases to Nawinda which had not been previously heard by other courts. Whatever the Governor said on this occasion, it is evident that the P.C., Mr. Stokes, who arrived at the very end of 1933, had rather different ideas, for we find him writing to the D.C. (9): "A tightening up of the administration is only to be expected when a superior Kuta takes up its quarters in an area." This letter was not written till 27/2/35, but it does show that this P.C. expected just the very tightening up that actually took place.
It is significant that there is a gap on the Balovale files between 20/4/33 and some date before 25/9/34. At (6) we find

-4-
undated Shinde's complaints. Almost every one of them, except the one about Samboma's debts, were complaints about actions of Nawinda which had begun many months before, and this seems to justify the P.C's comments in (9a) to Mr. Suckling that collecting grievances was a political move. One of Shinde's complaints at (6) was that Kuta fines must be taken to Nawinda, and this is called a new law. I would point out that in the Hazell papers it was pointed out at the Noyoo Indaba before Sharratt-Horne in 1928 that fines were to be taken to Lealui, and that the only new thing about the law was that the fines had now only to be taken to nearby Nawinda rather than distant Lealui. Possibly Shinde may have felt that he suffered in prestige from this change in procedure.
It is interesting to speculate what difficulties the new Kuta would have experienced at Nawinda if in every case their actions had been models of tact, and nothing whatever had been done by Govt. to prejudice their position with the local chiefs. At Mankoya where there is a new Kuta, the local chief Mwenemutondo can produce no complaints against the new Kuta per se but still is dissatisfied because he has lost prestige owing to the presence in the district of a man drawing a larger salary by far, and who in the eyes of the natives is a bigger man. Mwenemutondo has expressly stated that he used to have many people waiting in his courtyard and now has none. I have no doubt that there would have been jealousy & discontent at Balovale shortly after the arrival of Nawinda in any circumstances.

The P.C. (8) tells the D.C. after the inquiries at Lealui into Shinde's complaints that "The Kuta has expressed resentment at what it considers to be the improper action of certain traders and missionaries in exaggerating difficulties and in giving Shinde unwise counsel." Colour is lent to this view as regards the traders by what I have pointed out above that Sambowe's debts was the newest of Shinde's complaints. Stokes at (9) to the D.C., when discussing Mr. Suckling's letter to him, says that it points to a feeling of dissatisfaction existing at any rate among those he terms his Christians. I am afraid that it is these Christians at Chitokoloki who have constantly been at the back of the agitations, and that in fact the


-5-
trader evangelists of the Mission have been able to meet together there in the course of their calling & discuss the political situation & have thus been able to act in concert throughout the district & keep in touch with one another & the discontented people in the district. It is significant that Sakavungu & Thomas Chinyama went to Lealui over the 1934 complaints at Kufuna's request, & that thereafter they were able to take the lead among their respective tribes, a lead which previously had been in other & older hands.
Before the 1934 complaints had been taken to Lealui, there had been the incident of the letter from Shinde to Kanongesha, which had fallen into Govt's hands, & a copy of which had been sent on by Warrington as acting P.C. to Lealui with the comment that it was almost seditious. Unfortunately we do not know what the reaction of the Kuta would have been without this comment, but with it there is little doubt that the Kuta took a serious view of Shinde's activities when shortly after he brought complaints which the Kuta thought unfounded, they had little sympathy with him and thought (see II) that he was after independence or at any rate the removal of the Nawinda Kuta. As a result, the Ngambela told Shinde in strong terms that he would be removed from Barotseland if he did not behave himself. This letter from the Ngambela was sent direct to the D.C., but it does not appear that the Malozi were ever told at this time that they would not be able to remove Shinde. I have one more quotation to give from the correspondence of this time. In (II) the P.C. to D.C. says (20/3/35), "Had Shinde kept in touch with you & reported irregularities as they occurred, much trouble would have been avoided." I should also perhaps point out that in (9) an explanation is given of why there was delay in reporting the result of the Kuta meeting with Shinde to the P.C.. Stokes says that the Ngambela reported to him at the time & then repeated what he had said in a minute 2 weeks later.
In (15) at a meeting between Hazell as D.C. & the Paramount Chief & Ngambela on 6/4/36, Hazell says that he believes the people are loyal to the Paramount Chief himself. This is a very important expression of opinion from a witness whose sympathies must


-6-
be considered as pro-Lunda & Lovale. (16) & (16a) give the history of the Barotse in the Balovale district & is of importance because it was written before there was any question of the appointment of the present Commission, though after the beginnings of the dispute.
Then in May 1936 comes the Indaba before the Governor Sir Hubert Young (20B). Following the Kuta meeting with Shinde at the very end of 1934. there appears to have been a lull till just after this indaba in May 1936. Samuzimu & Kasaka, the Luchaze chiefs, say that they were given land by Lealui. Shinde says he was born in this country - an untrue statement (Shinde in x--examination says he was born on the Lufize).

