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

Commentary

Volume 4: April 2013

Swaziland: Striving for Freedom

Page 1

INTRODUCTION

April has been one of the worst months in living memory for freedom in Swaziland.

The conviction of Bheki Makhubu and the Nation magazine for ‘scandalising the courts’ by

publishing articles critical of the Swazi judiciary sent waves of anger across the world.

Makhubu faces two years in jail and his magazine closure if he loses an appeal to the

Supreme Court.

Other violations of rights in Swaziland this month attracted less attention.

On 12 April, democrats wanted to mark the 40th anniversary of King Sobhuza’s Royal Decree

that in 1973 turned Swaziland from a democracy to a kingdom ruled by an autocratic

monarch, by holding a public meeting to discuss the forthcoming national election in

Swaziland. All political parties are banned from taking part and the meeting was to discuss

why this was so.

Armed police and riot troops, acting without a court order, physically blocked the restaurant

in Manzini where the meeting was to take place. The police said the meeting was a threat to

state security.

A week later, on 19 April, the 45th birthday of King Mswati III, who presently rules

Swaziland as sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch, a youth group tried to hold a

meeting at Msunduza Township in Mbabane to discuss the election. Again, police acting on

their own initiative, forced the meeting to close. Organisers of the meeting have been charged

with sedition.

Raids on the homes of democracy activists in Swaziland took place during the month.

Wonder Mkhonza, the National Organizing Secretary of the banned political party the

People’s United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO) was allegedly found in possession of

5,000 pamphlets belonging to PUDEMO. He has been charged with sedition.

The Swaziland United Democratic Front (SUDF) and the Swaziland Democracy Campaign

(SDC), in a joint statement said police in Swaziland were now a ‘private militia’ with the sole

purpose of serving the Royal regime.

During this month, but before the most recent events, the Open Society Initiative for

Southern Africa (OSISA) reported to the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights

(ACHPR) meeting in The Gambia that Swaziland was becoming a ‘military state’. OSISA

reported that the Swazi army, police and correctional services were being deployed to ‘clamp

down on any peaceful protest action by labour or civil society organisations ahead of the

country’s undemocratic elections’.

Separately, the US Embassy in Swaziland voiced its ‘deep concern’ about the way the police

engaged in ‘acts of intimidation and fear’ against people seeking their political rights.

In its annual review of human rights in Swaziland, published this month, the US State

Department recorded, ‘The three main human rights abuses were police use of excessive

force, including use of torture, beatings, and unlawful killings; restrictions on freedoms of

association, assembly, and speech; and discrimination and abuse of women and children.

Swaziland: Striving for Freedom

Page 2

‘Other human rights problems included arbitrary arrests and lengthy pretrial detention;

arbitrary interference with privacy and home; prohibitions on political activity and

harassment of political activists; trafficking in persons; societal discrimination against

members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community and persons with

albinism; harassment of labor leaders; child labor; mob violence; and restrictions on worker

rights.

‘In general perpetrators acted with impunity, and the government took few or no steps to

prosecute or punish officials who committed abuses.’

Swaziland: Striving For Freedom is the fourth volume of information, commentary and

analysis on human rights taken from articles first published on the Swazi Media Commentary

blogsite in April 2013. Each month throughout this year a digest of articles will be published

bringing together in one place material that is rarely found elsewhere.

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 will continue to be published online – updated most days –

bringing information, comment and analysis.

Swaziland: Striving For Freedom: Volume 1, January 2013, is available free of charge

here.

Swaziland: Striving For Freedom: Volume 2, February 2013, is available free of charge

here.

Swaziland: Striving For Freedom: Volume 3, March 2013, is available free of charge here.

Swaziland: Striving for Freedom

Page 3

CONTENTS

1 April 12 Royal Decree Protests 4 2 Press Freedom and the Makhubu Case 16

3 Campaign to Un-ban Political Parties 27

4 Election 33 5 King Mswati III 39

6 Media 42 7 Human Rights 45

Swaziland: Striving for Freedom

Page 4

1. APRIL 12 ROYAL DECREE PROTESTS

Democracy protest to be ‘muted’

11 April 2013

Prodemocracy activities in Swaziland this week to mark the anniversary of the Royal decree

that turned the country from a democracy to a kingdom ruled by an autocratic monarch will

be muted, compared to recent years.

Friday 12 April marks the 40th anniversary of the day in 1973 King Sobhuza II told his

subjects, ‘I have assumed supreme power in the Kingdom of Swaziland and that all

Legislative, Executive and Judicial power is vested in myself.’

He repealed the Swaziland constitution that had been in effect since independence from Great

Britain in 1968 and said that any laws in the kingdom could be changed so that they would

conform to his decree and any other decrees he might make in the future.

The decree has never been properly repealed, making the state of emergency the longest in

African history.

According to the Swaziland United Democratic Front, one of the more vocal opposition

groups on Swaziland, ‘The decree criminalised political activity, saw the banning of political

parties and the introduction of a system of governance benefitting a few elites and their

cronies; all at the expense of the majority of Swazi’s who continue to languish in poverty,

underdevelopment and perpetual neglect.’

In recent years the 12 April anniversary has been met with street protests and other

demonstrations.

Last year four days of public protest were planned by trade unions and other prodemocracy

organisations. They were brutally suppressed by police and state forces and had to be

abandoned.

In 2011, a group using Facebook, called for an uprising to depose the present King, Mswati

III. State forces took this call seriously and many prodemocracy leaders were arrested. Police

and security forces prevented people from travelling into towns and cities to take part in

demonstrations. Again, the protests were abandoned.

This year, despite it being the 40th anniversary, few activities within Swaziland have been

announced, but it might be that prodemocracy activists have learned lessons from the past

and have not revealed their intentions in advance, so as not to alert state forces.

One activity that has been announced by the SUDF is a public rally in the Swazi capital,

Mbabane, on 13 April. The People’s United Democratic Party (PUDEMO), a banned political

party in Swaziland, is also holding local events in some rural parts of the kingdom.

SUDF with the Swaziland Democracy Campaign (SDC) will host an open debate in Mbabane

on 12 April on the significance of 1973.

Swaziland: Striving for Freedom

Page 5

Among the activities that have been publicised are ones that will take place outside of

Swaziland itself. Among these are a picket at the Swazi Consulate in Johannesburg, South

Africa, and a picket at the Lavumisa border gate.

Elsewhere, Freedom House will launch a research paper called, ‘Swaziland: After 40 years of

dictatorial rule is there hope for change in 2013?’ in Johannesburg.

SUDF, in a statement, said different organisations in Swaziland would mark 12 April as ‘a

black day in the history of our beloved country’.

It said Swaziland was now ‘paralysed by fear, docility, corruption [and] repression’.

See also

SSN REMEMBERING 12 APRIL 1973

Swaziland ‘becoming a military state’

11 April 2013

Swaziland police and state security forces have been condemned for their ‘increasingly

violent and abusive behaviour’ that is leading to the ‘militarization’ of the kingdom.

Things are so bad in the kingdom, ruled by King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa’s last

absolute monarch, that police are unable to accept that peaceful political and social dissent is

a vital element of a healthy democratic process, and should not be viewed as a crime.

These complaints were made by the Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa (OSISA) at

the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (ACHPR) meeting in The Gambia on

Wednesday (10 April 2013).

OSISA said, ‘There are also reliable reports of a general militarization of the country through

the deployment of the Swazi army, police and correctional services to clamp down on any

peaceful protest action by labour or civil society organisations ahead of the country’s

undemocratic elections.’

OSISA was commenting on the trend in Southern Africa for police and security services to be

increasingly violent and abusive of human rights.

In particular, OSISA highlighted how the police continued to clamp down on dissenting

voices and the legitimate public activities of opposition political parties prior to, during and

after elections.

