Swaziland Striving for Freedom Vol 13 Jan - Mar 2014

Swaziland: Striving for Freedom As seen through the pages of Swazi Media

Commentary

Volume 13: January to March 2014

Swaziland: Striving for Freedom

1

INTRODUCTION

Swazilands disregard for freedom has received international attention with the United States

threatening to withdraw a favourable trading agreement and the jailing on remand of a

magazine editor and a writer after they were critical of the kingdoms judiciary.

The US has given Swaziland, which is ruled by King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africas last

absolute monarch, until 15 May to make a series of changes that would allow freedom of

association and enhance workers rights.

These include full passage of amendments to the Industrial Relations Act; full passage of

amendments to the Suppression of Terrorism Act (STA); full passage of amendments to the

Public Order Act; full passage of amendments to sections 40 and 97 of the Industrial

Relations Act relating to civil and criminal liability to union leaders during protest actions;

and establishing a code of conduct for the police during public protests.

Failure to comply with these changes would see Swaziland lose the ability to export textile

goods to the US without having to pay tariffs under the Africa Growth Opportunity Act

(AGOA). About 20,000 jobs of textile workers in Swaziland are said to be at stake.

Just as Swaziland was exposed by the US, the judiciary, appointed by King Mswati, attacked

a small independent monthly magazine, the Nation by arresting its editor Bheki Makhubu and

human rights lawyer Thulani Maseko for writing and publishing articles critical of the Swazi

Chief Justice Michael Ramodibedi. They have been charged with contempt of court. The

charges caused an international outcry which got louder when Makhubu was taken into court

in leg-irons. Both men continue to be held in prison on remand awaiting trial

These are just two of the stories covered by Swazi Media Commentary during the first three

months of 2014 and now published as part of a collection: Swaziland: Striving for

Freedom, Volume 13.

This publication documents many of the struggles for human rights that are taking place in

the kingdom. In February, police broke up a press conference held by the Secretary-General

of the African National Congress (ANC), Gwede Mantashe. Journalists were reportedly

frog-marched out of the venue. The briefing was to report on a delegation led by Mantashe

the day before that met with political parties in the kingdom. Political parties are banned in

Swaziland.

Swazi Police continued to shoot-to-kill with impunity. Among the instances this year was the

case of a plain-clothed policeman who shot an unarmed man in the back killing him while on

a public bus. Police later claimed the man had stolen some copper wire.


2

Elsewhere, police armed with batons assaulted children who complained about conditions at

their school.

In March, Sikhuphe Airport was finally opened and renamed King Mswati III Airport,

confirming the belief of critics that the venture was a vanity project for the King. Despite

costing at least E3 billion (US$300 million) to build no airlines have said they will fly into

the airport and it remains unused. There are doubts whether the airport has the necessary

international licence to allow it to operate.

Children continue to have their rights abused in Swaziland. In March it was reported that

warders at a juvenile jail in Swaziland stripped naked, handcuffed and beat children in their

care. They inserted fingers into girls private parts and forced one boy to drink his own urine.

Swazi Media Commentary has no physical base and is completely independent of any

political faction and receives no income from any individual or organisation. People who

contribute ideas or write for it do so as volunteers and receive no payment.

Swazi Media Commentary is published online updated most days bringing information,

comment and analysis in support of democracy in the kingdom.


3

CONTENTS

1 Nation magazine 4

2 Media freedom and ethics 11

3 Police shooting and abuse 20 4 Game rangers shoot-to-kill 24

5 King Mswati III (Sikhuphe) Airport 28

6 Human rights 44 7 Hunger 52

8 King Mswati III 56

9 National election 62 10 Government and Parliament 66

11 Review of the year: 2013 69

About the author 75 Books by Swazi Media Commentary 76

Occasional Paper series 77

Swaziland: Striving for Freedom, previous editions

78


4

1 NATION MAGAZINE

Editor charged with criticising judge

18 March 2014

A human rights lawyer and the editor of Swazilands only political comment magazine have been charged with contempt of court.

Lawyer Thulani Maseko and Nation editor Bheki Makhubu were alleged to have written

separate articles in the magazine criticising the circumstances surrounding the case of Chief

Government Vehicle Inspector, Bhantshana Gwebu. Gwebu had been arrested and charged

with contempt of court after he arrested a driver of High Court Judge Esther Ota. Gwebu

spent nine days at the Sidwashini Correctional facility before he was released on E15,000

(US$1,500) bail.

The arrests highlight the difficulty media have in commenting on current events in

Swaziland, which is ruled by King Mswati III as sub-Saharan Africas last absolute monarch.

Makhubu was also convicted in April 2013, along with the Nation magazine publishers,

Swaziland Independent Publishers, of scandalising the court after two articles criticising the judiciary were published in 2009 and 2010. Makhubu and the publisher were fined a total of

E400,000 (US$40,000) by the Swaziland High Court, of which half had to be paid within

three days or Makhubu would immediately be sent to jail for two years. Both Makhubu and

the publisher have appealed the conviction.

The Sunday Observer, a newspaper in effect owned by King Mswati, ran an apology for its

own coverage of the Gwebu case, but its editor was not arrested.

The apology said, it is not the intention of the Swazi Observer and its newspapers to disregard the independence of the judiciary, but to be seen to assisting it to uphold the rule of

law in the country.

Swazi editor and lawyer jailed

18 March 2014

Swaziland human rights lawyer Thulani Maseko and Bheki Makhubu, the editor of the

Nation magazine, have been jailed on remand for seven days on contempt of court charges.

The Chief Justice of Swaziland Michael Ramodibedi heard their cases in chambers away

from the public. The mens lawyer Mandla Mkhwanazi called the proceeding a kangaroo court.

The two men are accused of contempt of court for writing articles in the Nation, the only

magazine of political commentary in Swaziland, criticising the circumstances surrounding the

case of Chief Government Vehicle Inspector, Bhantshana Gwebu. Gwebu had been arrested

and charged with contempt of court after he arrested a driver of High Court Judge Esther Ota.


5

Gwebu spent nine days at the Sidwashini Correctional facility before he was released on

E15,000 (US$1,500) bail.

Makhubu was also convicted in April 2013, along with the Nation magazine publishers,

Swaziland Independent Publishers, of scandalising the court after two articles criticising the judiciary were published in 2009 and 2010. Makhubu and the publisher were fined a total of

E400,000 (US$40,000) by the Swaziland High Court, of which half had to be paid within

three days or Makhubu would immediately be sent to jail for two years. Both Makhubu and

the publisher have appealed the conviction.

Amnesty attacks Swazi justice

19 March 2014

Swaziland violated human rights law by arresting and jailing a magazine editor and a human

rights lawyer after they criticised the kingdoms judiciary, according to Amnesty International.

It added the arrests were, another shocking example of the southern African kingdoms intolerance of freedom of expression.

Amnesty has declared both men prisoners of conscience.

Bheki Makhubu, editor of Swazilands monthly news magazine The Nation and human rights lawyer Thulani Maseko are being held at Sidwashini Remand Prison in Mbabane, after

highly irregular legal proceedings.

Amnesty reported, They were arbitrarily arrested under defective warrants, denied access to their lawyers and remanded in custody after summary proceedings held behind closed

doors.

Mary Rayner, researcher on Swaziland at Amnesty International, said in a statement, These arbitrary arrests and highly irregular legal proceedings amount to judicial retribution rather

than justice being delivered, and are further evidence of Swazilands intolerance of freedom of expression. It violates international human rights standards and has no basis in Swazilands domestic law.

She added, We consider Bhekithemba Makhubu and Thulani Maseko to be prisoners of conscience, arrested and detained merely for exercising their right to freedom of expression.

The Swaziland authorities must release them immediately and unconditionally.

The two men are accused of contempt of court by writing articles published in the Nation in

February and March 2014 that criticised the circumstances surrounding the case of Chief

Government Vehicle Inspector, Bhantshana Gwebu. Gwebu had been arrested and charged

with contempt of court after he arrested a driver of High Court Judge Esther Ota. Gwebu

spent nine days at the Sidwashini Correctional facility before he was released on E15,000

(US$1,500) bail.

Amnesty reported, The warrant used to arrest them, issued by Swazilands Chief Justice Michael Ramodibedi, apparently subverted the normal legal process. The police at Mbabane


6

police station, where the men were initially detained prior to their appearance before the

Chief Justice, also appear to have been acting under instructions when they denied their

lawyers access.