Certain complaints were in fact placed. before H.E. by Mr. Suckling in an unofficial manner, & at the Indaba H.E. said that he would refer the complaints to the Paramount Chief. As Vaughan-Jones says in (47), this remark of H.E's may have encouraged the Malozi. About a fortnight later came the assault case. In 21) & (22) we have a letter from Angulu telling Hazell that he was calling in Shinde about Mwenechiengele's letter. This letter is rather an ambiguous one. Hazell replies & asks to see the letter when the complaint has been dealt with. He refers to the letter as from Shinde to Mwenechiengele. On the 6th the meeting was held in the Kuta, a brawl took place, and later Kufuna pursued Peter Dawson & found Shinde. What then happened we shall never know. Meanwhile Peter Dawson had returned on his bicycle & had written to Hazell. He says, "Should there be received a letter at the Boma from Nawinda regarding our discourteous to the Nawinda khotla, the reason is that I were set upon by Angulu, Inganda..." etc.. Why did Peter Dawson send this letter? It was meeting trouble half-way. If Nawinda had not taken umbrage & had not reported the matter to Hazell, the letter would have been quite unnecessary. It appears that Peter Dawson knew that his attitude was such that Nawinda would be bound to report it. I submit that he knew he had been offensive & unforgiveably contemptuous before the Nawinda court & he remembered that H.E. had said that complaints against Nawinda would be referred to the Paramount Chief. He wanted

-7-
to get his word in first. If he had had any cause for annoyance himself, surely he would have said in his letter, "Today I was set upon in the Nawinda Kuta." Instead he says in effect, "If Nawinda reports my bad behaviour the explanation is that I was set upon." Peter Dawson makes a statement to Hazell the same day. Next day (25) Angulu reports to Hazell Peter Dawson's behaviour but makes no mention of the assault by Kufuna on Shinde, and 2 days later (29) he writes again asking for news of the Lunda gathering at the Boma & also asks for Shinde & Peter Dawson to come & finish the case. He surely could not have asked this if an assault had actually taken place.

As regards what happened in the Kuta and afterwards, I now wish to compare the 5 versions of Lunda witnesses which are available. These versions are (1) Peter Dawson Muhongo's statement of 6/6/36 made to Hazell, Shinde's statement made to Hazell shortly  afterwards (8-9/6/38), (iii) Shinde's statement made before the Commission, (iv) Peter Dawson's statement before the Commission, (v) the Mpumba of Shinde's statement before the Commission. I wish to point out discrepancies in these statements & to ask you to note that the events under discussion took place only 2½ years ago. Mr. Suckling has discussed the credibility of Malozi witnesses discussing the history of their tribe two or three hundred years ago: I now wish to see how these Lunda witnesses stand up to a close comparison between their statements of events happening only 2½ years ago.

Before Mr. Hazell, both Peter Dawson & Shinde (24. & 28) said that they arrived at Nawinda about 11 a.m. and went straight into the Kuta. Before the Commissioner Peter Dawson said (5/1/39 - 5; "We found they were sitting outside the court, and we went there & sat down. Angulu sent his young man to the chief to greet him. They then asked Shinde if he had brought his son & the letter they had spoken about the previous day. The Chief said: Ask him yourselves. They asked me if I knew of a letter written by my father to Chiengele, but I told them I knew nothing of it, I knew only of a letter from Chiengele. They said Have you got it. I said: It has been lost by now. don't know where it was put. Angulu was very angry at this & threw his hat on the ground & said: Let us go into the court. So everyone


-8-
went into the court and sat down inside." In this version there was considerable talking outside the Kuta & in fact the parties all sat down outside first before going into the Kuta. I now refer to Shinde's evidence (7/11/38 - 24): The following morning we went about 8 o'c. to Nawinda. When we arrived there we found they were all sitting outside. Muhongo had a towel round his neck. He took it off & laid it on the ground to sit on. Angulu rebuked him & asked him why he was showing off in such a way - was it because he was a son of Shinde? He said: Why do you show off by sitting on a piece of cloth? And why did you read the letter & not come & tell us what the letter contained? Do you think that the country belongs to you? The uncle of Kufuna, Inganda, pointed his finger at Muhongo & said: You are showing off, but both you & your father will be driven out of the country. He spoke Sikololo & his words were interpreted by a Kambunda. Angulu said: Let us enter into the Kuta." Again an argument before entering the Kuta, but curiously enough something quite different. Peter Dawson does not mention the scarf incident at all either before Mr. Hazell or before the Commission as far as I can discover. Shinde mentions it to both. .One would have thought that as it had happened to Peter Dawson it would have been he who remembered it. To recapitulate, before Mr. Hazell both Shinde & Peter Dawson stated that on arrival at Nawinda they went straight into the kuta. Before the Commission both say that there was a discussion and argument outside the kuta before they went in, but whereas Shinde states that the quarrel was about Peter Dawson sitting on his scarf & only mentions the letter as part of Angulu's rebuke to Peter Dawson, the latter never mentions the scarf incident at all & says that the quarrel was about the letter. The Lunda entered the Kuta. Peter Dawson in his statement to Hazell, p.1, says that first Angulu asked if headman Kamau had arrived, & then asked Shinde for the letter. Shinde in his statement to Hazell (28), having said that on arrival at the kuta they found that the Indunas were in the Kuta (p.2) settling adultery cases, & that Angulu sent only one person to greet him, goes on to say that they entered the Kuta & sat down. Then he says that Angulu asked him & P. Dawson for the letter & said that if it was not produced he would make it very

-9-
difficult for them. In x--examination (6/2/38, p.12) Shinde said that the letter was discussed in the Kuta, but in his original statement to the Commission (p.24) he does not mention any discussion of the letter in the Kuta but says that as they entered in Angulu said Muhongo is telling lies. Shinde then says that, after argument, Angulu, having threatened to beat P. Dawson, rose up and caught him by the arm, & that then all the people rose up & caught hold of him, pulling him by the arms & legs. P. Dawson (5/1/p.6) says that he himself lifted his hand & was told not to point at them. That Angulu said, Are there no young men here who will arrest this youth for me?" Then Likukela and some other young men whose names I don't know, who were sitting by the wall of the court, rose up, & Angulu himself rose up in a temper & came towards me. I became angry & I took off my jacket so as to be prepared to fight with them. My father then rose up to guard me, & all the people gathered round, some trying to hit me & some trying to separate us. Some held my arms & some my legs." It should be noted that Shinde does not mention that P.Dawson took off his jacket, & that whereas Shinde says he rose up when he saw Angulu take hold of P. Dawson, the latter says that his father rose up to guard him when he had taken off his jacket.