In a statement OSISA said, ‘Swaziland and Zimbabwe are both due to hold elections in the

coming months and the police in both countries are notorious for preventing public rallies and

harassing opposition politicians and civil society figures in the run-up to polls – a clear

violation of the basic right to freedom of assembly.’

Swaziland: Striving for Freedom

Page 6

On 12 April Swaziland will mark the 40th anniversary since political parties were banned.

OSISA said this was ‘another clear violation of a basic right – to freedom of association’.

OSISA told the ACHPR meeting that in February this year a battalion of armed police

invaded the Our Lady of Assumption Cathedral in Manzini and forced the congregation to

vacate the church alleging that the service ‘intended to sabotage the country’s general

elections’.

OSISA added, ‘A month later, a heavily armed group of police backed up by the Operational

Support Services Unit prevented members of the Trade Union Congress of Swaziland

(TUCOSWA) from holding a peaceful commemoration prayer in celebration of the

federation’s anniversary. In both instances there was no court order giving the police the legal

authority to halt the prayers.’

Leopoldo de Amaral, OSISA’s Human Rights Programme Manager, said, ‘These cases

illustrate a general alarming trend in southern Africa – how state parties across the region are

using security institutions to intimidate and silence civil society actors and implant a sense of

fear among the country’s citizens.’

See also

POLICE NO RIGHT TO DISRUPT PRAYERS

RIOT POLICE FORCE HALT TO PRAYER

Police threat to democracy debate

12 April 2013

Police in Swaziland have called in for questioning civic leaders who want to hold a public

meeting about the state of democracy in the kingdom.

The police are acting without a court order or warrant. But, according to a local media report,

the station commander who demanded their appearance said he was working on the orders of

‘superiors’.

The three leaders are Sam Mkhombe, a spokesperson for the pro-monarchy political party

Sive Siyinqaba; Dr Alvit Dlamini, President of the conservative political party Ngwane

National Liberatory Congress (NNCL); and Thulani Maseko, a human rights lawyer working

in Swaziland.

They were due to speak at a meeting today (12 April 2013) to mark the 40th anniversary of

the state of emergency declared by King Sobhuza II in 1973 that turned Swaziland from a

democracy to a kingdom ruled by an autocratic monarch.

The King’s 1973 decree banned political parties and allowed the monarch to make laws as he

saw fit. The decree has not been properly rescinded since and the kingdom operates under a

perpetual state of emergency.

Swaziland: Striving for Freedom

Page 7

The three men were ordered to appear at police headquarters at 9.00 hrs today local time (12

April 2013).

The three were due to speak at a public meeting this afternoon jointly organised by the

Swaziland United Democratic Front (SUDF) and the Swaziland Democracy Campaign

(SDC). The topic of the meeting was to be the significance of the 1973 Royal decree.

In publicity for the meeting the two organisations had said in a statement, ‘The decree

criminalised political activity, saw the banning of political parties and the introduction of a

system of governance benefitting a few elites and their cronies; all at the expense of the

majority of Swazi’s who continue to languish in poverty, underdevelopment and perpetual

neglect.’

The statement went on to say 12 April would be marked in Swaziland as ‘a black day in the

history of our beloved country’.

It said Swaziland was now ‘paralysed by fear, docility, corruption [and] repression’.

The meeting, originally planned to take place at a restaurant in Mbabane, the Swazi capital,

has been moved to a venue yet to be announced.

Police in Swaziland have increasingly taken it upon themselves to stop public gatherings that

they consider to be unlawful. They operate without court orders or warrants.

In February this year a battalion of armed police invaded the Our Lady of Assumption

Cathedral in Manzini and forced the congregation to vacate the church alleging that the

service ‘intended to sabotage the country’s general elections’.

In March, heavily-armed police, supported by the Operational Support Services Unit

prevented members of the Trade Union Congress of Swaziland (TUCOSWA) from holding a

peaceful commemoration prayer in celebration of the federation’s anniversary.

Earlier this week, the Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa (OSISA) told the African

Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) meeting in The Gambia that

Swaziland police and state security forces use ‘increasingly violent and abusive behaviour’

that is leading to the ‘militarization’ of the kingdom.

Things are so bad in the kingdom, which is ruled by King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa’s

last absolute monarch, that police are unable to accept that peaceful political and social

dissent is a vital element of a healthy democratic process, and should not be viewed as a

crime, OSISA said.

Swaziland state ‘terrorises’ its people

12 April 2013

Ordinary people in Swaziland are being terrorised by state forces to stop them showing

opposition to King Mswati III and the Swazi state, the kingdom’s communist party says.

Swaziland: Striving for Freedom

Page 8

In a statement to mark April 12, the 40th anniversary of a Royal proclamation that turned

Swaziland from a democracy into a kingdom ruled by an autocratic monarchy, the

Communist Party of Swaziland (CPS) said, ‘We are now witnessing the increasing use of

displays of military force to intimidate and terrorize our people to prevent them from voicing

their hatred of the dictatorship.’

The CPS said April 12 was a day, ‘to assert the importance and role of the pro-democracy

movement’. But, it added, ‘Protests on this day have been routinely suppressed.’

The CPS added, ‘40 years ago King Sobhuza II nullified the constitution, dissolved

parliament, prohibited party political activity and severely restricted all other forms of

political activism, including trade union activity.

‘Under the current regime of Mswati III any offer of political reform has been aimed at

creating a buffer of constitutional window dressing to persuade the international community

and individual states that Swaziland is on the road to freedom and full civil and civic rights.’

But, the CPS said, this was ‘posturing’ from the king.

It added there was, ‘an increasing groundswell of dissatisfaction and anger with the Mswati

regime for imposing on the Swazi people the world’s worst levels of impoverishment, disease

and life expectancy.

‘There is increasing anger at the lavish spending and luxuriant living of the royal family and

the rest of the ruling class at the expense of the working class and the poor.’

It said, ‘The small, confined urban spaces of our country and tiny population make the

suppression of the more obvious signs of pro-democracy protest relatively easy for the

heavily militarised regime to carry out.

‘But there is a mass of activities aimed at securing a democratic and liberated future for our

people, including by the People’s United Democratic Movement, the Swaziland Youth

Congress, the trade union movement and TUCOSWA – the Trade Union Congress of

Swaziland– (which Mswati is working overtime to crush), the CPS and others.’

The CPS said there was opposition to the king’s autocracy rooted in Swazi society.

‘Internationally, the pro-democracy movement has growing support and recognition among

solidarity movements and organizations.’

Also, there was, ‘a growing interest at grassroots level, especially among young people, to

achieve greater unity in action’.

Civil society calls for democracy

12 April 2013

Twenty one civil society organisations in Swaziland have called on the Southern African

Development Community (SADC) to bring an end to the kingdom’s fake democracy by

ensuring the Swazis’ civil and political rights are respected.

Swaziland: Striving for Freedom

Page 9

The call comes on the 40th anniversary of the Royal decree made by King Sobhuza II in 1973

that ended Swaziland’s democracy and replaced it with an autocratic monarchy.

Today (12 April 2013), inside and outside Swaziland activities are taking place to draw

attention to the lack of civil and human rights in the kingdom, now ruled by King Mswati III,

who is sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch.

The civil society organisations, made up of faith-based, legal, women’s and youth groups

and trade unions are urging SADC to ensure that political parties are allowed to operate

freely and participate in the national elections due to be held this year, at a date still to be

announced by King Mswati.

‘Out of SADC’s 280 million citizens, only the 1 million in Swaziland are denied the right to

use political parties as vehicles for forming a government of their choice,’ the groups said in

a joint letter to Tanzanian President Jakaya Kikwete in his role as Chairperson of the Troika

Organ on Politics, Defense and Security.