Normal criminal procedure dictates the men should have then appeared before a magistrate. Instead, they were taken to the Chief Justices chambers for what turned out to be summary proceedings. Their lawyers were not permitted to make any submissions and the Chief Justice

went on to remand them in custody without the opportunity to apply for bail.

Its clear that the Chief Justice has a prevailing conflict of interest in this case, and the Swaziland authorities have no grounds on which to hold these men, other than apparent

vindictiveness by a powerful public official.

Support for human rights defenders

20 March 2014

Support for the Swaziland magazine editor and human rights lawyer jailed on remand on

contempt of court charges is pouring in from across the world.

The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) has called for the immediate release of Bheki

Makhubu, editor of the Swaziland independent news magazine the Nation, and lawyer

Thulani Maseko.

Amnesty International has declared both men prisoners of conscience.

Ditshwanelo, The Botswana Centre for Human Rights, which is a member of the Southern

Africa Human Rights Defenders Network (SAHRDN), called Makhubu and Maesko, two human rights defenders.

Both men have been charged with contempt of court after articles were published in the

Nation magazine accusing the judiciary in Swaziland of improper conduct in a case involving

Bhantshana Gwebu, the governments chief motor vehicle inspector, who was arrested after impounding a vehicle used by another high court judge. After a week in custody, Gwebu was

released on bail. His case is pending in the high court.

CPJ Africa Program Coordinator Sue Valentine said in a statement, These arrests make a mockery of Swaziland's constitution, which is supposed to uphold freedom of expression.

In a statement Ditshwanelo said, SAHRDN has been monitoring developments in the Kingdom of Swaziland and is alarmed by the serious deterioration of the human rights

situation. Arbitrary arrests, detention and malicious prosecution of human rights defenders,

including members of the legal profession and journalists continue unabated.

Amnesty International said, We consider Bhekithemba Makhubu and Thulani Maseko to be prisoners of conscience, arrested and detained merely for exercising their right to freedom of

expression. The Swaziland authorities must release them immediately and unconditionally.


7

In an interview with German broadcaster Deutsche Welle, Mary Rayner a researcher on

Swaziland at Amnesty International, said the arrests of Makhubu and Maseko had an intimidating effect.

She added, There has been various ways in which the journalists' community and publishing community in Swaziland over a period of years has been subjected to threats and intimidation

and seizure of material and using also some of the aspects of the draconian terrorism acts to

silence the publication of information and opinion.

Calls to release jailed critics grow

21 March 2014

More organisations within Swaziland and internationally have joined the chorus of support

for the two prisoners of conscience who have been jailed on remand accused of contempt of court for criticising the judiciary in magazine articles.

Human rights lawyer Thulani Maseko and Bheki Makhubu, editor of the Nation magazine,

were sentenced to seven days in jail ahead of a court hearing scheduled for 25 March 2014.

They are accused of contempt of court for criticising judges, including the Swazi Chief

Justice Michael Ramodibedi, for the way they handled a court case involving Government

Chief Vehicle Inspector Bhantshana Gwebu.

It was CJ Ramodibedi himself who jailed the two men, described by Amnesty International

as prisoners of conscience. No hearing was heard in open court and Maseko and Makhubu were denied proper legal representation.

The US Embassy in Swaziland said it had deep concern about the arrest of the two men and added it strongly supported the democratic principles of freedom of speech, freedom of

expression and freedom of the press.

The Law Society of Swaziland said Makhubu and Maseko were irregularly arrested and

detained on the instruction of the chief justice. It also criticised the summary manner in which

the two were dealt with subsequent to their arrest.

In a statement it said, It is the view of the Law Society that every citizen of Swaziland is entitled to the due process of the law which entails the right to legal representation, equality

before the law, right to appear in a open court before an impartial judicial officer, a right to a

fair hearing, a right to administrative justice and a right to personal liberty, including the right

to bail as provided in terms of the provisions enshrined in the Constitution of Swaziland and

the founding principles of natural justice.

Members of a number of progressive organisations attended court last week to support the

two men, described by Ditshwanelo, The Botswana Centre for Human Rights, as two human rights defenders. These included the Swaziland Association of Teachers (SNAT), the Trade Union Congress of Swaziland (TUCOSWA), the Swaziland Coalition of Concerned Civic

Organisations (SCCCO), the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA), the Coordinating

Assembly of Non-Governmental Organisations (CANGO) and Lawyers for Human Rights

Swaziland (LHRS).


8

Meanwhile, the international organisation Reporters Without Borders (RWB) said, The arbitrary arrests of Maseko and Makhubu are the latest examples of the persecution that

awaits anyone voicing the least criticism of Swazilands institutions.

Lucie Morillon, head of research and advocacy at RWB, said, In a country where the only voices tolerated are those of King Mswati and his government, how much leeway do

journalists have to cover and comment on local news developments? None.

Morillon added, The detention orders that the chief justice himself issued, without any respect for Swazilands legal standards, are blatant violations of freedom of expression, motivated by a desire for personal revenge. We call on the authorities to free these two men

at once.

Freedom House also called for the immediate release of Makhubu and Maseko. It said, The Kingdom of Swaziland must uphold the basic rights and freedoms of its citizens and put an

end to its sustained campaign to suppress its citizens basic right to freedom of expression. It added, These arrests, indictments and imprisonment constitute a direct violation of the Swaziland constitutions section 21, which guarantees a fair trial and the section 24, the right to freedom of expression.

The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) Africa Program Coordinator Sue Valentine said

in a statement, These arrests make a mockery of Swazilands constitution, which is supposed to uphold freedom of expression.

The International Commission for Jurists (ICJ) said that both men appear to be detained for exercising their right of freedom of expression.

Also calling for the release of the accused are the SADC Lawyers Association, the Southern

Africa Litigation Centre and the Law Society of South Africa (LSSA).

Editor appears in court in leg-irons

24 March 2014

The Swaziland magazine editor Bheki Makhubu, whose arrest and jailing has sparked an

outcry across the world, appeared in court in leg irons for a bail application.

Makhubu, editor of the Nation magazine, is charged with contempt of court for writing and

publishing articles critical of the judiciary in Swaziland, where King Mswati III rules as sub-

Saharan Africas last absolute monarch.

Thulani Maseko, a human rights lawyer, faces similar charges.

Makhubu appeared in the Swazi High Court for a bail application clad in leg irons and was

surrounded by armed guards. His application was postponed until 28 March 2014 and he was

returned to jail. Maseko is also remanded in custody but has made no application for bail.

The Swazi News, an independent newspaper in Swaziland, reported the leg irons were


9

removed from Makhubu immediately he entered the accused dock and were replaced after the

bail hearing.

Makhubu and Maseko were arrested and jailed on remand on 18 March 2014.

The arrests of Makhubu and Maseko have been condemned worldwide by judges, lawyers

and groups including, Freedom House, the Committee to Protect Journalists and the Southern

Africa Human Rights Defenders Network.

Amnesty International has named both men prisoners of conscience.

Kings paper questions ability of judge 31 March 2014

A Swaziland newspaper has reported criticisms of the competence of a judge at a time when

one editor and a writer are in jail awaiting contempt of court charges for criticising the

kingdoms judiciary.

The Sunday Observer reported criticisms that Mpendulo Simelane, aged 39, who was

appointed to the High Court bench in February 2014, was not properly qualified to be a High

Court judge.

The Observer is in effect owned by King Mswati III who rules Swaziland as sub-Saharan

Africas last absolute monarch. The King chooses the judges in his kingdom and the article could be seen as an indirect criticism of the Kings decision.

Welcome Dlamini wrote in the Observer under the headline Mpendulo Simelane: Is he fit

to Judge? However, his [Simelanes] appointment has been met with a lot of misgivings by the legal fraternity which feels he is not yet ripe for the position. The Sunday Observer has it

in authority that even some of the judges are not happy with Mpendulo Simelane being

appointed to be part of them.

He added, An impeccable source within the judiciary said it was well known that Simelanes appointment had not gone down well with his colleagues even though there was nothing they

could do about it.

Some of the judges feel he does not yet qualify to be a judge. As a judge, you have to write judgments that will stand their ground throughout the world. Judgments are important

because they become a point of reference for other countries. Is Simelane fit to write such

judgments? Some of the judges dont think so, said the source.

Further, said the source: The judges would have preferred that the post should have been advertised because there are a lot of lawyers and magistrates who are senior and have the

necessary qualifications to be appointed judges. With Simelane, he did not compete with

anyone for the position. It was sort of a reward.