Turning to the statement of Shinde before Hazell, we find that Shinde mentions that P. Dawson was sitting on his scarf in the Kuta (2), whereas before the Commission this scarf incident happened outside before they entered the Kuta. Shinde says that the words or action of pointing of P. Dawson infuriated Angulu who sprang up & shouted out, "Seize him. We are the rulers of him & his father Shinde." Angulu advanced towards Dawson & Dawson stood up. Angulu caught him by the arms and held him. Likukela, the Kuta clerk, also caught him; also Induna Inganda, also Induna Katiba. Many people then surrounded Dawson brandishing sticks over his head. They were obviously about to beat him, but Induna Ilubonda....etc.(pp. 2-3, 28) P. Dawson's version to Hazell (24, p.3) must be taken next. He says, "Then Induna Inganda sprang up from his chair & also Angulu; they laid hands on me. Also the clerk of the Kuta, Likukela, & two kapasu advanced on me. I had stood up as soon as Induna Inganda advanced on

-10-
me. When they had laid hands on me I took off my jacket so as to be able to defend myself." I have already noted that Shinde does not mention the jacket incident at all. P. Dawson mentions it before Hazell & before the Commission, but whereas before Hazell he said that he took it off "when they had laid hands on me", before the Commission he said, "I took off my jacket so as to be prepared to fight with them." How could he have taken off his jacket after these  people had laid hands on him? Shinde says (before Hazell) that Angulu advanced towards him & caught him by the arms & held him. How then could he take off his jacket with Angulu holding him by both arms? Shinde also says that Indunas Inanda & Katiba & the clerk Likukela also caught him. Yet Peter Dawson managed to take off his jacket: it is incredible. The stories of Shinde & Peter Dawson do not agree, nor do the two stories of P. Dawson. I submit that they are not true. They have truth in them in places, but not the whole truth.

I submit that the Malozi account of Inganda is the truth. He says when P. Dawson was asked for the letter he replied that he had torn it up, & that Inganda then said to him, "You are a useless child - you will not help your father. Your father is a chief. Chiengele is a chief - you have no right to tear up a letter from one chief to another. Then Muhongo was angry said we had called him an animal, & he pulled off his jacket wishing to fight (26/11)38, p.4. Angulu (11/1/39, p.10) also says in x-examination that Muhongo stood up first & that he said that he wanted to fight. I submit that the Malozi version is the true one.

The affray having begun, how did it stop? Before Hazell (24, p.3) P.Dawson said "Ilubonda took hold of me & protected me. Then Ilubonda advised me & Shinde to go away & said that we would be called again. Then we left." Shinde before Hazell (28.3): Induna Ilubonda pushed through the crowd & rescued Dawson from being beaten. Induna Ilubonda managed to restrain the people. Then Ilubonda spoke to me & to Dawson & told us that we had better go home & come back another day when we would be sent for. We both left immediately...." Now Peter Dawson before the Commission (5/1/39,p.6) "There was a great row in the court. But Ilubonda rose up & separated

-11-
us & made me sit down beside him. They arranged with Shinde to send Kachawa to another man, Kaowesha, because he had seen the letter, & he was to come to the court. Then they sent a young man whose name I do not know to tell Kufuna what had happened. We did not leave the court in a state of excitement. Things had settled down, & they just told Shinde that he must appear the next day." Lastly there is Shinde's version before the Commission (7/11/38, p.25): ""Then Ilubonda rose up & expostulated with Angulu. He said: You are a person under authority. There is the Boma quite close & there are officials near by. This person will be killed if you are not careful." (One wonders how Shinde was able to hear all this above the uproar). Ilubonda laid hold of Angulu by one arm & I caught the other & held him back, while Muhongo got away from the crowd. Ilubonda took him to his own mat. I said to Ilubonda: Give Muhongo to my Mpumba & let him take him away. I will stay here & finish this discussion. Ilubonda took Muhongo to the door where the people were crowding round with sticks in their hands, & he said several times: Do not hit him - do not hit him. And he took him outside. I said to the Lunda people who were outside: Take my son & let him get across the Makondo quickly & back to his own village. I shall stay here & finish the discussion. When I remained behind they said to me: You, Shinde, must send for a man called Samuwika, & tomorrow you must come back with him to the Kuta. I replied: Yes, you have changed me into a kapasu; I will do as you say. By that time the sun was beginning to go down, and Ilubonda said to me: Shinde, you go now & come again tomorrow.