The letter called for the crisis in Swaziland to be placed on the agenda of the next SADC

Heads of State Summit in Malawi.

The Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa (OSISA) reported that Swaziland’s 2005

Constitution does incorporate respect for fundamental human rights, including the freedom of

association and assembly. However, these rights continue to be violated.

It reported that in the case of political parties, no legislation has been passed to enable them

to register, operate freely and participate in elections. In addition, section 79 of the

constitution vitiates the freedoms guaranteed earlier in the document by limiting election and

appointment to political office to individuals.

The letter from the civil society organisations said the exclusion of political parties from the

election was in violation of a number of regional and international instruments on human

rights and democracy which Swaziland has signed up to.

“The letter stated, ‘The violation of these rights has also been exacerbated by the prevailing

political climate in which the activities of pro-democracy civic groups and political parties

are suppressed through interference and sometimes violent disruption.’

Police ban democracy public meeting

12 April 2013

Police in Swaziland have banned a public debate to discuss the political situation in the

kingdom due to take place this afternoon (12 April 2013).

But, organisers say it will go ahead anyway. Local embassies, church leaders, community

organisations, the local and international media are among those invited to attend the

meeting.

Swaziland: Striving for Freedom

Page 10

Police banned the meeting under the Public Order Act (1963), even though they did not have

a court order.

The public meeting was to mark the 40th anniversary of the Royal Decree made by King

Sobhuza II in 1973 that turned Swaziland from a democracy to a kingdom ruled by an

autocratic monarchy.

The three civil society activists who were due to speak at the meeting were ordered to attend

at police headquarters this morning. They were Sam Mkhombe, a spokesperson for the pro-

monarchy political party Sive Siyinqaba; Dr Alvit Dlamini, President of the conservative

political party Ngwane National Liberatory Congress (NNCL) and Thulani Maseko, a human

rights lawyer working in Swaziland.

The Swaziland United Democratic Front (SUDF) and the Swaziland Democracy Campaign

(SDC), the joint organisers of the meeting, said that the Deputy Police Commissioner

instructed them that the meeting could not go ahead.

In an open letter to Swaziland Police Commissioner Isaac Magagula they said they were told

the meeting ‘presented a threat to national security’.

The organisations say they were also told that King Mswati III’s birthday celebrations next

week was ‘under threat’.

They say the Deputy Police Commissioner told them it was the responsibility of the police ‘to

defend the country and that our event was not serving the interest of the country’.

In the letter they said, ‘We had planned a small, but peaceful, open debate to discuss the 1973

Royal Decree in Manzini this afternoon. It was not our intention to do anything other than

allow ordinary Swazi’s to hear from distinguished Swazi leaders what the significance of the

decree is for us as Swazi’s today and how we as Swazi’s can transcend our current political

impasse. All we seek is a country that benefits our people and not only His Majesty King

Mswati III, his family and their cronies.’

The letters added, ‘On this significant day in the Swazi political calendar the Royal Swazi

Police has demonstrated in no uncertain terms that Swaziland remains a state of emergency’.

Armed police block public meeting

12 April 2013

Armed police in Swaziland have cordoned off the venue for a scheduled public debate on

democracy in the kingdom to prevent it taking place.

Earlier today (12 April 2013), police, acting without a court order, told organisers the

meeting could not take place because it ‘presented a threat to national security’.

The intended venue, the Greater Alpha restaurant in Manzini was surrounded by about seven

police and army vehicles and between 30 and 40 paramilitary police officers.

Swaziland: Striving for Freedom

Page 11

Local embassies, church leaders, community organisations, the local and international media

were among those invited to attend the meeting.

The joint organisers of the meeting the Swaziland United Democratic Front (SUDF) and the

Swaziland Democracy Campaign (SDC) had told police this morning they would defy the

ban. This afternoon they told followers of social media sites they would continue to seek a

venue so the meeting could go ahead.

The public meeting was to mark the 40th anniversary of the Royal Decree made by King

Sobhuza II in 1973 that turned Swaziland from a democracy to a kingdom ruled by an

autocratic monarchy.

Picture of armed police blocking access to the meeting sourced from Swaziland Democracy

Campaign Facebook site.

Protestors ‘occupy’ Swazi Consulate

13 April 2013

Supporters of the banned youth organisation SWAYOCO briefly occupied the reception area

of the Swaziland Consulate in South Africa yesterday (12 April 2013) as part of a day of

activities to mark 40th years since the kingdom was stripped of its democracy.

The Gauteng branch of the Swaziland Youth Congress (SWAYOCO) had to be negotiated

out of the offices by police after briefly taking over the Consulate in Johannesburg.

SWAYOCO activists were joined by supporters of the Swaziland Solidarity Network and the

People’s United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO), the best known of the opposition groups

in Swaziland.

Swaziland: Striving for Freedom

Page 12

Political parties have been banned in Swaziland since 1973 when King Sobhuza II decreed

that the constitution would no longer be honoured. King Sobhuza declared that henceforth he

would be able to change or make laws as he wished.

The Royal Proclamation has never been properly rescinded since 1973 and the present king,

Mswati III, rules Swaziland as sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch.

A statement from SWAYOCO said protesters at the Swaziland Consulate gave a petition of

demands that included the unbanning of political parties and the repeal of the 1973 decree.

The statement said, ‘Led by PUDEMO Political Commissar Mlungisi Makhanya and

Treasure General Mzamo Sikhonze, and joined by our comrades from NEHAWU and SSN,

the battalion “occupied” the reception area, and while they waited to be attended to, burst into

struggle songs and chanting political slogans demanding the release of SWAYOCO President

Bheki Dlamini, Amos Mbedzi and Zonke Dlamini.’

The statement added, ‘Tempers flared with the Consulate charging that SWAYOCO was

holding them hostage and thereby committing a criminal offense whilst SWAYOCO was

arguing that they were giving the Consulate a piece of what Sobhuza subjected the Swazis to

when he banned political parties. The confrontation was calmed when police were called and

negotiated for a dialogue.’

‘Eventually the petition was received by Consulate senior staff Mr Tsabedze who was

standing in for Consular Sigayoyo Magongo.’

Picture of protestors at the Swazi Consulate sourced from PUDEMO Facebook site.

Swazi police now ‘a private militia’

13 April 2013

Police in Swaziland are now a ‘private militia’ with the sole purpose of serving the Royal

regime, leading pro-democracy campaigners have said.

Swaziland: Striving for Freedom

Page 13

This follows police action that yesterday (12 April 2013) broke up a public meeting to

discuss the lack of democracy in the kingdom.

About 80 armed police stopped the meeting taking place at a restaurant in Manzini, the main

business city in Swaziland. Police, who did not have a court order for the action, said the

meeting ‘presented a threat to national security’.

The meeting was to mark the 40th anniversary of the Royal decree made in 1973 by King

Sobhuza II that turned Swaziland from a democracy into a kingdom ruled by an autocratic

monarchy. The existing constitution was abandoned and King Sobhuza announced he could

make any that laws he saw fit.

The decree has never been rescinded and today Sobhuza’s son King Mswati III rules as sub-

Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch.

In a statement the joint organisers of the meeting, the Swaziland United Democratic Front

(SUDF) and the Swaziland Democracy Campaign (SDC), said, ‘The police action did well to

vindicate us in our constant observation that the 1973 decree destroyed a national police

service and instead left us with a private militia with no other purpose but to serve the unjust,

dictatorial, unSwazi and ungodly, semi-feudal royal Tinkhundla system of misrule.’

The statement said the 1973 decree ‘criminalised’ all political activity and concentrated all

power to the monarchy, the armed forces, intelligence services and the Swaziland Royal

Police.