Constitutionally, a person has to meet one of three requirements in order to be appointed judge of the kingdoms High Court. That person should either have been a legal practitioner,


10

barrister or advocate of not less than ten years practice in Swaziland or any part of the

Commonwealth or the Republic of Ireland.

Or, that person should have served as a judge of a superior court of unlimited jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters in any part of the Commonwealth or the Republic of Ireland for a

period of not less than five years.

Alternatively, that individual should have either been a legal practitioner, barrister or advocate and a judge of a superior court as stated above for a combined period of such

practice and service of not less than ten years.

Judge Mpendulo Simelane, according to another source within the legal fraternity, does not meet any of these requirements.

Yes, he was admitted as an attorney 10 years ago but he served for only five years before he was appointed registrar of the High Court and that position cannot be classified as being a

legal practitioner, said the source.

The publication by the Observer of direct questions about the competence of a judge comes

two weeks after Bheki Makhubu, the editor of the Nation magazine and human rights lawyer

Thulani Maseko were arrested and charged with writing and publishing articles critical of

Swaziland Chief Justice Michael Ramodibedi.

The two men have been remanded in custody awaiting trial.

Their arrest has led to an outcry across the world with many human rights organisations

calling for their immediate release. Amnesty International has named both men prisoners of conscience.

Earlier this year, the Sunday Observer was forced to publish an abject apology after it

published a criticism of the judiciary. In its apology the newspaper said. [It] is not the intention of the Swazi Observer and its newspapers to disregard the independence of the

judiciary, but to be seen to assisting it uphold the rule of law in the country.


11

2 MEDIA FREEDOM AND MEDIA ETHICS

More media self-censorship over King

13 January 2014

Once again Swazilands Times Sunday has censored itself and misled its readers about international criticism of King Mswati III.

It misreported a CNN report about US President Barack Obamas criticism of Swaziland and its king, who rules the kingdom as sub-Saharan Africas last absolute monarch. Obama was speaking at the tribute to the life of Nelson Mandela.

The Times was reporting a commentary written by Frida Ghitis and published online by

CNN, the international cable news channel.

The Times, which is part of the only newspaper group in Swaziland that is not controlled by

the King, reported that Ghitis said Freedom House, an international human rights

organisation, described Swaziland as a failed state.

But, that is not what Ghitis actually wrote. She said Freedom House called Swaziland a

failed feudal state, which is something quite different. By deliberately changing the sense of the statement, the Times deflected the criticism away from the King.

The newspaper also did not report that Ghitis also referred in her article to dictators and their right-hand men who were present at the tribute to Mandela.

Ghitis wrote, but the Times did not report, It included the likes of Swaziland Prime Minister [Barnabas] Sibusiso Dlamini, representing the small kingdom described by Freedom House

as a failed feudal state, where the king uses photos of beautiful girls to attract tourists, distracting outsiders from Swaziland's shocking realities of oppression, abject poverty, hunger and disease.

Freedom House says that in the past 40 years, two despots have used Swaziland for their personal purposes while ignoring the needs of the Swazi people and their legitimate rights to

have a say over how they are governed and how the country's resources are used -- the very antithesis of Mandelas struggle.

This is not the first time the Times Sunday has deliberately distorted the news to mislead its

readers about criticism of King Mswati.

In 2012, it distorted a story about UK Prime Minister David Cameron and freedom and

democracy in the kingdom, to deflect criticism away from the King.

The newspaper carried a report saying that Cameron had responded to a petition from the

Swazi Vigil, a prodemocracy group in the UK.


12

According to the Times Sunday, the petition read in part, Exiled Swazis and supporters urge you to put pressure on (the Swazi Government) to allow political freedom, freedom of the

press, rule of law, respect for women and affordable AIDS drugs in Swaziland.

The newspaper inserted the words the Swazi Government into the petition to make it seem that it was Prime Minister Barnabas Dlamini and his cabinet that was being criticised.

In fact, the petition sent to Cameron in May 2012 actually read, Petition to the British Government: Exiled Swazis and supporters urge you to put pressure on absolute monarch

King Mswati III to allow political freedom, freedom of the press, rule of law, respect for

women and affordable AIDs drugs in Swaziland.

The Swazi Vigil made it very clear that it was criticising absolute monarch King Mswati III.

The Times Sunday and other media in Swaziland constantly mislead their readers and

audiences about how King Mswati is viewed outside his kingdom. In May 2012 there was

widespread criticism against King Mswatis invitation to join a lunch in London to mark the Diamond Jubilee of Queen Elizabeth IIs reign.

There were street demonstrations in London against the King and prodemocracy campaigners

drew attention to the lack of freedoms in Swaziland and the lavish lifestyle the king enjoys,

while seven in ten of his subjects languish in absolute poverty, earning less than US$2 a day.

Inkhosikati LaMbikiza, one of the Kings 13 wives who accompanied him to the lunch, wore shoes costing 995 (US$1,559), the equivalent of more than three years income for 70 percent of Swazi people. The total cost of the Kings trip was estimated to be at least US$794,500.

The Times, the companion paper to the Times Sunday, reported at the time that Inkhosikati

LaMbikiza had rave reviews from the Daily Mail newspaper in London for her dress sense, but omitted to say the same newspaper also reported, Guests from controversial regimes include Swazilands King Mswati III, who has been accused of living an obscenely lavish lifestyle while many of his people starve.

There was similar criticism a year earlier in April 2011 when King Mswati went to the

wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton. The Times newspaper in South Africa

reported at the time, The controversial absolute monarch, whose country is ranked among the poorest in the world, spent much of this week playing hide-and-seek with prodemocracy

demonstrators tailing him across London. The King was forced to change his hotel to avoid pickets.

The Swazi media failed to report any of this, but did say that King Mswati had been

welcomed by business people in the UK.

See also

PAPER DISTORTS STORY TO PROTECT KING


13

Top judge attacks press freedom

28 January 2014

Swazilands Chief Justice Michael Ramodibedi has attacked the kingdoms only independent daily newspaper and forced it to apologise unreservedly after it published criticisms of his handling of a contempt of court case.

But, although the Times of Swaziland has been gagged, international observers continue to

criticise Ramodibedi for his actions.

One article published by the Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa (OSISA ) called the

case, the end of the road for the rule of law in Swaziland, the kingdom ruled by King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africas last absolute monarch.

The contempt of court case involves Bhantshana Gwebu, the Swazi Governments chief vehicle inspector.

Mantoe Phakathi, wrote on the OSISA website, In the latest shocking display of his utter contempt for the rule of law, Chief Justice Michael Ramodibedi sent Gwebu to prison for

seven days for contempt of court on January 20 - having refused him the right to legal

representation.

Phakathi added, On Saturday January 18th, Gwebu - in his role as chief government vehicle inspector - charged and arrested, Vusi Tsela, for driving a government vehicle without

authority. Now, Tsela happens to be the official driver for High Court judge, Esther Ota, and

he had taken her to one of the elite schools in Mbabane so that she could buy her children's

uniforms before classes resumed on January 21st.

When Gwebu pounced and demanded to see the official documents that allowed Tsela to drive the car to this school on a Saturday, he discovered that Tsela did not have the right

papers. He subsequently charged him and impounded the car, while Ota pleaded that she was

on her way to court because she was the duty judge for the weekend and had just needed to

run some personal errands before going to work.

Needless to say, this affront to the judiciary could not be stomached - well not by Chief Justice Ramodibedi.

Gwebu was rapidly issued with a warrant of arrest and handed himself in to police on

Monday January 20.

Phakathi wrote, With astonishing speed - particularly given the glacial pace of many cases in Swaziland - Gwebu appeared before Ramodibedi in his chambers at the High Court on the

very same day. And was then immediately taken off to jail, pending his hearing a week later.

Phakathi added, Meanwhile, Ramodibedi himself is facing impeachment charges in his home country, Lesotho, where he was suspended from his position as Court of Appeal

president. So it sadly comes as no surprise that Ramodibedi has bypassed the law in this latest

case. Despite his position as the head of the judiciary, the law seems to be something that he

can take or leave - depending on who is involved. Clearly, he believes that there is a group of


14

powerful, influential people - not just the King and his mother - who are above the law of the

land.

But it still doesn't entirely explain why Gwebu is languishing for doing his job. The charges against the driver could easily have been dropped. Gwebu could have been given a talking to

behind closed doors. But its worth remembering that Gwebu once impounded Ramodibedis official car for allegedly abusing it. Perhaps this is partly pay-back time for that.