Before Hazell, Shinde & Peter Dawson agreed that they had left the Kuta immediately Ilubonda had stopped the affray. Before the Commission, P.Dawson says that Ilubonda made him sit down beside him & that things had settled down before they left. P.Dawson said (5/1/38, p.6),"But on the path my father said to me: This is a very bad affair.  I am not willing to come back here to discuss it again. I shall insist on going to the Boma. So I want you to go on ahead to the Boma & tell the D.C. what has happened. I agreed & left the chief on the further side of the Makondo & crossed with my bicycle & went on to the Boma." I have already quoted Shinde as saying before the

-12--
Commission that P. Dawson left the Kuta before he did.

The trouble in the Kuta was reported to Daniel Kufuna On the evidence it appears obvious that Daniel Kufuna lost his head, & no Marozi will condone his action in following after Shinde. What happened when Kufuna overtook Shinde will never be known as there is complete conflict of evidence on both sides. At (27) Hazell's notes for prosecution, he says that there were 4 witnesses of the actual assault. There are not 4 available now, & the Lunda agree that there were only two people with Shinde at the time. P. Dawson in his statement to Hazell (24 - p.3-4) says, "Then Kapinga, who is employed at the Boma hospital, came after me to say that Daniel Kufuna had followed Shinde across the Makondo & had laid hands on him & had drawn a knife saying that he would not kill him because he was an old man but that he would like to shoot me, Peter Dawson. Kapinga was having a holiday at Shinde's village where he belonged, Kapinga was not with Shinde at the time that this happened. When Shinde reached his village, greatly distressed, Kapinga followed after me; he was sent after me by Shinde." It is legitimate to suppose that what Kapinga repeated was the message told him by Shinde immediately on his arrival home and before he had discussed the matter with anyone.

In Shinde's statement made to Hazell three days later(28, P.3) he says that he saw Daniel Kufuna coming after him. In his hand was an open knife, a European pocket knife. He had the knife open in his hand when he ran up to me. Induna Kakulunda caught his wrist to prevent him from stabbing me; Induna Katiba caught hold of Daniel's other hand to restrain him. Then Daniel told me that he would let me go as I was an old. man, but that if he had found Peter Dawson Muhongo he would have killed him."

Kufuna & the Marozi deny that any assault took place. Whether the assault took place or not, Kufuna did follow Shinde & did speak to him. He may even have abused him verbally, though he denies it. Shinde arrived at his village in a distressed state & sent Kapinga in to report the matter. The wild action of Kufuna in rushing after Shinde on a bicycle, followed by any running supporters, and the arrival of a distressed Shinde at his village, gave rise immedi-

-13-
ately to the wildest rumours. In almost no time at all the Lunda all over the district understood that Shinde had been assaulted, had been stabbed with a knife, had even been nearly killed, by the Marozi. (Salumai - 9/1/39, p.3). Many Lunda from all parts of the district went to the Boma. It is said that they were armed but left their weapons in the bush before entering Balovale (P.C. to C.S. 49).

At (42) Angulu writes to the D.C. & says that it is the Lunda who wish to fight the Marozi. He does not mention any assault on Shinde. The Marozi also went to the Boma. They had sticks or clubs with them Vaughan-Jones at (47) says that this was truculent on their part. I submit that coming to the Boma as they did through part of Shinde's country, & knowing that many Lunda had gathered at the Boma (29), it was fear of meeting with trouble from the Lunda on the way or even at the Boma that caused them to bring sticks or clubs with them.

At (43) Hazell to the P.C. says, "However, as soon as possible after their return to Nawinda & before His Excellency was even out of the province, the Nawinda Kuta & its head immediately resumed their unfortunate political activities - action scarcely consistent with loyalty & good behaviour towards the Government." To what political activities does Hazell refer? He says in the same paragraph that     "this present trouble appears to have arisen out of some letters which Chief Shinde is alleged to have written and/or received." It is reasonable to suppose that the political activities to which Hazell refers was the calling of Shinde to Nawinda about the Mwenechiengele letter, & this was done with Hazell's full knowledge, see letters (21) & (22). If he considered the calling of Shinde to Nawinda was a political activity, he could & should have stopped it. What happened in the Kuta was, I submit, due to the truculent attitude of Peter Dawson Muhongo.

I would also refer in this connection to Vaughan-Jones's letter to D.C. (No.47) in which he says, "The Kuta appears to have acted in a very ill-advised & high-handed manner in prosecuting their inquiry. It is a pity that Hazell did not find out more about the matter when the calling of Shinde to Nawinda, so soon after H.E's visit, was reported. I should like to say that no-one who has read