It said the police had no court order for their action and ‘went out of their way to forcefully,

aggressively and abruptly stop the peaceful national debate’ that would have taken place at

the meeting.

It added that a police service ‘should uphold justice, human dignity and protect all sections of

society in accordance with the law’.

Last week, the Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa (OSISA) reported that recently

Swaziland police and state security forces had shown ‘increasingly violent and abusive

behaviour’ that was leading to the ‘militarization’ of the kingdom.

OSISA told the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (ACHPR) meeting in

The Gambia, ‘There are also reliable reports of a general militarization of the country through

the deployment of the Swazi army, police and correctional services to clamp down on any

peaceful protest action by labour or civil society organisations ahead of the country’s

undemocratic elections.’

Activist might face sedition charge

15 April 2013

A prodemocracy activist in Swaziland, arrested by police allegedly distributing political

leaflets, could be charged with sedition.

Swaziland: Striving for Freedom

Page 14

Wonder Mkhonza, National Organising Secretary of the banned People’s United Democratic

Movement (PUDEMO), was taken in by police on 12 April when he was taking part in

activities to mark the 40th anniversary of the Royal decree by King Sobhuza II that turned

Swaziland from a democracy into a kingdom, ruled by an autocratic monarchy.

The Swaziland Solidarity Network (SSN) reported that Mkhonza was originally detained by

police in Lavumisa, a small town on the eastern part of the kingdom on Friday. SSN said this

was the police’s way of keeping him from participating in the activities that were planned for

that day.

SSN said in a statement. ‘Police later claimed to have found him in possession of 5,000

pamphlets whose content still remains a mystery.’

He was later transferred to Nhlangano to appear in court.

SSN said he could be charged with sedition.

Nhlangano’s case was postponed by magistrates until 17 April.

Police raid democracy activists’ homes

17 April 2013

Raids on the homes of democracy activists in Swaziland have been taking place throughout

today (Wednesday 17 April 2013).

They follow the charging on sedition of Wonder Mkhonza, the National Organizing Secretary

of the banned political party the People’s United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO).

Mkhonza was allegedly found in possession of 5,000 pamphlets belonging to PUDEMO. He

appeared in court in Swaziland today. He is expected to file a bail application next week in

the High court, in Mbabane.

Reports from prodemocracy activists in Swaziland are that raids have been taking place on

the homes of activists of PUDEMO and its youth wing, the Swaziland Youth Congress

(SWAYOCO).

Police are hoping to find political material from the banned organisations.

U.S. rebukes police over violence

20 April 2013

The US Embassy in Swaziland says it has ‘deep concern’ about the way police engage in

‘acts of intimidation and fear’ against people seeking their political rights.

The statement came after armed police, acting without a court order, barricaded a restaurant

in Manzini to stop people attending a public meeting to discuss the forthcoming election in

Swaziland.

Swaziland: Striving for Freedom

Page 15

But, it came before riot police broke up a different meeting, this time in Msunduza Township,

Mbabane, which had been called by a youth group to talk to locals about the election.

The US embassy said it had deep concern about the manner in which representatives of

political organisations and lawyers for human rights were treated by police.

The police blockade of the restaurant took place on 12 April 2013 and was intended to mark

the 40th anniversary of the Royal Decree in 1973 by King Sobhuza II that tore up the

constitution and allowed the king to introduce any law he wished and to change existing ones.

The decree has never been rescinded and his son, Mswati III today rules Swaziland as sub-

Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch.

The US embassy said it was, ‘[C]oncerned that a group of people were prevented from

entering a restaurant, where they had planned to hold their meeting and were forcibly

removed from the premises by police’.

The statement added that the 2005 Swaziland Constitution guaranteed freedom of expression,

peaceful assembly and association.

It further said Swazi security forces had a duty to protect the rights of citizens to,

‘communicate ideas and information without interference’.

This is not the first time the US embassy in Swaziland has criticised the Swaziland ruling

regime. Exactly a year ago in April 2012 it said, ‘We urge the Swazi government to take the

necessary steps to ensure the promotion and protection of the fundamental rights and

freedoms of all Swazi citizens as outlined in the Swazi constitution, including freedom of

conscience, of expression, of peaceful assembly and association, and of movement.’

The statement went on, ‘The United States government is deeply concerned about increasing

infringements on freedom of assembly, as evidenced by the recent actions taken by Swazi

security forces to prevent peaceful citizens from gathering for a prayer meeting on Saturday,

April 14 in Manzini as well as reports of those same forces preventing people from gathering

in groups of more than two people in Manzini and Mbabane on April 11 and 12.’

Reacting to the US criticism in 2012, Percy Simelane, the Swazi Government spokesperson

said there were no restrictions in Swaziland. ‘There is no one who has been silenced.

He said the US was, ‘very, very, very, very ill-informed’.

See also

SWAZI GOVERNMENT REBUKES U.S.

Swaziland: Striving for Freedom

Page 16

2. PRESS FREEDOM AND THE MAKHUBU / NATION CASE

Editor set for two years in jail

17 April 2013

Bheki Makhubu, the editor of The Nation, Swaziland’s only pro-democracy news magazine,

faces two years in jail after being convicted of contempt of court for criticising the kingdom’s

chief justice.

Makhubu was fined E200,000 (US$22,000) to be paid within three days. If he fails to pay the

fine he will be sent to jail for two years.

Makhubu was sentenced today (17 April 2103) by the Swaziland High Court. Later, writing

on Facebook, he said he ‘died a little this morning from the brutality of the sentence’.

High Court Judge Maphalala said some of Bheki’s writings were ‘treasonous if not

subversive in the extreme’.

Makhubu was convicted of Contempt of Court by Scandalizing the Court after the Director of

Public Prosecutions complained about two articles written by Makhubu and published in

November 2009 by Swaziland Independent Publishers (PTY) Ltd. The court found they had a

‘tendency to bring the administration of justice into disrepute’.

Judge Maphalala said Makhubu accused the Supreme Court ‘of not being impartial and that

their decision not to allow multipartism in this country was actuated by an improper agenda

which they were pursuing and that it was not based on law and their conscience’.

The Judge ruled, ‘Such a publication has a tendency of bringing the administration of justice

into disrepute.’

Judge Maphalala said that a second article by Makhubu, ‘is a scurrilous attack on the Chief

Justice [Michael Ramodibedi], as a Judge of this court.

‘The article unlawfully and intentionally violated and impugned his dignity and authority; it

was calculated or intended to lower his authority and interfere with the administration of

justice.

‘They accused the Chief Justice of behaving like a high school punk, a street punk; and that

he lacked decorum and integrity and that he was extraordinarily arrogant. He was further

accused of contesting the political position of the highest authority in the country by calling

himself Makhulu Baas; this allegation is treasonous if not subversive in the extreme.

‘Similarly, it was alleged that the Chief Justice does not inspire confidence to hold such an

office in the judicial hierarchy and further doubted if his appointment was eligible. The Chief

Justice was accused of bringing the Judicial system in this country into shambles and, that

there is a high incidence of murder perpetrators in this country which he has failed to bring to

justice.’

Swaziland: Striving for Freedom

Page 17

A tale of two Swazi editors

19 April 2013

Here are the contrasting stories of two editors in Swaziland.

One, Mbongeni Mbingo, the managing editor of the Swazi Observer, is feeling pretty smug at

the moment because he has found out that King Mswati III loves his newspaper.

The other, Bheki Makhubu, the editor of the Nation, is feeling pretty wretched because he

faces two years in jail because he has found out the king and his supporters hate his

magazine.

Mbingo first: His newspaper reported Thursday (18 April 2013) that King Mswati III was a

great fan of the newspaper.