Journalist Ackel Zwane wrote in the Swazi Observer, a newspaper in effect owned by King

Mswati, In his bravery Bhantshana went ahead to even seize Chief Justice Michael Ramodibedis vehicle while he was on an outside trip. Surely this did not please the giant legal eagle and this time around the warrant of arrest was issued by the grand CJ.

When the Times of Swaziland ran a version of the story on its website, it attracted a number

of critical comments from readers. Ramodibedi then demanded his apology from the

newspaper, which is the only daily newspaper in the kingdom free of direct monarchical

control.

In a front-page apology, that was not published online, the Times called the readers comments contemptuous. The newspaper said we, unreservedly apologise to the Honourable Chief Justice, as well as Her Ladyship Judge Ota and to the entire Judiciary.

Journalists who criticise the judiciary are not tolerated by the judges in Swaziland. In April

2013 Bheki Makhubu the editor of the monthly magazine the Nation was convicted of

criminal contempt of court after publishing two articles criticising the judiciary. He was fined

E200,000 (US$22,000) by the High Court and told if he did not pay within three days he

would immediately go to jail for two years. His sentence is on hold pending an appeal to the

Swaziland Supreme Court.

Commenting on the Gwebu case, the Media Institute of Southern Africa, Swaziland chapter,

said, It is unclear if it was a specific comment that sparked the apology and retraction, or whether it was several of the comments. It is also unclear whether political pressure was put

on the Times of Swaziland to issue the apology.

See also

OSISA: JUDGES ATTACK PRESS FREEDOM

Cops halt ANC leader media briefing

12 February 2014

Police in Swaziland broke up a press conference on Wednesday (12 February 2014) held by

the Secretary-General of the African National Congress (ANC), Gwede Mantashe.

Journalists were reportedly frog-marched out of the venue at Lugogo Sun, Ezulwini, by police.


15

The Swaziland Solidarity Network (SSN) said the meeting was to brief the media about a

delegation led by Mantashe the day before that met with political parties in the kingdom.

In a statement, the SSN said, Under the auspices of the Socialist International, the ANC delegation had robust and candid discussions with the Ngwane Liberation Congress, the

Swaziland Democratic Party (SWADEPA) and Peoples United Democratic Movement

(PUDEMO).

All political parties are banned from taking parts in elections in Swaziland, where King

Mswati III rules as sub-Saharan Africas last absolute monarch. PUDEMO is also banned under the Suppression of Terrorism Act, as is SSN.

Reports on social media from people at the press conference said the Swazi police banned the

press conference for security reasons.

International media, including the South Africa Broadcasting Corporation (SABC), were

among the media excluded.

King keeps tight grip on media

12 February 2014

King Mswati III continues to keep a tight grip on news media and opposition voices in

Swaziland, a report on journalism freedom in the kingdom just published reveals.

The King, who rules Swaziland as sub-Saharan Africas last absolute monarch, owned one of the two daily newspapers and employed the editor of the other as an adviser. Radio and

television were also controlled by the state, the report from the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) stated.

Though Swazis readily accessed South African radio and television, South African newspapers entering Swaziland were carefully screened by authorities: If deemed critical of

the king or government, all copies were purchased and destroyed, CPJ said.

Self-censorship prevailed in the kingdom, where political parties are banned and critical voices within civil society and the media were silenced through legal or professional

repercussions.

Few dared challenge the government; the boards of state-owned companies such as the Swazi Observer Newspaper group kept their editors in check and, in turn, editors ensured that

their reporters toed the line.

The CPJ reported two editors, Alec Lushaba and Thulani Thwala, were reinstated in March

2013 after being suspended by their employer, the Swazi Observer, the newspaper owned by

the King.

The editors were accused of negative coverage and failure to follow the companys mandate, which includes upholding the social and cultural values of the Swazi nation. The king is seen as the embodiment of these values, CPJ reported.

Lushaba and Thwala had published critical stories about the king, including a June 2011

article about Swaziland's alleged attempts to secure a loan from South Africa, which was


16

believed to cause embarrassment to the king, according to the managing director of Tibiyo

Taka Ngwane, the royal entity that owns the Swazi Observer Newspaper group.

See also

TOP JUDGE ATTACKS PRESS FREEDOM

OSISA: JUDGES ATTACK PRESS FREEDOM

CHIEF JUSTICE THREATENS MEDIA

ONLY 1 IN 4 FREE TO SPEAK OPENLY

Paper banned to spare kings blushes 25 March 2014

A South African Sunday newspaper was banned from Swaziland because it published an

article that might embarrass King Mswati III.

Swazi Police confiscated from newspaper distributors all copies of the Sunday Sun tabloid

within Swaziland when it was realised it carried a report about the 18-year-old beauty contest

contestant who the King had chosen to be his 14th

wife.

The ban on the paper that is usually widely available in the kingdom happened on 22

September 2013, but was not widely reported at the time. It has come to light in a report on

human rights in Swaziland recently published by the US State Department.

The State Department report did not reveal that the article in question gave details of the

private life of Sindiswa Dlamini. The Sunday Sun report said the woman it nicknamed

Naughty Sindi previously had affairs with two of King Mswatis sons, Prince Majaha and Prince Bandzile, who are both in their early twenties.

One unnamed source told the newspaper, Sindi has dated both these boys. Shes a party girl used to having fun.

Another informant told Sunday Sun, Sindi is no virgin. She drinks and smokes a lot and has tattoos on parts of her body I cannot mention.

One source told the newspaper, She is only doing it [marrying the king] because she comes from a poor background.

The media in Swaziland never report about the king without his permission. King Mswati

rules Swaziland as sub-Saharan Africas last absolute monarch.

This was not the first time the media in Swaziland have refused to keep its readers informed

about the Swazi Royal Family. In August 2010, the worlds media were excited by the case of Swaziland Justice Minister Ndumiso Mamba and King Mswatis 12th wife, 22-year-old Inkhosikati Nothando LaDube. This was after pictures appeared of Mamba hiding in a bed

before his arrest at Royal Villas, a hotel at Ezulwini just outside Mbabane, where he was said

to have had regular adulterous meetings with LaDube. The City Press in South Africa

reported at the time that when police pounced, in a desperate effort not to be found out Mamba cut into the base of the bed and slid in but police ordered him out and Mamba,


17

dressed in a brown suit, was soon taken into custody. He was later forced to resign from the government and the Senate.

At the time the City Press was also restricted from selling in Swaziland. It was reported at the

time in African media that Swaziland security forces were instructed to buy all copies of the

newspaper that were on sale in the kingdom.

The Times of Swaziland, the only independent daily newspaper in the kingdom, reported at

the time that a man was arrested in Manzini as he tried to get a photocopy of a report in City

Press, but did not tell its readers what the report contained.

The newspaper did report that a plain clothed police officer had apparently overheard him

requesting that a story contained in the City Press be photocopied. The man was alleged to be

a member of the Swaziland Youth Congress (SWAYOCO), the youth wing of the Peoples United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO). Both organisations are banned in Swaziland and

both have been branded terrorist entities by the state.

He was taken to a police station and interrogated by officers from the Criminal Investigations

Department (CID). His house was also raided so police could get the original City Press

newspaper.

Swazi Observer names rape victims 19 February 2014

The Swazi Observer, the newspaper in effect owned by King Mswati III, committed one of

the biggest sins against journalism ethics by publishing the names of eight alleged victims of

rape without their consent.

The Observer published the names as part of a report on the start of a trial of an alleged serial

rapist. In its report the Observer listed the womens names and details of their attacks in what it called a sneak preview of the case. It gave their names and details of how each attack took place. The newspaper named one woman and revealed she was a virgin.

In all of the attacks violence including a knife was used. In all cases the alleged rapist did not

use a condom.

By publishing the names of the women, the Observer broke Article 15 of the Swaziland

National Association of Journalists (SNAJ) code of ethics on Survivors of Sexual Assault

which states, Journalists shall avoid identifying survivors of sexual assault or any information that may lead to the identification of the survivor.

Journalists across the world generally agree that it violates the rights of rape victims to

publish their names without their consent.

The Observer has been under attack for its lack of journalism standards in the recent past. In

a review of press freedom in Swaziland, the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA)

called the Observer, a pure propaganda machine for the royal family.


18

The Observer regularly breaks Article 1 of the SNAJ code Article 1which deals with peoples right to information. The article says, The duty of every journalist is to write and report, adhere to and faithfully defend the truth. A journalist should make adequate inquiries, do

cross-checking of facts in order to provide the public with unbiased, accurate, balanced and

comprehensive information.

