Barotseland

by D. E. C. Stirke

The Hare and the Crocodile.

The hare used to live on an island with the tiger-cats. He used to look after their camp and all the fish they caught. One day the hare stole the fish and ate them. He then tied himself up with ropes of twisted grass, and began to bawl at the top of his voice “Mawe! (my mother) Shangwe (my father) come and untie me.” When the tiger-cats came back, they found him thus, and asked him who had done it, and who had stolen the fish. The hare told them it was some strange people whom he did not know. So the next day one of the tiger-cats hid instead of going with the others, and saw the hare steal the fish and tie himself up. When the others heard this they got up in the middle of the night and left the island. When the hare woke, he found them gone, and no boat left for him to cross in. At the river bank he saw a crocodile, so he said, “Old cripple, carry me over to the other side!” So the crocodile agreed. As they were going over, the hare said, “Phew! Crocodile, you stink.” The crocodile said, “What is that you say?” The hare said, “I only said you make a splendid boat and swim very well.” When they got to the bank the hare jumped on to the shore and told the crocodile to put mud on his back and lie at the edge of the water. Then the hare went off and found the hyena. He told the hyena that he knew of a splendid bit of meat which he would share with him if only he would take it to the water and wash it. The hare then took the hyena and showed him the crocodile’s head by the water, and said, “There it is.” The hyena could not see the rest of the crocodile’s body because of the mud on it. So he went and made a grab at the meat. Then the hare called out to the crocodile: “There’s the meat I promised you;” so the crocodile seized the hyena and ate him.

A Mumbunda Witch Doctor telling Fortunes

A Barotse Village

Photo by J. Walton, Esq.

CHAPTER IX.
Barozi Laws.

The ancient laws and customs of the Barozi are respected by the Administration as long as there is nothing repugnant in them to the ideas of justice as represented by the present standards of British Law. It is endeavoured in this chapter to give a brief outline of the more important of their laws with the penalties ensuing on a breach thereof, as in vogue before the arrival of the present Administration.

Homicide was not punishable by any fixed penalty, and no difference was made between murder and manslaughter. The penalty lay in the hands of relatives of the deceased, who could do one of four things to the guilty party, viz., to kill the guilty, to fine him, to take him as a slave or to let the matter drop. The last mentioned was naturally only done when politic to do so, the first penalty was generally resorted to when the guilty party was very poor and possibly useless as a slave. Compensation was nearly always settled by the assembled Kotla.

If a man was found slain near a village, but with no actual evidence as to the slayer, the village was held responsible for the killing and the Kotla placed a collective penalty on the village. A certain amount of danger lay in discovering a slain person at any distance from human habitations, as the finding often brought a charge of killing as its reward.

In a case where there was actually no proof, witch-doctors were called in, and some wretched person who had fallen foul of the witch-doctor or even of some of the relatives of the deceased, generally got fined, however innocent he might really be.

All cases of homicide are now adjudicated upon at proper Courts of Justice, duly approved of by the High Commissioner of South Africa.

Theft was punished frequently, more severely than homicide, but in a country where lock and bolts were unknown, this was probably inevitable. The guilty party had all his possessions seized by the aggrieved party and a clay pot was smashed, portions of it were made red hot with fire and the thief was seized and his fist tightly closed round one of the red hot pieces and firmly held there. This generally resulted in his being maimed for life, as the burnt hand festered and rotted away in most cases, while, even if it were looked after well enough to heal, the flesh and sinews of the hand were so burnt as to prevent the hand ever resuming its normal state and condition.

A kleptomaniac or an incorrigible thief was promptly helped into the next world. A first offence, if the value of the stolen property was very minute, was occasionally let off with a fine, but a second offence always brought the punishment of burning of the right hand. Theft cases are now tried by the Courts of Administration.

Adultery was punishable in various ways. The killing of the guilty couple if found “in flagrante delicto” brought no penalty on the husband. If the matter came to the ears of the injured husband later, the paramour was fined one head of cattle. There was no fine or compensation from the paramour if the guilty wife had gone uninvited to his hut, but the paramour was nearly always accused of having called the woman to his hut and could then be fined for the offence. The Barozi law has always been distinctly unjust on this point, but it was doubtless necessitated by the lack of morals among the Barozi. A woman could name any number of paramours to her husband on his return from a long journey or a hunting or fighting expedition, and these would one and all have to pay a fine to the husband, although the woman might have named them out of spite only. There is no such thing as rape amongst the Barozi. A man criminally assaulting a female child under the age of puberty, might possibly have to pay a fine to the girl’s father, but carnal knowledge of an unmarried girl earned no penalty, and there is no known case of any woman or girl needing coercion, in fact the power to refuse, on the woman’s part might practically be said to be non-existent, while the laxity or rather utter lack of morals certainly made the desire to refuse non-existent.

Start of a River Trip

Photo by E. S.

Interior of Lewanika’s Dining-room

Photo by J. Walton, Esq.

Cases of adultery are still settled by the Kotla but, as there is always the possibility of an appeal from a decision to the nearest Native Commissioner’s Court, the Kotla takes much more pains over settling these cases than in former times.

These three “Crimes” with their various sub-headings formed the chief cases settled in earlier days by the Kotla. Land disputes, which were rare, were nearly all settled by the Chief and as the country has ever been larger than the actual requirements of the people, disputes on land and water rights were practically unknown.

The Natamoyo’s yard was always a city of refuge. Any law-breaker who could get away from the avenging parties, and could reach the shelter of the yard round the house or hut of the Natamoyo, was safe. “Natamoyo” in Silui or Sirozi means the “man of life,” and thus his actual residence became a city of refuge to any wrongdoer. A day’s sojourn at Natamoyo’s yard was sufficient sanctuary and wiped away any obligation required by law.

Blood relatives of the Chief had practically, a different set of laws for their conduct. If one of the blood royal killed a man, he was fined very lightly as a presupposed provocation was allowed in his case.

If he committed adultery, he was fined the same as an ordinary man in amount, but as the royal progeny were the large stock holders of the country, the value of the fine was really quite out of proportion when compared with the same fine imposed on the owner of one or two head of stock.

If a thief was of royal origin, he was fined but never maimed like a commoner. The chief himself had no laws to submit to, but this freedom was largely counterbalanced by the knowledge that if his actions became too arbitrary or irregular, his life would promptly pay for them.

There is a curious custom which still holds good to-day, and which, though really belonging to the chapter describing customs, is introduced here as bearing on the laws pertaining to theft. This custom is “Kufunda” (Sikololo) or “Kushwanga” (Silui). This was the right of a man to his relatives’ possessions. A man could take cattle, or goods of a relative, and the aggrieved party could not bring an action for theft against him. Should any one overdo the “Kufunda,” the aggrieved party could warn his relative that he was tired of losing all his possessions and that the “Kufunda” must cease. After a public warning, any further case would be treated as a mild theft and a fine imposed on the guilty party, but this warning was seldom used, as a great deal of genuine generosity, or, it might be said, a genuine community of property existed amongst relatives. Nearly all other matters in the Barozi country are governed by custom. First, as a great deal of English law is based on some old custom, so do Barozi customs regulate decisions in any matters brought under the jurisdiction of the various Kotlas.