He revealed this to the Observer readers in an ‘exclusive interview’ on the eve of the king’s

45th birthday.

The Observer report gushed about how pleased the king was to meet the newspaper’s

journalists

Mbingo reported in breathless tones how excited he and his journalists were to discover that

the king reads their newspaper.

‘I have not seen anything so far that has not pleased me,’ the newspaper reported the king

saying about the Observer.

What Mbingo did not tell his readers (and he never does) is that King Mswati is sub-Saharan

Africa’s last absolute monarch, and widely seen outside of his own kingdom as a despot

intent on keeping his subject’s poor while he and his family live lavishly at their expense.

The king has no respect for human rights and uses state police and militia to silence any

opposition to his regime.

Nor did he say that the king, in effect, controls the newspaper through Tibiyo Taka Ngwane,

an investment fund with extensive shares in a number of businesses, industries, property

developments and tourism facilities in Swaziland. The profits from Tibiyo are supposed to be

used for the benefit of the people, but the vast majority is actually used for the king’s own

personal use.

What Mbingo did say was that at the meeting, ‘The Swazi Observer team also informed His

Majesty that they had received birthday wishes from Swazi nation ahead of the birthday

celebrations at Siteki.

‘This also seemed to have excited the king who asked Mbingo if he had brought the birthday

wishes with him.

‘When Mbingo said they had not brought them, His Majesty then requested that they be

brought to the palace, because he said he would be interested to read each and every one of

them.’

Swaziland: Striving for Freedom

Page 18

Contrast this to the story about another editor that broke on the same day. Bheki Makhubu

edits the Nation magazine, the only pro-democracy print publication in Swaziland.

He faces two years in jail after the Swazi High Court convicted him of scandalising the courts

by commenting in his magazine on how close some judges were to the ruling power elites.

Although the king’s name was not mentioned by Makhubu, readers will have known what he

was getting at.

Makhubu’s sentence has been publicly condemned by people across the world, but not by the

Swazi Observer.

The South Africa National Editors’ Forum (SANEF) said in a statement the decision of the

High Court silenced ‘legitimate scrutiny of judicial conduct and attitudes’.

SANEF went on to state, ‘We strongly urge the South African government and the African

Union to more vigorously remind the Swazi authorities of the importance of a free press and

open democratic environment.’

SANEF understands the ‘importance of the free press’ but Mbingo and the Swazi Observer

do not.

Makhubu must pay an E200,000 (US$22,000) fine by early next week or he will go to jail for

two years.

Mbingo meanwhile will continue to live high on the hog in service of King Mswati and in

disservice to the people of Swaziland.

Makhubu will surely face financial ruin if he can get together the money to pay his fine. And,

if he cannot, he will live out his next two years in one of King Mswati’s stinking jails.

Mbingo will continue to be despised by people who believe that newspapers are to serve the

people and not to tell lies for the ruling elite.

Makhubu will be honoured as a Swazi patriot and true journalist: a man who fearlessly tells

truth to power.

This has been a tale of two Swazi editors.

Editor facing jail ‘to appeal sentence’

20 April 2013

Bheki Makhubu, the editor of the Nation magazine in Swaziland, who faces two years in jail

for contempt by scandalising the court, is to appeal his sentence, the Media Institute of

Southern Africa (MISA) in Windhoek, Namibia, reported.

Bheki Makhubu, and the Nation publisher Swaziland Independent Publishers were on

Wednesday (17 April 2013) ordered to pay E200,000 (US$22,000) in fines within three days.

If payment is not made Makhubu will go to jail for two years.

Swaziland: Striving for Freedom

Page 19

Vuyisile Hlatshwayo, a veteran journalist and current national director of the Swaziland

chapter of MISA, called the judgment an ‘assault to media freedom and free speech’.

Hlatshwayo, who is also a director and founding member of the Nation magazine, said, ‘The

Nation is the only publication in Swaziland that speaks truth to power and is the voice of the

voiceless in a country that is fast becoming a police state.

‘The fine imposed by the judge is also a total clampdown on media freedom - it sends a

strong and disturbing signal to the already censored newspapers and broadcast media.’

In a statement, MISA quoted Secretary-General of the Swaziland Editors’ Forum Jabu

Matsebula saying the ruling against the Nation was one of the heaviest fines ever handed

down in the kingdom.

‘It will certainly have a chilling effect on the press and on citizens’ constitutional rights to

freedom of expression,’ Matsebula said.

Makhubu and the Nation were convicted of criminal contempt after publishing two articles in

2009 and 2010 that Swaziland High Court Judge Bheki Maphalala ruled were ‘treasonous if

not subversive in the extreme’.

He found they had a ‘tendency to bring the administration of justice into disrepute’.

Makhubu had accused the Swazi Supreme Court, ‘of not being impartial and that their

decision not to allow multipartism in this country was actuated by an improper agenda which

they were pursuing and that it was not based on law and their conscience’.

Judge Maphalala said that a one of the articles by Makhubu was, ‘a scurrilous attack on the

Chief Justice [Michael Ramodibedi], as a Judge of this court.

‘The article unlawfully and intentionally violated and impugned his dignity and authority; it

was calculated or intended to lower his authority and interfere with the administration of

justice.’

Protests against Makhubu’s sentence have been made across the world, but so far no media

outlet in Swaziland has made a public condemnation of the court’s decision.

Editor’s sentence ‘unconstitutional’

20 April 2013

The sentencing of Bheki Makhuba, the editor of the Nation magazine in Swaziland, ‘is a

blatant disregard for the constitutionally protected right to freedom of expression and is

emblematic of King Mswati’s autocratic rule’, the global human rights group Freedom House

said.

It called on the Swazi Government, ‘to withdraw all charges against Bheki Makhubu and stop

its continued attack on its citizens’ political rights and civil liberties’.

Swaziland: Striving for Freedom

Page 20

Makhubu and the Nation’s publisher Swaziland Independent Publishers were fined E200,000

(US$22,000) on 17 April 2013 by the Swaziland High Court. If the fine is not paid by 23

April, Makhubu will immediately be sent to jail for two years.

Makhubu was convicted of contempt and scandalising the court after he wrote two articles in

2009 and 2010 that criticised the judiciary in Swaziland.

Freedom House, in a statement, called the conviction, ‘a clear attempt to stifle media

freedoms’.

It said the sentence was, ‘a violation of Article 24 of the Swazi constitution, which protects

freedom of expression. The sentence also imposes a disproportionate sentence to the alleged

offense.’

Freedom House reported, ‘Swaziland has regularly been cited for its repressive media

environment. No criticism of the king or royal family is tolerated, journalists are regularly

harassed, and all of the main media outlets are either state-owned or -controlled.

‘The court system in Swaziland is controlled by the king and his for-hire Chief Justice

Michael Ramodibedi, who was the target of much of the criticism in Makhubu’s articles.

Freedom House said, ‘As Swaziland approaches elections in September 2013, Freedom

House calls for the government of Swaziland to allow its media the space to reflect the

opinions of all Swazis without recourse to outdated laws and the arrest, harassment or torture

of journalists by the authorities.’

Not first attack on Nation editor

20 April 2013

Swaziland has been plunged into its worst media freedom crisis in more than a decade by the

High Court ruling that could see Bheki Makhubu, the editor of the Nation magazine, jailed

for two years.

But, this is not the first assault by the Swazi state on both Makhubu and the Nation magazine.

The magazine’s publishing company Swaziland Independent Publishing and its editor face

fines totalling E200,000 (US$22,000) for ‘scandalising’ the court. There are doubts that the

small-circulation Nation can raise the money by a deadline of 23 April 2013 set by the court.

If it cannot, Makhubu will immediately be sent to jail for two years and the monthly

magazine will almost certainly have to close.