The newspaper is on public record to say that its collective stand as a newspaper is that the integrity of Swaziland as a democratic State and His Majesty King Mswati III as the

legitimate leader of the Swazi nation, must never be compromised in any way.

Observer shrugs off its rape outrage 21 February 2014

The Swazi Observer, the newspaper that published the names of eight victims of alleged rape

and gave details of their attacks, has called the outrage a boo-boo.

On Tuesday (18 February 2014) it published across its front page and two inside pages details

of a court case involving an alleged serial killer. It published the names of the women,

something that contravenes journalism ethics across the world. It called its report a sneak preview of the court case.

The newspaper gave their names and details of how each attack took place. It named one

woman and revealed she was a virgin.

In all of the attacks violence including a knife was used. In all cases the alleged rapist did not

use a condom.

On Friday (21 February 2014), in a tiny piece, the Observer said it had made a snafu by publishing the names.

It made an unreserved apology, but tried to pass off the outrage against the women as an

understandable error and said it was caught with our guard off.

But that is not true. This was not some minor mistake like spelling someones name wrong. This was evidence that at the Swazi Observer they dont know what theyre doing.

The report would have been seen by the original reporter who wrote it, a sub editor (copy

editor) whose job it is to check for mistakes, possibly a headline writer, a news editor, and the

editor. Not one of these journalists spotted the mistake.

Not to publish the names of victims of rape is one of the first things a student journalist learns

in school. But not one of the Observer journalists who saw the story on its way from the

reporters computer keyboard to the published page realised anything was wrong.

In its apology the Observer wrote, We believe this expression of regret or apology appropriately matches the scale of the error.

No it does not. What disgusting indifference the Observer has shown to the women it has

terrorised.


19

The Observer went on. Indeed, the only decent thing we could do after mixing up the rules is to draw our own sword and hang ourselves.

But that has not happened. No one has resigned. Instead, they have asked their readers for

forgiveness. But, why should they give them that? They have the right to expect at least the

minimum level of competence from the newspaper.

But, they have not got that. The editor should resign and if he does not, King Mswati III who

in effect owns the paper should sack him.

Then the newspaper should contact the women involved and ask how many millions of

dollars they must pay them in compensation?

Pressure on Observer over rape 28 February 2014

The Swazi Observer has not said if it will pay the eight alleged rape victims it identified

financial compensation.

Meanwhile, an international media ethics watchdog, iMediaEthics, has joined the growing

outcry against the newspaper that later apologised to the women but shrugged the incident off

as a boo-boo.

iMediaEthics has written to the Observer demanding an explanation or its huge lapse in

media ethics. It also wants the newspaper to respond to a call from Swazi Media Commentary

for the editor to resign.

The intervention comes after the Observer published the names of the victims as part of its

coverage of the start of a trial of an alleged serial rapist. The newspaper named the women

and gave details of how each of them was allegedly attacked.

After an outcry by readers the Observer published an apology to the women but said it had

made a boo-boo and a snafu by naming the women.

It did not say whether it would pay the women compensation for publishing their names. The

newspaper has not announced that it will discipline the editor or other staff member for the

error. Unlike in Swaziland, in many countries it is a serious offence to name alleged rape

victims. For example, in England an editor would be taken before a judge on a contempt of

court charge.

The women named by the newspaper are all too poor to be able to afford to take the Observer

to court. However, if they had been able to, the compensation that the paper, in effect owned

by King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africas last absolute monarch, might be required to pay out could be enough to bankrupt it.

iMediaEthics, under the headline Seriously? 8 Rape Victims IDed, Error called a 'Boo-

Boo', said it had written to the Swazi Observer to ask if any of the victims complained or

threatened legal action.


20

3 POLICE SHOOTINGS AND ABUSE

Swazi Police shoot-to-kill on bus

11 February 2014

A plain-clothed policeman shot an unarmed man in the back killing him while on a public bus

in the latest of a catalogue of police killings in Swaziland.

The man had allegedly stolen some copper wire before boarding the bus, travelling from

Siteki, in eastern Swaziland to Manzini.

The Times Sunday newspaper reported the driver of the bus Majahonke Zikalala saying, the man was attempting to force his way out of the bus, the police officer shot him in the back,

near the spine the man fell on the floor after which he was handcuffed while he bled. He died of his injures at the scene.

The killing is the latest in a long line of shootings by police in Swaziland who are thought to

be following a shoot-to-kill policy.

In March 2013, Swaziland police shot a man dead in front of his 11-year-old child as he held

his hands up in an attempt to surrender to them.

Thokozani Mngometulu, aged 31, was killed as he got out of his car at his homestead in

Dlakadla, in the Shiselweni region of Swaziland. Thokozanis family, who also witnessed the killing, say he was shot in the pelvis at close range by a police officer.

In June 2012, a serial rapist suspect Bhekinkhosi Masina, popularly known as Scarface, was

shot by police as they cornered him for arrest. Police say they only shot him in the thigh and

he unexpectedly died of his injuries. The Times of Swaziland newspaper later revealed he had

been shot six times, including in the head and back.

In a separate incident, a mentally ill man, Mduduzi Mngometulu, aged 34, was shot seven

times by police and died of his injuries. He had four holes in his stomach, one in the leg and

two bullet wounds on the left side of his chest.

These are not isolated incidents in Swaziland where police have a growing record of killing

or maiming suspects before arrest. The cases have largely gone unreported outside of the

kingdom itself.

In one example, police executed a suspect, Thabani Mafutha Dlamini, at Nkwalini in

Hlatikulu in the presence of his colleagues and home boys in what local media called

cowboy style. The Swazi Observer newspaper reported the incident in December 2011 saying, Police had previously warned the mother of the dead man to budget for funeral expenses as they intended to remove him. He was said to be on a police wanted list. Dlamini was unarmed.

In a separate case in February 2011, a Swazi policeman shot Mbongeni Masuku, described in


21

media as a Form IV pupil, in the head in what was later described as an execution-style killing.

The killing happened outside a bar in Matsapha, an industrial town in Swaziland.

Masukus uncle Sigayoyo Maphanga said Mbongeni had been dragged out of his car by police. He told the Swazi Observer, a policeman whom he named, shot my nephew at the back of the left ear and he fell on the ground with blood oozing from his mouth and ears. We

were all shocked and angered by such brutality from police officers.

In a separate case in May 2011, Mathende Matfonsi was shot dead by police while he was

attending a field of dagga, inside the remote forests of Lomahasha near the border with

Mozambique.

His family accused the police of cold-blooded murder. Matfonsi was shot dead at Ebhandeni, the same area where Nkosinathi Khathwane had previously been shot dead by

soldiers at night.

The police told residents that Matfonsi fired at them and they shot back. The family said he

was unarmed.

In March 2010, police shot a man as he was trying to surrender to them. This time the victim,

Mncedisi Mamba, did not die. His mother, Thoko Gamedze, said Mamba had his hands up

and was surrendering to police, but they shot him anyway.

It is not only crime suspects who get shot at. In June 2013, police fired live bullets and

teargas as children protested against alleged corruption at Mhubhe High School in Ngculwini

Police were called after school pupils boycotted classes.

Local media reported police were armed with rifles and pistols. Gun shots were fired at the

pupils after police drove them away from the school, but they tried to return.

Legitimate protestors are also targets. In February 2012, a woman at a protest march in Siteki,

called by vendors and transport operators over plans by the town hall to move the local bus

rank, was shot in the hand as she walked away from police. Reports said she was only 2

metres away from police when they fired.

Police in Swaziland also shoot innocent bystanders. In May 2012, a student was shot in the

leg by police as they tried to break up a protest at the Limkokwing private university in

Mbabane. The 23-year-old was not part of the protest and was caught in crossfire, according

to human rights activists in the kingdom.

Swazi Police investigate own killings

17 February 2014

Swazilands Police Commissioner has promised an investigation into police shootings after six people were killed in separate incidents in the past three months.


22

Police Commissioner Isaac Magagula told local media the police and the Director of Public

Prosecutions would be the investigators.

The announcement came after an unarmed man was shot dead in cold blood on a public bus

by a plain clothed police officer. Police later said the man had stolen copper wire before

boarding the bus.

The Times of Swaziland, the only independent daily newspaper in the kingdom ruled by King

Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africas last absolute monarch, reported Magagula said the investigation would ascertain whether police had broken any law.

The newspaper reported, Since December [2013], police have shot and killed six suspects in different incidents in the country. The latest case is that of a passenger who was shot dead by

a plain clothes police officer in a bus which was from Siteki.