-14-
through the difficulties of Hazell in the time following the alleged assault can fail to admire the way in which he handled the trouble, & I feel sure that my Marozi clients are extremely grateful to him for the action he took & the way in which he prevented bloodshed. Hazell took the parties down to Mongu, & the next papers on Balovale file 28 are the papers concerned with the Indaba held at Mongu before the P.C. at which the Paramount Chief, Ngambela, Kufuna & Shinde were present. These are No.48 on File 28. The inquiry was apparently an administrative one, & Daniel Kufuna claims that he was never heard. No statement of his before the P.C. has been produced. Shinde & his witnesses, who had made sworn statements before Hazell at Balovale, were not heard again. The report continues, "he ordered Peter Dawson Muhongo, who was the cause of the trouble, to pay 15/-, & the Paramount Chief's son must pay £l for the assault on Chief Shinde." There is no mention here that the assault was with a knife, & it is definitely stated that Peter Dawson was the cause of the trouble. The P.C. Poole then makes a lengthy address to the assembled natives. He tells them (p.3) that, "His Excellency said in his reply at the Indaba at Mongu, 'I am unable to hand over Crown Lands to a reserve without first obtaining the approval of the Secretary of State, but I shall recommend the suggestion if I am satisfied that the right of the indigenous chiefs are respected; for I know that you would be unwilling for these rights to be violated. For this reason the P.C. & the Ngambela must first ascertain the extent of these rights before I can make any recommendation on this question to the Secretary of State.'" Later Poole says, "If Chief Shinde & the Kuta cannot live peaceably I shall not be able to recommend that the Crown Lands be handed over to the Paramount Chief & His Excellency would not agree to it as he said that he would only make the recommendation if he was satisfied that the rights of existing chiefs were respected." Poole had already said that what His Excellency had said was in reply to the Paramount Chief's petition to land between the Dongwe & Zambezi rivers. I submit that whereas H.E.'s answer to the Malozi was a very wise one & one calculated to make the Malozi give the Lunda as fair treatment as possible so that they might recover the land rights, for

-15-
Poole to tell Shinde this, was extremely unwise. Shinde may not previously have realised the difference between the Crown Lands on which he lived & the rest of Barotseland. From now on he knew there was a difference & his young men would soon tell him that he was living on land owned by the Government and not by the Malozi. But Poole did not stop there, for he says in effect to Shinde: If you cannot live peaceably with the Kuta, the Malozi will not be given the land on which you live. In other words, he put a premium for Shinde on not living peacefully with the Malozi. Mr. Seguin has said in his statement to the Commission (19/1/39, p.7) that he particularly asked the Lunda who came down for the 1934 complaints if there was any claim as to the ownership of the country, that they replied that there was no claim at all. I submit that the question of land only became of paramount importance to the Lunda after they had heard from Mr. Poole that the Malozi were claiming the land on which the Lunda lived from the Government & that if the Lunda agreed with the Malozi the land would be handed over to the Malozi. I submit that this incitement to Shinde not to agree with the Malozi was responsible for much of the trouble that ensued later, & for Shinde's continued refusal to co-operate.

Continuing, Mr. Poole (p.4) told Shinde that an agreement for courts & authorities had been made in the previous year (1935 ?); that in that law Nawinda became a legal & established court, and that "It is no use opposing Nawinda Kuta, it is there & will not go away. It is fixed at Nawinda like the Government station at Mongu." It is interesting to note that while it was stressed that by the new law Nawinda became a legal & established court, no mention was made of the fact that it would also become the authority for the issuing of orders to the Balovale district, although Sir Ronald Storrs himself as Governor had stressed that the fact that the coming of Nawinda would only be a court of appeal. The jurisdiction agreement, to a draft of which I presume Mr. Poole was referring, was a measure, I suggest, pressed on the Malozi by Government.


-16-
Lastly Mr. Poole addressing Shinde says, "I have another thing to say to you, Chief Shinde. It is a serious offence to write letters on such matters as you did to Chief Siengele. It is plotting against the Government of the country & is punishable by very heavy penalties." Nawinda never had concluded its investigations into the letter referred to. Apparently Mr. Poole must have been in possession of evidence proving conclusively that Shinde had written a seditious letter to Siengele - he could hardly have said what he did to Shinde unless he had. If this may be presumed, then surely Nawinda had a right to investigate a seditious letter. At (4.9) reporting the whole matter to the C.S., the C.S. wrote that, "If Shinde wrote to Siengele suggesting that the Barotse Indunas & Kuta should be expelled from the district." He reports this as a fact. The evidence given him must have been overwhelming. With even part of this evidence Nawinda was surely entitled to investigate the matter. No doubt it would have been more tactful of them to refer the matter to the D.C., Hazell, but it must be remembered that only a fortnight before they had heard the Governor himself say that he would refer the Lunda complaints to the Paramount Chief. In this same letter to the C.S. the P.C. says that Kufuna was a signatory to the Jurisdiction agreement of 1935. This document has not been produced, & Kufuna did not sign the 1936 agreement. It would be interesting to see exactly what he did sign & what -powers he knew Government had approved for Nawinda.

In passing, I must just call attention to (50) in Vaughan-Jones calls in the Lovale Chiefs with their old men & important headmen to tell him their complaints. We next come to the papers at (52a). Discussions at Balovale (14, 15, 17-18, Aug.1936. When reading the papers concerning the discussions with the Lunda, it must be borne in mind that if Shinde was satisfied, he now knew that the land he lived on would become part of Barotseland. Shinde acknowledged Yeta as Paramount Chief, with reservations. He said, "Before the establishment of Nawinda I got all laws from the Boma; since there has been only strife." It would have been truer to say that before Nawinda Lealui's orders had been given Shinde through the Boma, but since Nawinda they had come through Nawinda, & Shinde was