The last massive attack (there are many smaller ones nearly every week of the year) on free

speech in Swaziland, a kingdom ruled by King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute

monarch, also targeted the Nation magazine and Makhubu.

In May 2001 Swaziland police raided offices of the Nation (ironically, considering the

present situation) in defiance of the kingdom’s High Court. The Nation, which had been

banned by the government earlier that month, because it had not been properly registered as a

Swaziland: Striving for Freedom

Page 21

newspaper, had received the court’s approval to return to publishing.

The news agency Afrol reported at the time, ‘The uniformed policemen insisted that the

outspoken magazine was still technically banned and said they had instructions to confiscate

all copies of its June edition. Policemen also reportedly confiscated over 5,000 copies of the

publication from street vendors in the capital Mbabane and other major centres such as

Manzini and Piggs Peak.’

Afrol added, ‘The Nation is one of two independent publications banned by Swaziland Public

Service and Information Minister Mtonzima Dlamini on World Press Freedom Day on May 3

[2001] in an apparent clampdown on journalists critical of the kingdom’s monarchist system

of government.

‘Dlamini banned the Nation and weekly newspaper Swazi Guardian in an extraordinary

gazette, citing Section 3 of the Proscribed Publications Act of 1968, which gives his office

unlimited powers to ban or suspend publications that do not conform with “Swazi morality

and ideals”.’

Afrol reported, ‘Both the Guardian and the Nation are known to support the multi-party

democracy movement and have both been critical of King Mswati III’s decision to govern by

decree. All political parties have been banned in Swaziland since the suspension of the

kingdom's constitution in 1973.’

In a later report Afrol gave more details of the manner in which the banning was

implemented.

‘The initial banning, published in Extraordinary Government Gazette 63, sparked police

blockades and raids against retail outlets selling the publications,’ Afrol reported.

‘Nation editor Bheki Makhubu confirmed that uniformed policemen raided his offices on

Tuesday evening and attempted to confiscate all copies of the magazine’s June edition. Police

also reportedly harassed magazine vendors and retailers in Mbabane and the commercial city

of Manzini, before confiscating early copies of the magazine.’

The banning saw police impound the Guardian as its delivery trucks crossed into Swaziland

from its printers in South Africa.

Afrol said the Guardian ceased publication of its weekly newspaper, but the Nation

continued publishing.

In an earlier report Afrol told how police had arrested the Guardian’s editor, Thulani

Mthethwa, and drove him to police headquarters in Mbabane where he was interrogated at

length over stories in his newspaper about activities in King Mswati III's palace. He was

released after several hours.

The Guardian had reported on King Mswati III’s health, as well as on rumours that he was

poisoned by his first wife. The Guardian had earlier published a photograph of the queen

crying at the Matsapha airport as she prepared to board a plane for London, allegedly because

King Mswati III had expelled her from the royal palace.

Swaziland: Striving for Freedom

Page 22

The claims were that Queen Mngomezulu was ‘driven to the Lozitha Palace and questioned

about her role in the suspected food poisoning’ of King Mswati III. Palace insiders had said

‘that Mswati complained of stomach cramps immediately after eating a special breakfast

prepared by Mngomezulu’.

Afrol went on to report that senior journalists at both publications had previously been

detained and questioned by police, who demanded that they reveal their sources on reports

critical of the kingdom’s ban on free political activity.

Fund set up in bid to pay editor’s fine

21 April 2013

Media organisations in Swaziland are appealing for donations to raise E200,000 (US$22,000)

to pay the fine for Bheki Makhubu, Editor of the Nation magazine.

If he does not pay by Tuesday (23 April 2013), he will be sent to jail for two years.

The sentence was imposed on Makhubu by the Swazi High Court after it convicted him of

‘scandalising’ the court by writing two articles criticising the judiciary.

The Swaziland National Association of Journalists (SNAJ) is leading the appeal which has

been sent to the donor community, journalists, media practitioners, civil society, media

stakeholders and members of the general public.

Makhubu has said he will appeal the sentence, but the grounds for such appeal have not been

made public, and they are not immediately obvious to media watchers of the kingdom.

Observers expect Mukhuba to be imprisoned on Tuesday.

Mfanukhona Nkambule, SNAJ President said it was imperative to be ready for any

eventuality.

He said, ‘We have to be on full alert and eliminate any possibility for Makhubu to go to jail.

This we can do by raising the money to pay the fine. SNAJ is a credible association that

believes in the principle of financial transparency; interested donors will have access to

audited financial statements. Donors can notify Makhubu and the Nation Magazine of any

contributions made towards the Fund so that there is transparency in the fund-raising drive.’

Nkambule said interested donors could contact him at +268 7621 6503 for more information.

In an interview with the Times Sunday newspaper in Swaziland, Makhubu said he and the

Nation magazine could not afford to pay the fine.

The newspaper quoted him saying, ‘We really appreciate what SNAJ is doing and we must

thank them for the support they are showing.’

He added, ‘I am also receiving calls from other people who are willing to also support as it is

impossible for such a small magazine to have so much money.’

Swaziland: Striving for Freedom

Page 23

The SNAJ appeal so far has the support of a growing number of organisations including, the

Media Institute of Southern Africa, Swaziland chapter; the National Association of Public

Service and Allied Workers Union (NAPSAWU) and the Swaziland national Association of

Teachers (SNAT).

Editor: ‘Sun sets on media freedom’

21 April 2013

The editor of the Swazi News says she finds it ‘very scary’ to write for her newspaper

following the High Court ruling that could send one of her fellow editors to jail for two years.

Phephisa Khoza said the decision to fine the Nation magazine editor Bheki Makhubu

E200,000 (US$22,000) or send him to jail if he does not pay by 23 April 2013, was ‘one of

the harshest sentences to be handed down by our courts’.

Makhubu was sentenced for ‘scandalising’ the courts after he wrote two articles for his

magazine criticising the judiciary.

Writing in the Swazi News on Saturday (20 April 2013), Khoza said, ‘The sun has set on

media freedom in the country.’

She said, ‘For a long time the country’s politicians have been saying media practitioners in

the country are free to write on any issue.

‘As a journalist I find it very scary to write this piece. I do not know what those in charge of

the administration of justice will perceive it as but the sentence on Bheki Makhubu and The

Nation magazine is one of the harshest sentences to be handed down by our courts.’

Khoza, edits the Swazi News, part of the Times of Swaziland group, which publishes the only

independent daily newspaper in the kingdom ruled by King Mswati III’s, sub-Saharan

Africa’s last absolute monarch.

Khoza said, ‘A free media is the epitome of democracy and basic liberties. A country’s

freedom is measured through the way the country treats its media. An independent press

should be the mirror of society and that helps to play the role of watchdogs where there are

no political parties.

‘The world measures a free society through the freedom of its press.’

Editor’s fine ‘meant to silence people’

22 April 2013

The Times of Swaziland, the kingdom’s only independent daily newspaper, says the High

Court’s decision to fine (and probably send to jail) Bheki Makhubu, the editor of the Nation

magazine, is an attempt to stop people voicing concerns about problems in the kingdom.

In an editorial comment, the Times said, ‘[T]he decision to fine the editor of the Nation

magazine E400 000 (or be jailed) can only be interpreted as an attempt to put a lid on

Swaziland: Striving for Freedom

Page 24

complaints; to restrict the confidence of the Swazi people to speak up when they see a

problem so that, together, we can fix it.’

Makhubu must pay a fine of E200,000 (US$22,000) by tomorrow (23 April 2013) and if he

cannot pay he will be sent to jail for two years. Last week, the Swazi High Court convicted

him of ‘scandalising’ the courts after he wrote two articles published in the Nation that

criticised the judiciary.