On December 12, police shot and killed two suspects in the Built It heist which occurred last year. In January, the police shot and killed one suspect in a dramatic car chase with theft

suspects at Ngogola. Also in the same month, two suspects, who were wanted for a string of

robberies, were shot and killed by the police.

Observers of Swaziland have for a number of years identified a shoot-to-kill policy by police

and armed forces in the kingdom. In the past the Swazi Police have claimed they have

investigated killings, but no officer has ever been prosecuted. No independent inquiry has

ever been held into police killings.

In 2010, following a spate of police shootings, the commission chair Rev. David Matse of the

Swaziland Human Rights and Public Administration Commission pleaded with the police and

army to consider the law before shooting at suspects.

He said even if a person is escaping from lawful custody, other means of arresting that person

can be attempted before the suspects life is considered expendable.

When it has been necessary to take life, let there be proof that all other remedies were exhausted and that there was no other alternative, he said.

Another police attack on children

5 March 2014

Swaziland Police have once again assaulted children who complained about conditions at

their school.

This time they were armed with batons when they attacked pupils and detained about 100 of

them in classrooms in Mbabane.

It happened after the students boycotted classes after they were denied the opportunity to take

part in sporting activities by their school.

Local media reported about 100 Mbabane Central High School pupils were detained by

police for hours for allegedly leading their colleagues into wildcat class boycott.


23

Some of the pupils were beaten by the police officers who did not even want to hear what the pupils were complaining about, the Swazi Observer reported. The students ran around the school whilst police chased after them dragging them back to class.

The Times of Swaziland reported, Police chased the pupils and assaulted them as they ordered them to go to class. The action forced the pupils to run helter-skelter, with most of

them jumping through windows as they evaded the advancing police officers.

The school said they suspended sporting activities because too many students were failing

exams and needed to focus more on their studies.

Police in Swaziland often overreact when dealing with school students. In June 2013 police

fired live bullets children boycotted classes in protest against alleged corruption at Mhubhe

High School in Ngculwini. Gun shots were fired at the pupils after police drove them away

from the school, but they tried to return.

In 2011, Police reportedly assaulted pupils of Mbukwane High School after the children took

part in a demonstration. The Observer reported police went to the homes of the pupils, took

them to the police station where they were interrogated before being beaten up.

One parent told the newspaper, The police were moving from home to home in search of those children they thought were ringleaders. My son was among those who were taken to the

police station. I had to take my child to hospital after the beating.

In the same year, 12 schoolchildren at Kubongeni High School, accused of being leaders in a

class boycott, were beaten up by police officers with batons, in their own school, in front of

the schools principal. The pupils were called individually into the schools staffroom where the police officers and their principal were. Pupils said they were then assaulted with batons

and fists.

Local media reported the school became suspicious that the pupils were about to organise

another boycott, so the police were called.

See also

SWAZI POLICE SHOOT-TO-KILL

POLICE SHOOT TWO STUDENTS IN HEAD

POLICE SHOOT INNOCENT BYSTANDER

SWAZI GUN COPS ENDANGER CHILDREN

POLICE SHOOT AND KILL MENTALLY ILL MAN

POLICE SHOT ACCUSED RAPIST IN HEAD POLICE KILL SUSPECT IN COLD BLOOD

POLICE SHOOT AS CHILDREN PROTEST

SWAZI POLICE ASSAULT SCHOOL KIDS

PUPIL LEADERS BEATEN BY POLICE

SWAZI COPS FIRE LIVE BULLETS AT KIDS


24

4 GAME RANGERS SHOOT-TO-KILL

King lets game rangers shoot-to-kill

20 January 2014

King Mswati III of Swaziland has given game rangers permission to shoot-to-kill people

suspected of poaching wildlife on the monarchs land and protects them from prosecution for murder in some circumstances.

Ted Reilly, the chief executive of Big Game Parks (BGP), which runs the major national

parks in Swaziland on behalf of the King, holds a Royal Warrant to allow him to shoot-to-

kill.

He has had this for at least ten years. In 2004 Reilly appeared in a documentary produced by

Journeyman Pictures in which he spoke of his relationship to the King and showed his

warrant on camera.

The documentary commentator said, He [the King] gave Ted a Royal Warrant that allowed him to arrest and if necessary shoot-to-kill the poachers.

The commentator added, The Royal Warrant, still in force today, protects rangers from prosecution for murder as long as the poacher draws his weapon first.

Reilly said, It is the biggest honour that you could possibly imagine.

Reilly showed the documentary makers a specially-made fort with gun turrets, where rangers

can hide to shoot at poachers. He also showed surveillance towers. From here, we go out, we launch attacks, he said.

On camera, Reilly said the automatic weapons his rangers used against poachers, are much smaller than the AK-47, but are equally as devastating. You dont survive one of those shots if it hits you properly.

Reilly told the documentary, Our guys arent to be messed with. If they [poachers] come after rhino theyre going to get hurt, and if he gets killed or maimed, well, you know, whos to blame for that?

In a post on its own website as recently as 30 October 2013, BGP said, a zero tolerance towards poaching must be exercised.

This news comes as an impoverished unarmed local man, Thembinkosi Ngcamphalala, aged

21, died of gunshot wounds last Sunday (12 January 2014). He had been shot by a ranger

outside of the Mkhaya Nature Reserve. His family, who live at Sigcaweni just outside the

reserves borders, said he had not been poaching.

BGP owns and manages Mlilwane Wildlife Sanctuary and Mkhaya Nature Reserve. It also

manages Hlane National Park, the kingdoms largest protected area, held in trust for the Nation by the King, who rules Swaziland as sub-Saharan Africas last absolute monarch.


25

Swaziland has a long history of killings by rangers of local people. Campaigners say poor

people are not poaching large game, such as the endangered black rhinos, but go hunting

animals, such as warthogs, as food to feed themselves and their families. Hunger and

malnutrition are widespread in Swaziland where seven in ten of King Mswatis subjects live in abject poverty. Many are forced to become hunters and gatherers to avoid starvation.

International attention has focussed on the many human rights violations committed against

local people who live close to the Kings game reserves.

A report on human rights in Swaziland published by the US State Department said that on

July 10 2010, in Mlawula rangers shot and killed Lucky Matsenjwa, who was suspected of poaching. Matsenjwa reportedly was unarmed.

It also reported, On April 10 [2010], police stopped approximately 50 persons from traveling to the kaShoba constituency to discuss the problem of violence by game park rangers against

alleged poachers.

In 2008, a young Swazi man, Musa Gamedze, was hunted down and executed in broad

daylight at his home, in full view of his children. The campaign group Friends of the Earth

reported at the time that eyewitnesses said the man who fired the fatal shot was a manager at

a local private game reserve. The manager was accompanied by three police officers.

Musa Gamedze was part of a community that was forcibly evicted, without compensation, by

BGP from land they had lived on for more than four decades.

Friends of the Earth is also campaigning against the Game Act 1991 which allows game

rangers, to arrest without a warrant any person suspected upon reasonable grounds to have been poaching on a reserve. The rangers can make arrests up to one mile from the boundary

of the game reserve.

Ted Reilly, the chief executive of BGP, was described by Inter Press Services as, One of the architects of the Game Act.

In its 2012 report on human rights in Swaziland, Amnesty International said a Swazi

parliamentary committee had investigated alleged brutality by game rangers against

suspected poachers. Its conclusions and recommendations to parliament listed nine incidents

of deaths and injuries against game rangers and 33 against suspected poachers.

Some suspected poachers injured by game rangers were then prosecuted under the Game Act (as amended). No game rangers were prosecuted for fatal or non-fatal shootings. The

committee recommended urgent reform of clauses in the Game Act (as amended), which

could be interpreted to condone brutality towards suspect poachers, Amnesty reported.

There are numerous incidents involving rangers shooting local people. One reported by

international media in 2011concerned a 16-year-old boy who was shot in the back by a

ranger. The teenager, who as a minor cannot be named, told the AFP news agency he and two

friends were walking outside the perimeter of the southern Mkhaya Reserve when rangers

gave chase.

He said they shot him in the back. I am angry. If only they could have warned us first maybe I would have understood, he told AFP.


26

BGP spokesman Mike Richardson told AFP the shooting occurred after dark inside the park.

Rangers could not be certain if the boys were armed.

AFP reported at the time, BGP has a close relationship to Swazi Royalty that goes back to the

1960s. The parks provide the royal clan with a steady supply of animal pelts for the many traditional ceremonies that mark the Swazi calendar.