-17-
suspicious of the laws as they did not come through the Boma. Talking of the appeal court he says, "-The principle has been good but its administration bad." "-The orders we object to are those from Nawinda not the Barotse orders." "In past years we have kept all fines to ourselves." He had been told at the Noyoo indaba before Sharratt-Horne that all fines were to go to Lealui, who would return half of them. Shinde complains of the establishment of courts in his area.
It appears after discussion that the courts complained of are 3 in the Luchaze area, Kamandisa to look after the Mambowe & the Kakonga pools, and Chingi who had heard minor cases before in the Lovale area and had moved into Shinde's country and retained his powers. On p.13 of these papers (52a) Shinde admits that he hears 8 to 10 cases every month, of which 2 or 3 go up on appeal. This is very high percentage & shows the numbers of discontented litigants there must have been before Nawinda went up to Balovale. This alone would have been a good reason for establishing an appeal court. It also shows how unfitted Shinde is to hold a court from which there is no appeal, and how little respect people must have for his judgments. On p.15 Shinde says, "All my people would prefer to be under Government and not Barotse laws... we agree that Yeta is our Paramount Chief - but he was so in the past too & we had not these troubles." This is particularly important because Mr. Caldwell was interpreter and there can be no question as to misinterpretation. This statement also agrees with Shinde's statement to Mr. Jones in 1923 & puts beyond shadow of doubt that Shinde had in fact admitted Yeta as his Paramount Chief in the past. About eland etc. (p.15) Shinde says, "I agree that even with the present restrictions we shall be very well off compared with other chiefs." As I shall notice shortly, the Malozi were now doing their utmost to placate Shinde so as to get the land, while Shinde was equally determined in no circumstances to agree with the Kuta in case his country might become part of Barotseland.  Mpili says that in 1927 a man called Iluya, an induna south of the Kabompo came & caught a lot of fish & said they were to be taken to Lewanika's stores south of the Kabompo, & that he never came again. It is interesting to compare this statement with that made by Mpili before the 

-18-
Commission in x-examination (8/2/39, p.12) that he did not know of a store for fish selling on either side of the Kabompo, though in his first statement he had said there was such a store.. This witness was obviously unreliable.
On p.19 there is a statement of the Ngambela's which is, I think, of some importance. He said, "Our custom is this:- if a chief like Shinde intends to appoint a sub-chief like Shima or Mpili he obtains a nomination & then consults with Nawinda who consults with Government. The choice itself is made according to Lunda law & custom. The reason for this is to have powers behind the man appointed. Chiefs such as Shima & Mpili are finally sent to Lealui to be approved and for the same reason. Appointments of Shinde's Indunas (i.e. petty chiefs or divisional headmen) are by Shinde in consultation with Nawinda & the Government. The same law applies to Lealui. Headmen are appointed by Shinde himself."

We must now turn to the Lovale complaints to Mr. Poole at Balovale in these same papers. At the time of Shinde's 1934 complaints, the Lovale chiefs had sent down representatives to Lealui to support Kufuna. Today the Lovale claim that they were bribed by offers of part of Shinde's country & that their representatives were lying. I submit that in those days the Lovale chiefs were not influenced by the young Chitokoloki men & that they were honestly friendly with Nawinda. The young men at the mission, however, realise that Shinde's case was being hampered by the quiescence & friendliness with Nawinda of the Lovale. Through Sakavungu & Mose they got in touch with the Lovale chiefs & persuaded them to join in & support Shinde's complaints. The throwing off of a paramount & the prospect of better pay if they could do so would be a powerful persuasion. If in fact the Lovale had been bribed by Nawinda before, they would obviously be open to bribes of this nature. The older representatives who had gone Lealui in 1934 for the Lovale faded into the back-ground & have not been called before the Commission. The educated young men took their place, aided by Kambondo, who as a follower of Musongo-wa-Ndungu in the 1892 war had had to flee then from the Malozi & may have had a grudge against them from those old days (24/1/39, P.1).

-19—
When Mr. Vaughan-Jones wrote his memorandum on the relations of the Barotse Native Government with the tribal chiefs of the Balovale District (14) he notes on p.3 that only one complaint of friction between Lovale & Nawinda has come to light - the complaint of Ndungu against Njekwa. Before Sir Hubert Young in 1936 we find (20a, 1) that there was dissatisfaction on the part of some tribal chefs, particularly the Lunda & to a lesser extent the Lovale. At that Indaba the Balovale complaints were by Ndungu of encroachment by Njekwa, & by Kucheka of encroachment by Litondo. Ndungu specifically says, "We have no complaint against Kufuna" (20-B, 1). There were no complaints against Nawinda as such - Ndungu says that Ilubonda called her a slave. Kucheka said that she recognised Yeta as her Paramount Chief.

Now in 1936 the Lovale also make complaints before Mr. Poole. Looking down Mr. Vaughan-Jones's summary (50X, p.21), we see the usual & fa.miliar list of Lunda complaints now put forward by the Lovale - Paramount Chief's promises before sending up Nawinda, senior chief, fines to Nawinda, hippo & eland meat, appointment of chiefs by Nawinda, drive us out of the country, & "troubles from Nawinda" in detail. All the familiar Lunda complaints in fact. Nearly all of them had begun to happen or had happened by the 1934 complaints of the Lunda, when the Lovale chiefs specifically sent down their representatives to back up Nawinda. All is now changed. Why? I submit because it is now important to Shinde & the Lunda to show that the Lovale also cannot get on with Nawinda, & so hide their own determination not to get on with Nawinda because if they did, the land would go to the Malozi. Sakavungu is to the fore of course, & the old advisers except Kambondo have gone. Sakavungu is the spokesman.