The sentence has brought condemnation from across the world where it is being widely

interpreted as an assault on freedom of the press. It has also drawn attention to the lack of

human rights in Swaziland, which is ruled by King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa’s last

absolute monarch.

In its editorial published today, the Times said, ‘Shooting the messenger is the best way to

ensure that problems are never reported; thus remaining unresolved.’

It added, ‘It is no secret that we are in the midst of a judicial crisis and have been for over two

years. The crux of the matter is simply the question of whether or not the people of

Swaziland trust their Judiciary to do right by them.

‘The significance of Bheki Makhubu’s sentence is that it is now abundantly clear that those

responsible for maintaining the reputation of the Judiciary will not entertain this question any

longer.

‘Instead, they will impose their own interpretation of the situation; that everything is fine,

normal even.

‘But everything is not normal and it is far from fine.’

Growing support for Nation editor

22 April 2013

Reporters Without Borders is the latest international freedom organisation to criticise

Swaziland’s High Court for fining Nation magazine editor Bheki Makhubu for ‘scandalising’

the court.

Makhubu faces immediate imprisonment for two years if he cannot pay a E200,000

(US$22,000) fine by tomorrow (23 April 2013). Makhubu was convicted after two articles he

wrote criticising the Swazi judiciary appeared in the Nation magazine.

Reporters Without Borders said in a statement, ‘This harsh sentence, which violates freedom

of expression, was handed down by a court acting as plaintiff and judge at the same time. We

urge the high court to respect Swaziland’s constitution, which guarantees media freedom.’

Reporters Without Borders joins Amnesty International, the Media Institute of Southern

Africa, Ifex, South African National Editors’ Forum, Freedom House and the Centre for

Human Rights; as well as individual media houses and political parties in condemning the

conviction.

Swaziland: Striving for Freedom

Page 25

Makhubu told local media he could not afford to pay the fine. He is expected to appeal the

verdict.

Observer blank page comment puzzles

22 April 2013

The Swazi Observer newspaper appeared today (22 April 2013) with a blank space under a

headline, ‘Dear Judge Bheki Maphalala.’

The headline appeared on the Features and Opinion page, leading to speculation that the

newspaper, in effect owned by King Mswati III, was making a statement about the

punishment handed down to Bheki Makhubu, the editor of the Nation magazine.

Makhubu is set to start a two-year jail sentence tomorrow after

High Court Judge Bheki Maphalala ordered him to pay a

E200,000 (US$22,000) fine or go to jail. Maphalala ruled

Mabhuza had ‘scandalised’ the court by writing two articles in the

Nation magazine that criticised the Swazi judiciary.

Makhubu has already publicly said he cannot afford the fine. He is

hoping to appeal the sentence.

The unusual move by the Swazi Observer has left readers of the

newspaper puzzled as to the intent of the managing editor

Mbongeni Mbingo. ‘Blank page’ protests have been made in the

past by newspapers in other countries when they feel they are being censored.

However, the newspapers usually explain to their readers why they have not printed a story.

Often, the reason is that the story the editor wanted to publish has been censored.

But, the Swazi Observer is known to be the most heavily censored newspaper in Swaziland.

If the newspaper decided to leave a blank space where every censored story should be, there

would hardly be any articles published.

The Media Institute of Southern Africa, Swaziland chapter, in a statement, said, the ‘blank

page’, ‘seemingly criticises the decision of judge Bheki Maphalala, and, therefore, could be

interpreted as an act to stand in solidarity with The Nation magazine’.

Nation editor lodges sentence appeal

23 April 2013

Bheki Makhubu and the Nation magazine have formally noted an appeal against a E200,000

fine (and possible two year jail sentence) after conviction by the Swaziland High Court for

‘scandalising’ the court.

Makhubu had said he could not afford to pay the fine by the deadline today (23 April 2013),

which meant he would immediately be jailed for two years.

Swaziland: Striving for Freedom

Page 26

The Times of Swaziland newspaper reported that this note of appeal to the Supreme Court

means that Makhubu will not be jailed today.

It reported, ‘An appeal, in terms of the rules, stays execution of an order of a subordinate

court. The appeal was served to the Director of Public Prosecutions Nkosinathi Maseko at

close of business yesterday.’

‘Court never let Makhubu speak’

24 April 2013

Bheki Makhubu, , the editor of the Nation magazine, who was fined E200 000 and faces two

years in jail if he does not pay, after being convicted of scandalising the courts by writing two

articles criticising the Swazi judiciary, says he was never given a chance by the Swaziland

High Court to put his side of the story.

In an appeal to the Swazi Supreme Court, Makhubu says his sentence was unlawful and

unconstitutional.

Makhubu and the Nation publisher, Swaziland Independent Publishers, were fined a total of

E200,000 after two articles were published in 2009 and 2010 criticising the judges and in

particular Chief Justice Michael Ramodibedi.

In his formal appeal against the sentence, Makhubu argues that the very imposition of the

sentence at all was unlawful and constitutional.

The appeal states, ‘The court dealt with the sentence;

Without advising the appellants that they had been found guilty of contempt;

Without affording the appellants any opportunity whatsoever for adducing evidence

in mitigation;

Without hearing evidence whatsoever on sentence.’

Makhubu argues that the sentence was thus imposed in breach of the most fundamental right

to be heard on punishment ‘and is the consequence of the procedure permitted and adopted

by the court in direct conflict with the most basic rights of all accused people’.

It is thought the appeal will not be heard until November 2013.

See also

EDITOR’S CONTEMPT SENTENCE ‘SHOCKING’

MISA: EDITOR’S CONVICTION ‘BRUTAL’

HIGH COURT SUPPRESSES MEDIA FREEDOM

SOUTH AFRICA EDITORS BACK MAKHUBU

ARTICLES THAT MIGHT GET EDITOR JAILED

PUDEMO CONDEMNS EDITOR’S CONVICTION

VOICES SUPPORTING BELEAGUERED EDITOR

EDITOR NOW HOURS AWAY FROM JAIL

Swaziland: Striving for Freedom

Page 27

3. CAMPAIGN TO UN-BAN POLITICAL PARTIES

‘The failure of Swazi politics’

8 April 2013

The leader of one of Swaziland’s leading pro-democracy organisations has questioned the

value of the kingdom’s political parties ahead of the 40th anniversary of the Royal

proclamation that deprived Swazis of many of their civil rights.

Musa Hlophe, the coordinator of the Swaziland Coalition of Concerned Civic Organisations,

said, ‘The biggest failure of Swazi politics is that the opposition parties think their sense of

injustice at not being able to access power through the political processes in this country is

shared by the ordinary people. It is not.’

Hlophe said most people in Swaziland wanted ‘a job, a family, and a sense of hope that

things might get better’.

In Swaziland political parties are not allowed to contest elections and are in effect banned

from the kingdom, ruled by King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch.

The People’s United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO), the best known of the political

parties in Swaziland is banned in the kingdom because the state labels it a ‘terrorist’

organisation.

Hlophe, writing in the Times Sunday newspaper in Swaziland, said on 12 April 1973 King

Sobhuza II declared a state of emergency that has never been openly repealed.

‘He also set up an army, which has now only succeeded in threatening or harming citizens.

‘Swaziland is now among the sickest, poorest, most corrupt and unhappiest nations in the

world.’

He said ordinary Swazi people, ‘were begging’ for an alternative to their present lives which

are dominated by poverty, hunger, sickness and death’.

Hlophe, who said he is a supporter of multi-party democracy for Swaziland, also said the

Swazi political parties were irrelevant to people’s ordinary lives.

‘They only seem to spend their time talking about how this government is corrupt and

illegitimate.

‘They hide behind the slogans of a people’s revolution and tell us what our problems should

be rather than listening to what our problems really are.