King Mswati III has entrusted the company to enforce Swazilands anti-poaching law to protect royal game, AFP reported.

In April 2010, Swazi lawyer Thuli Makama won a prestigious environmental award, the

Goldman Environmental Prize, for her work exposing the extra-judicial killings of suspected

poachers by game rangers.

Makama, head of the Swazi environmental group Yonge Nawe, told the BBC at the time the

problem of rangers overstepping their powers occurred mostly in private game reserves. We are seeing incidents where people are being pursued to their homes, she said. Where people are taken from their houses and all sorts of things are done to them.

Makama said while researching a documentary about local communities, she discovered at

least 20 cases of suspected poachers who had been killed or maimed.

Makama said suspected poachers should be arrested and taken through the due process of law. There are many illegal acts that should not mean you are tried, sentenced and executed

at the scene.

Police chief backs shooting poachers

3 February 2014

Swazilands Police Commissioner Isaac Magagula says rangers are allowed shoot people who are hunting for food to feed their hungry families.

This comes at a time of great concern about the apparent shoot-to-kill policy that game rangers have adopted. A number of Swazi people have been killed when following their

traditions of hunting small animals.

King Mswati III of Swaziland has given game rangers permission to shoot-to-kill people

suspected of poaching wildlife on his land and protects them from prosecution for murder in

some circumstances.

Ted Reilly, the chief executive of Big Game Parks (BGP), which runs the major national

parks in Swaziland on behalf of the King, holds a Royal Warrant to allow him to shoot-to-

kill.

Now, Commissioner Magagula has publicly stated, Animals are now protected by law and hunting is no longer a free-for-all, where anybody can just wake up to hunt game whenever

they crave meat.


27

He told a meeting of traditional leaders in Swaziland, Of course, it becomes very sad whenever one wakes up to reports that rangers have shot someone. These people are

protected by law and it allows them to shoot, hence it would be very wise of one to shun

away from trouble.

This news comes as an impoverished unarmed local man, Thembinkosi Ngcamphalala, aged

21, died of gunshot wounds last month (January 2014). He had been shot by a ranger outside

of the Mkhaya Nature Reserve. His family, who live at Sigcaweni just outside the reserves borders, said he had not been poaching.

BGP owns and manages Mlilwane Wildlife Sanctuary and Mkhaya Nature Reserve. It also

manages Hlane National Park, the kingdoms largest protected area, held in trust for the Nation by the King, who rules Swaziland as sub-Saharan Africas last absolute monarch.

Swaziland has a long history of killings by rangers of local people. Campaigners say poor

people are not poaching large game, such as the endangered black rhinos, but go hunting

animals, such as warthogs, as food to feed themselves and their families.

Hunger and malnutrition are widespread in Swaziland where seven in ten of King Mswatis subjects live in abject poverty. Many are forced to become hunters and gatherers to avoid

starvation.

See also

SWAZI COPS LET MAN BE EXECUTED

RANGERS CAN SHOOT TO KILL TRUE FACE OF INJUSTICE IN SWAZILAND


28

5 KING MSWATI III (SIKHUPHE) AIRPORT

Flights of fancy at Kings airport 8 January 2014

Solomon Dube, Director of the Swaziland Civil Aviation Authority (SWACAA), took a flight

of fancy this week when he claimed that The Royal Swazi National Airways

Corporation (RSNAC) will fly to 10 countries from Sikhuphe Airport, which has yet to be

opened.

Dube told local media that RSNAC, which at present has no aircraft and no routes, would fly

to nine destinations in Africa and one in Asia.

The Times Sunday newspaper said the airline will fly to destinations such as the United Arab Emirates, Kenya, Ethiopia, Zambia, Rwanda, South Africa, Namibia, Tanzania, Uganda and

Botswana among others.

The newspaper quoted Dube saying the Swazi Government had signed Bilateral Air Service Agreements with the destination countries.

The Times reported, Dube said the signing of the accord meant that the Swaziland airline, which also used to be called Lijubantsendzele, will fly to these countries and also the

destination countries airlines would also fly into Swaziland.

But, either Dube is not telling the full truth or the Times has made a blunder. This is because

Bilateral Air Service Agreements are accords that allow aircraft of one nation to fly over airspace of another: they do not mean that airlines automatically have rights to land at

airports and run commercial routes into the country.

Sikhuphe is the airport that for the past 10 years has been under construction in a Swazi

wilderness, about 80 km from the kingdoms capital, Mbabane. Despite claims over the past years that international airlines are keen to fly into Sikhuphe, no agreements have been

signed.

No independent study on the need for Sikhuphe Airport was ever undertaken and the main

impetus behind its construction has been King Mswati III, who rules Swaziland as sub-

Saharan Africas last absolute monarch. He believes the airport will lend credibility to his dream to make Swaziland a First World nation by 2022.

This is not the first time SWACAA has claimed a false success for Sikhuphe. The date for the

airports opening in 2010 was missed and has been put back a number of times since. In November 2013, SWACAA said the airport was now completed and operational, but no

flights have been in or out since.

Also in November 2013, SWACAA confirmed that the Swazi Government was ready to

recreate the RSNAC and would set about purchasing a 100-seater jet, at a cost estimated by

the Times of Swaziland of E700 million (US$70 million). This compares to the E125 million


29

budgeted for free primary school education in Swaziland this year. It is not clear where the

money to buy the aircraft would come from.

If Dube is correct and RSNAC is set to fly to 10 destinations, the airline would probably need

a minimum of 10 aircraft to service the routes. For that to happen, assuming that the

estimated cost of the aircraft is accurate, Swaziland would have to spend about E7 billion on

aircraft. Such a sum of money would bankrupt the kingdom. To put the cost in context earlier

this week the Central Bank of Swaziland announced that the kingdoms Gross Official Reserves were E8.24 billion at the month ended November 2013.

Media reports in Swaziland suggest the cost of Sikhuphe has been about E3 billion so far

from an initial budget of E500 million.

As long ago as 2003, the International Monetary Fund said Sikhuphe should not be built

because it would divert funds away from much needed projects to fight poverty in Swaziland.

About seven in ten of King Mswatis 1.3 million subjects live in abject poverty, earning less than US$2 per day.

There is no obvious need for the new airport. Major airports already exist less than an hours flying time away in South Africa with connecting routes to Swaziland and there is no reason

to suspect passengers would want to use the airport at Sikhuphe as an alternative.

Swazilands present airport at Matsapha only carries about 70,000 passengers a year.

Swazi Kings airport has no taxiway 21 January 2014

It is increasingly difficult to believe a word the Swaziland Government says about the

kingdoms Sikhuphe International Airport.

The airport is being built in a wilderness about 80 km from the Swazi capital, Mbabane. In

November 2013, it was announced that it was completed and ready to open as soon as King

Mswati III gave the word.

Now, the Times Sunday newspaper in Swaziland has reported, Just when it was declared ready for use, it was discovered that there was no taxiway.

It added, Contractors are now busy constructing the taxiway.

However, it has been known for at nearly three years that the airport had no taxiway.

In February 2011, Swazi Media Commentary revealed this and reported that without a

taxiway the airport would not be able to handle large numbers of planes taking off and

landing, thereby severely limiting the number of passengers and amount of cargo the airport

could handle if it ever opened.

To handle large numbers of passengers, the airport needs to be able to get planes to fly off

quickly and land quickly. Once one plane is safely on the ground after landing it drives out of


30

the way on the taxiway to allow another plane to land or take off on the runway it has just

vacated.

But, with no taxiway, once a plane has landed it will have to back up along the runway to

take passengers to the terminal, thereby blocking the runway for any other plane wanting to

land or take off.

The Times in its report quoted Prince Hlangusemphi, Minister of Economic Planning and

Development saying the taxiway was not on the original plan for the airport.

He said the taxiway would be completed very soon. Then, he said, the airport could be officially opened by King Mswati.

When that date will be has not been announced. Sikhuphe has been under construction for at

least 10 years. The date for the airports opening in 2010 was missed and has been put back a number of times since. In November 2013, the Swaziland Civil Aviation Authority

(SWACAA) said the airport was now completed and operational, but no flights have been in

or out since.

The Sikhuphe project has been the subject of much misinformation from the King, the

government he hand picks, and civil aviation officials in Swaziland.