On p.23 Sakavungu says, "When Nawinda was established we took some fines there because we were forced to do so. we did not take all." According to the instructions of Noyoo given in 1927, all the fines should have been taken. Many were held back, were embezzled. Nawinda should have given half of them back, & if they did not do so they -ere embezzling. P.30 Sakavungu says, "In the past our arrangement with Lewanika was one of friendship. We came under his wing so

-20-
that we could come under British rule, on his advice.    Does not the expression "coming under his wing" mean accepting the paramountcy? On p.31 Kambondo says that Njekwa's "own place is at the Kakolwana stream, but now he has taken many villages - it is just like a country." The Ngambela replied, "When the Barotse representatives went to the west side of the Zambesi, they were given land on which to live, & land was also assigned to the chiefs who came from Angola. This was intended to stop trouble between the Barotse representatives & the tribal chiefs. The Barotse representatives were told to live in their own villages & not with the chiefs, & were given land for their own use. Immigrants from Angola may settle in the area of either induna or chief, but because they come from Angola the chiefs think they ought all to come under them....The Paramount Chief gave Njekwa the Kakolwana stream." This is an authoritative statement of the claim to land of the Barotse representatives living in the Lovale country.

There are two more small quotations from these papers that I wish to notice. P.35 Tomasi Chinyama says, "The laws as such are good, but we will refuse them if they come through Nawinda." This man by this remark is, I submit, branded as a political agitator, for he is not by birth one of Shinde's people but a Lunda from a different part of the territory. P.13 Shinde, in answer to a question, again says, "In the past we did recognise Yeta as Paramount Chief. What now makes us refuse are the people at Nawinda."

In the papers filed under 50-X in Balovale file 28 there is a statement of Vaughan-Jones on p.15 which is important. "Questions of precedence are of great importance to a native mind, & I think a lot of bitterness has been caused by the Nawinda Indunas, as individuals, donning that absolute superiority over chiefs which has in fact been accorded only to the Kuta as a body, & then only when it represents the approved law of the Paramount chief or functions as a court of appeal." I don't think there can be any doubt that some of the Marozi indunas acted in this tactless way, but I feel sure that they did so without the approval & in fact against the wishes of Lealui. I would call attention to the fact that Vaughan-Jones does not make the same statement about Daniel Kufuna & therefore I submit

-21-
that apart from his tactlessness in calling himself senior Chief, his behaviour towards the chiefs of the Lunda & Lovale did not call for comment. In the Lovale letter p.1 of 31/7/36 included in the same papers, the Lovale claim that the Barotse "made an alliance with our chief Chinyama Chikeleti. since then we have alliance with the Barotse chief." There is no mention of blood-friendship either at that time or later, or of the 1892 war. P.24 of the same papers there is a criticism of the Lovale method of justice when Vaughan-Jones says "Kambondo is Ndungu's Ngambela, & it seems improper that she should try this case at all." P.25 Vaughan-Jones says that the claim that Situmbeko has no area in the district is unfounded "as the Liuwa are aboriginal to that part of the country." Mr. Suckling said a few days ago that the Liuwa claim to land was only put forward in 1938.evidence of considerable strength must have been given to Vaughan-Jones in 1936 to permit of his making such a dogmatic statement. At p.55a we find a letter from Lovale chiefs in which blood-friendship is mentioned for the first time. At 55 we find that this letter wee written by " Mose - a schoolboy". It is interesting to note that the first mention of blood-friendship emanates from a Chitokoloki school-boy. In the same letter Mose  writes, "Should the Government try to force us to co-operate with the Barotse, we shall refuse", end "before Nawinda was established here, we were never disturbed by the Barotse." Here is an echo of the remark already quoted made by Tomasi Chinyama ("The laws as such are good, but we will refuse them if they come through Nawinda'), a Chitokoloki preacher.

At 57 is the Indaba at Balovale of 20/10/36 before Mr. Poole & Mr. Hudson. The natives were informed that the Governor agreed with Mr. Poole's statement that Nawinda would remain. "He also said that three or four years ago Lovale & Lunda chiefs had themselves asked for a Kuta at Nawinda." In reply to Ndungu's petition the Governor said he "recognised Barotse Government & Nawinda in this district; and he said it was an offence against the law to conspire against the Government he had recognised. He sent a message to Nawinda that it was their duty to preserve the interests of the chiefs in the district." It is interesting to note that following

-22-
this pronouncement of H.E.'s if Nawinda failed to preserve the interests of the chiefs in the district they were failing in their duty. but if the Lunda & Lovale conspired against Nawinda they offended against the law, the P.C. continued, 'It was also decided that part of the trouble is due to some of the advisers of Shinde & Ndungu. It is decided that Peter Dawson & Sakavungu shall no longer advise their chiefs or take any pert in the government of the district..... Yeta has agreed that Angulu & Ilubonda shall be removed." Angulu & Ilubonda were removed because the Lovale objected to them. They were removed by Yeta. Sakavungu & Peter Dawson continued to live in close touch with their chiefs, & I can find no evidence whatsoever to show that they or their chiefs heeded in any way H.E.'s order that they were not to advise their chiefs. It appears that right up to the time of the present inquiry Sakavungu & P.Dawson have continued to be the chief advisers of the Lovale & Lunda chiefs respectively.

At 60 we come to a letter from Shinde to P.C. dated 6/12/36. This is the first of a number of letters, some typed, some written, which have not got Shinde's personal stamp on them, & his name is written or typed by the writer of the letter. Who the writer is in each case we can have no idea. This letter says that Kufuna confessed he had been the cause of the troubles & that he came after Shinde in a temper. It says that Kufuna came to Shinde to say this. What had happened really was that Mr. Caldwell of Chitokoloki had begged Kufuna to apologise on religious grounds, & we find in (63) where Wright informs the P.C. of the occurrence, that "this apology was apparently made on purely religious grounds, as Daniel had been told that he could not be re-admitted as a member of the Church unless he did so." Mr. Caldwell's motives are above suspicion, but the whole incident is unfortunate in its results. The letter from Shinde quoted above continues, "I can mention that my definite refusal to co-operate with the Barotse is derived from what Daniel Kufuna Yeta has personally confessed. In my opinion the P.C. deserves to take knowledge of this my letter." I consider this a most scandalous letter, & I can hardly believe that Shinde himself was responsible for it. It smacks more of the attempt of a political agitator to

-23-
make capital out of the confession of his opponent. The confession is used as an excuse for not co-operating. I have suggested that the real reason for not co-operating was the fear that to do so could in effect give the land in Shinde's country to the Marozi.

At (66-A & B) we have copies of letters written by Ndungu & Shinde to the Copperbelt. These letters were dated 2/9/36 & 31/8/36 respectively, & I should in fairness point out that they were written before the Indaba before Mr. Poole & Mr. Hudson. Shinde's letter asks for money to put his case at Lusaka. P.Dawson signs the letter & says, "This is Thomas (i.e. Tomasi Chinyama). We have given him chief's rank under Shinde." Was this award of chief's rank to Tomasi a reward for service?

Ndungu's letter was apparently taken by Tomasi. "Here is Tomasi - if you have anything for me, give it to him."

The Lunda & Lovale by this time are working in close co-operation together, their messenger to the Copperbelt was a preacher brought to Chitokoloki Mission years ago from a different part of the territory. (66-D) the Ngambela writes to the P.C., "It is said Thomas has been stirring up trouble.....Shinde admitted before the Kuta that the seditious letter that was sent to Chief Kanongesha in his name had been written by the Chitokoloki folks amongst whom Thomas was one." (66D) the P.C. writes to C.S. & suggests that Shinde & Ndungu should be given final warning that their action amounts to conspiracy. (66-E) C.S. to P.C. approves the suggestion above. It also says that Thomas can be advised to leave the province by Lealui & the P.C., & if he refuses to go steps can be taken under the penal code. It is interesting to note that Thomas Chinyama is still in the Balovale District, was a witness before the Commission, & one of the leading cross-examiners of Marozi witnesses.

At (71) is a letter from P.C. Mr. Poole to D.C. Balovale, 8/2;/37, concerning Barotse orders. I wish to quote parts of this letter. "The Barotse orders have been lawfully issued under Section 8 of the Nat.Auth.Ord.; after approval by the superior authority of Lealui & by myself. They were duly promulgated by you in accordance with Section 10, & it devolved upon Shinde to assist in 

-24-
carrying out these duties under Section 5. However, until his second class court has been recognised by the Governor & until he has received a warrant, he is unable to enforce obedience to the orders under the Barotse Native Courts Ordinance. On the particular issue you may inform Shinde that since he has publicly announced in advance that he will decline to enforce in his court breaches of orders which have been approved by the Native Authority, Government may consider it advisable not to recognise his court. You may emphasise the consequential implications, viz. that any emoluments attaching to his post by virtue of his membership of that court would in that event cease, & that any cases heard by him in defiance of a decision not to recognise his court, would be, ipso facto, null & void."

At (72) we find that Ndungu has now followed Shinde in refusing the Barotse orders. Apparently at first she did not, but as (68) is missing I am not quite clear on that point.

We come now to the arrangements made for the Livingstone Indaba. In (73) & (77) we are given a list of the advisers taken by Shinde & sent by Ndungu. Shinde took Mpili, Kakeke, Samavundu, Mwanangombe. He also took Peter Dawson. Ndungu sent Kambonda & Nguvu. She also sent Sakavundu.

Paragraph 7 of (73) Wright says that they Shinde & Ndungu) do everything in their power to dissuade or hinder appellants & witnesses from going to Nawinda for appeal cases, have forbidden their people to take out arms licences there, have refused to accept or enforce Barotse orders, & done their best to stir up ill-feeling against the Paramount Chief & the lawfully constituted Native Authority. He says that they have made it impossible for him & Nawinda to publish any laws. I wish to consider these complaints of Wright's against Shinde & Ndungu. The fact that they were dissuading people from taking appeal cases to Nawinda seems to show by inference that there were still people of theirs who wished to go to the appeal court. The appeal court had been established by the Marozi with the full consent of Government. That arms licences should be collected at Nawinda was a Government Order for which the Barotse were in no way responsible. The establishment of Nawinda as Native Authority for

-25-
the district was under the agreement made between the Government & the rather reluctant Marozi. It will be seen that the Government must share full responsibility with the Marozi, and I submit that the recognising of Nawinda as a Native Authority at this time by Government and the instructions that natives were to take out arms licences at Nawinda, also issued by Government, were both factors which increased very greatly the difficulties of the Nawinda Kuta Indunas, and exasperated considerably the indigenous chiefs.

In (7b) Wright writes to the P.C. that the indigenous chiefs will take their old complaints and in addition complaints about arms licences and Barotse orders. Wright had promised them that if they sent their people to Nawinda now, he would later ask for them to be allowed to issue their own licences.

- - - - - - - - - - -

 




Click for Map Ships and Harbours Image Library