They regularly announce new deadlines for completion and opening of the airport, but these

dates come and go and Sikhuphe remains unfinished. No explanations for the missed

deadlines are usually given. When they are they often relate to claims that bad weather hampered construction work.


impetus behind its construction has been King Mswati, who rules Swaziland as sub-Saharan

Africas last absolute monarch. He believes the airport will lend credibility to his dream to make Swaziland a First World nation by 2022.

Despite claims over the past years that international airlines are keen to fly into Sikhuphe, no

agreements have been signed.

In November 2013, SWACAA confirmed that the Swazi Government was ready to recreate

the defunct Royal Swazi National Airways Corporation (RSNAC0 and would set about

purchasing a 100-seater jet, at a cost estimated by the Times of Swaziland of E700 million

(US$70 million). This compares to the E125 million budgeted for free primary school

education in Swaziland this year. It is not clear where the money to buy the aircraft would

come from.

SWACAA said RSNAC would fly to 10 destinations in Africa and Asia. Observers estimated

RSNAC would probably need a minimum of 10 aircraft to service the routes. For that to

happen, Swaziland would have to spend about E7 billion on aircraft. Such a sum of money

would bankrupt the kingdom. To put the cost in context the Central Bank of Swaziland has

estimated the kingdoms gross official reserves were E8.24 billion at the month ended November 2013.


31



As long ago as 2003, the International Monetary Fund said Sikhuphe should not be built

because it would divert funds away from much needed projects to fight poverty in Swaziland.

About seven in ten of King Mswatis 1.3 million subjects live in abject poverty, earning less than US$2 per day.

Critics of Sikhuphe have argued for years that there is no potential for the airport. Major

airports already exist less than an hours flying time away in South Africa with connecting routes to Swaziland and there is no reason to suspect passengers would want to use the airport

at Sikhuphe as an alternative.

Swazilands present airport at Matsapha, situated near a main road between Swazilands capital city Mbabane and the kingdoms commercial centre, Manzini, only carries about 70,000 passengers a year.

As recently as October 2013 a report from the International Air Transport Association

(IATA) said Sikhuphe International Airport was widely perceived as a vanity project because of its scale and opulence compared with the size and nature of the market it seeks to

serve.

In June 2013 an engineers report was published by to the Mail and Guardian newspaper in South Africa saying the structure of the airport was defected and large jet airlines would not

be able to land,

Airport terminal can't handle traffic

23 January 2014

It could take a passenger landing on an aircraft at Swazilands new Sikhuphe International Airport nearly two hours to get through the terminal, official figures from the Swaziland Civil

Aviation Authority (SWACAA ) suggest.

A SWACCA advertisement appearing in the Times of Swaziland on Tuesday (22 January

2014) said that Sikhuphe would be able to accommodate fully laden Jumbo Jets and other large aircraft. Among the aircraft listed were the Boeing 747, the Boeing 777 and the Airbus 340.

The same advert said, The 7,000 sq m passenger terminal can handle and process about 300 passengers per hour.

What it did not say was that aircraft such as the Boeing 747 and 777 could have at least 400

and more than 550 passengers when fully loaded. This means it could take at least two hours

to load and offload passengers on a single flight. If two aircraft landed in a single hour it

would be nearly impossible to deal with the passenger numbers.

The figures add further weight to criticism that Sikhuphe International Airport, which is

costing an estimated E3 billion (US$300 million) to build in a wilderness about 80km from

the Swazi capital, Mbabane, is not viable.


32

No international airline has announced it has agreed to use Sikhuphe, however, the

advertisement said, Two airlines have confirmed operations at Sikhuphe. It did not name them, but did say there would be flights to Johannesburg, Durban and Cape Town in South

Africa and to Maputo in Mozambique.

Sikhuphe has been under construction for at least 10 years. The date for the airports opening in 2010 was missed and has been put back a number of times since. In November 2013,

SWACAA said the airport was now completed and operational, but no flights have been in or

out since.

This month, Prince Hlangusemphi, Minister of Economic Planning and Development

admitted that no taxiway had been built to allow aircraft to move around the airport after

landing.

He said the taxiway would be completed very soon. Then, he said, the airport could be officially opened by King Mswati III.

As recently as October 2013 a report from the International Air Transport Association

(IATA) said Sikhuphe International Airport was widely perceived as a vanity project because of its scale and opulence compared with the size and nature of the market it seeks to

serve.

In June 2013 an engineers report was published by to the Mail and Guardian newspaper in South Africa saying the structure of the airport was defected and large jet airlines would not

be able to land,


impetus behind its construction has been King Mswati, who rules Swaziland as sub-Saharan

Africas last absolute monarch. He believes the airport will lend credibility to his dream to make Swaziland a First World nation by 2022.

In 2003, the International Monetary Fund said Sikhuphe should not be built because it would

divert funds away from much needed projects to fight poverty in Swaziland. About seven in

ten of King Mswatis 1.3 million subjects live in abject poverty, earning less than US$2 per day.

Swaziland already has an airport at Matsapha, which carries an estimated 70,000 passengers a

year.

Press attack on airport corruption 3 February 2014

One of Swazilands few independent newspapers launched a scathing attack on a senior government civil servant after he refused to answer questions about the controversial

Sikhuphe airport.

The airport, which was due to open in June 2010, but is still not completed, is at the centre of

corruption allegations relating to contracts and tenders.


33

The Times Sunday reported that it had attempted to get Bertram Stewart. Principal Secretary

in the Ministry of Economic Planning and Development, to answer questions relating to

concerns about tenders awarded worth about E12 million (US$1.2 million), but he refused to

answer questions.

The newspaper reported (2 February 2014), There was also the issue of five fire trucks valued at about E15 million. These were bought in South Africa in 2009, in anticipation of

Sikhuphe being in operation by 2010 when South Africa hosted the World Cup. The heavy

duty vehicles remained unused for a long time, resulting in two of them developing

mechanical faults.

We questioned all these things and more. Now we are looking into the issue of maintaining the airport.

The newspaper published a report without Stewarts comments, saying he hung up the phone on its reporter.

It later reported, He never wants to be bothered by journalists. He has said quite a few times that he is not accountable to us. We do not understand how that happens because we are not

only journalists but citizens of this country. We are taxpayers. If he is not accountable to us,

who is he accountable to?

The Times Sunday added, Last Sunday, we continued with our exposes of the wrongs going on at Sikhuphe International Airport. This First World facility is one of the Millennium

Projects that have cost over E3 billion in the last decade or so. The budgeted amount was

initially E500 million but, for various reasons, it hit the E3billion mark.

We questioned all these things and more. Now we are looking into the issue of maintaining the airport.

The Times Sunday editor Innocent Maphalala told his readers, I was surprised, therefore, when he appeared on both Channel Swazi and Swazi TV to deny a story we published last

Sunday.

There the PS was, holding three microphones while the television reporters, who probably had not read the story themselves, watched. Yes, they were watching because they did not ask

him even one question. Bertram was practically speaking to himself. It was more of a

statement than an interview with the TV reporters.

He was shocked that we could even write about something regarding Sikhuphe without consulting either him or Percy Simelane [the governments official spokesperson]. The newspaper reported that Stewart featured prominently in most deliberations involving the airport contracts.

Stewart has not always been so silent over Sikhuphe. Swazi Media Commentary has reported

many times that he had continually mislead the public about Sikhuphe airport and in

particular about its readiness to open.


34

He told the public that it would be ready to open before the start of 2013. It was not and it did

not.

In October 2010, Stewart said the airport would be open by the end of that year. It was not.

Stewart was at it again in February 2011, when he confidently told media the airport would

be completed by June 2011. It was not. He also said a number of top world airlines (that he

declined to name) were negotiating to use Sikhuphe. Nothing happened.

He returned to the theme two months later in April 2011 when this time he said the airport

would be open by December 2011. But still no airport.



Corruption hit airport set to open 11 February 2014

The Swazi Observer, the newspaper in effect owned by King Mswati III, is reporting that the

controversial Sikhuphe Airport will open in March.

The airport, known outside of Swaziland as the Kings vanity project, was originally scheduled to cost E500 million. Now, it is reported to be E2.5 billion (US$250 million) over

budget and its opening, if it goes ahead, will be at least four years behind schedule.

Sikhuphe has been mired in controversy in recent weeks as allegations of corruption in the

awarding of contracts have surfaced.

Last month the Times Sunday, an independent newspaper in Swaziland, reported officers

from the Anti-Corruption Commission and Auditor General offices were separately

investigating how money allocated for construction of the airport was spent since 2003 when

the project was launched.

On Tuesday (11 February 20

Documents

Swaziland Striving for Freedom Vol 13 Jan - Mar 2014