‘They treat us as if we should behave like Russian peasants from another century rather than

proud yet desperate Swazis living and suffering today.

‘They treat us as if we are a disappointment to them and their tired political theories.

Swaziland: Striving for Freedom

Page 28

‘When ordinary people do not fit with theory, it is time to change the theory, not to blame the

people.

‘As idealists, they continue to hold onto theories and strategies that have never delivered any

benefits to ordinary Swazis.’

He wrote, ‘We see activists getting arrested for another toyi-toyi where they chanted cheap,

insulting and pointless slogans that ask for an end to Tinkhundla [the present system of

government] but do we ever see them stage protests against a beating of one of our sons in a

police station or practically helping a grandmother forced to starve herself in order to feed her

grandchildren?

‘They say multiparty democracy will solve all of our problems but they don’t tell us what

they will do when they are in power.’

He added, ‘The biggest failure of Swazi politics is that the opposition parties think their sense

of injustice at not being able to access power through the political processes in this country is

shared by the ordinary people. It is not.

‘Most of us simply want a job, a family, and a sense of hope that things might get better. We

the ordinary people grant mandates to political parties when they have striven to earn them

through hard work, courage and relevance.

‘Political parties do not deserve votes just because they are parties but because they are

relevant to our everyday lives.

‘When they can show how they will make Swaziland better for most of us, then maybe more

of us will take them more seriously.’

‘Owners of country’ ban parties

10 April 2013

The chairman of Swaziland’s Elections and Boundaries Commission, Chief Gija Dlamini has

spoken out strongly against political parties contesting this year’s national election.

Chief Gina is reported by local media saying ‘the owners of the country’ had clearly stated

that parties could not contest the election.

He was reacting to news that former Secretary General of the Swaziland Federation of Trade

Unions Jan Sithole, who is now a leading figure in Swaziland Democratic Party

(SWADEPA) had come to an understanding with Sive Siyinqaba, a conservative political

party, not to contest the same parliamentary seat.

In Swaziland, since King Sobhuza II’s Royal Proclamation of 12 April 1973, political parties

have been excluded from standing at elections. Instead, people are only permitted to stand as

individuals and they do this through local area councils known as tinkhundla.

Chief Gija told the Times of Swaziland both Sive Siyinqaba and SWADEPA were not

allowed to strategize for the election.

Swaziland: Striving for Freedom

Page 29

‘The owners of the country have clearly stated that people will stand for elections in their

individual capacities and not through political parties,’ the newspaper reported him saying.

Chief Gija dismissed the relevance of Sive Siyinqaba. ‘I can just call them clubs formed by

people who are like minded. I do not foresee them having any influence, whatsoever, in the

outcome of the elections,’ he said.

A number of organisations inside and outside of Swaziland have called for a boycott of the

election because parties are banned. The parliament that will be elected will have no real

powers, as the kingdom is ruled by King Mswati III who is sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute

monarch.

See also

EU TELLS KING, ‘FREE PARTIES’

CALL TO BOYCOTT ELECTION GROWS

Swazis did not choose political system

17 April 2013

Swaziland’s Prime Minister Barnabas Dlamini is too blinkered to have seen the irony when

last week he told newspaper editors that the Swazi people had made it clear they were happy

with the political situation in the kingdom and then days later the police, acting without a

court order, stopped a public debate taking place on the same subject, declaring it was a threat

to national security.

Dlamini was commenting on the forthcoming national election in Swaziland where political

parties are banned. In recent months there has been an increasingly vocal campaign in the

kingdom to boycott the election unless parties are allowed to take part.

The PM told a meeting of editors that the people had been asked a number of times whether

they wanted to change from the present system. For the past 40 years Swaziland has been

under the rule of an autocratic monarchy. In 1973 King Sobhuza II made a Royal decree that

junked the Constitution and allowed himself to make any laws or change existing ones as he

saw fit.

The decree has not been rescinded since and today his son King Mswati III rules as sub-

Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch.

Dlamini is entirely wrong when he asserts that the people of Swaziland have given their

support to the current political system. In fact they have never been asked.

The closest the kingdom’s rulers got to asking the question was in the ten years running up to

the writing of what is known as the 2005 Swaziland Constitution. But the authorities had so

little confidence that people would support the status quo that they did not allow them to

discuss in any meaningful way what should be in the constitution.

Swaziland: Striving for Freedom

Page 30

The only submissions that were allowed on the subject had to come from individual people

expressing personal opinions. NGOs, professors from universities, research groups or any

collection of people who might have had expertise on constitutional matters or the political

and economic situation pertaining in Swaziland were barred.

The consultation was so flawed that the International BarAssociation (IBA), a group of

experienced lawyers called in by King Mswati to comment on the first draft of the

constitution, called the process ‘flawed’ and reported that one critic went so far as to call it a

‘fraud’.

The IBA pointed out that the judiciary and non-government organisations (NGOs) were not

allowed to take part in the consultation. Also, individuals were interviewed in front of their

chiefs so were not free to say what they really thought about the powers of the king and what

he and his followers like to call Swaziland’s ‘unique democracy’, the Tinkhundla system.

IBA said the consultation did not allow for groups to make submissions and incomplete

records were kept of the submissions that were made so, IBA said, there was no formal

record of how Swazi citizens presented their views and of what in fact they said.

On top of this the IBA reported that the Swaziland media were not allowed to report on the

submissions.

‘Furthermore, information was elicited in a highly charged atmosphere. Individuals were

reportedly asked, in the presence of chiefs, whether they wanted to retain the King and

whether they preferred political parties,’ IBA said.

Under these circumstances it is obvious why the people said they wanted to keep the existing

system.

So, we must not allow the king and the unelected Prime Minister he personally chose to claim

that the people have made it clear they are happy with things the way they are.

The case for political parties in Swaziland

25 April 2013

A lot of hot air is being generated in Swaziland about political parties as the kingdom gets

ready for national elections later this year.

To some people they are the Devil’s work and part of a dark plot to destroy Swaziland and

the Swazi way of life.

This is even though every parliamentary democracy in the world has them and they would be

of great benefit to Swaziland if they were allowed to operate properly.

There is nothing sinister about political parties, or ‘multi-parties’ as the Swazi media often

call them. A political party is simply a collection of people who come together because they

have roughly the same set of views and opinions.

Swaziland: Striving for Freedom

Page 31

But, they don’t just meet for a ‘talking shop’: they aim to get political power. In a democracy

this is done by getting people to elect your party into government.

In a parliamentary democracy you can have as many political parties as you want. But people

would also be able to stand for election as individuals if they wished to and there is nothing to

stop them being elected if enough voters wanted it.

After an election, the leader of the political party that wins the majority of seats in parliament

becomes prime minister and appoints the government. If no single party wins a majority, two

or more parties in parliament would usually join together to form a coalition government.

Whether there is a majority or a coalition government, there would also be at least one party

in parliament that was the ‘opposition’ to the government. This means that there is always an

alternative government available to the one in power. If the people don’t like the one in

power, they can vote it out at the next election and put another party in government.

A major benefit of political parties for Swaziland is that parties not only allow people to

select alternative governments, they allow people to discuss alternative policies.

There are so many problems in Swaziland at present that a succession of governments –

which have been selected by King Mswati III and not elected by the people - have been

unable to solve them. And, because political parties don’t exist, no alternative policies have

been brought forward. Governments have clearly failed on poverty alleviation, corruption in

every fabric of Swazi public life, jobs creation, attracting foreign investment into Swaziland,

the HIV pandemic and so on.

Since political parties were banned in 1973 by King Sobhuza II’s Royal Proclamation, there

has been no way for people to create and debate different policies or strategies for Swaziland:

and then to choose the path that the kingdom ought to follow.

The present Swazi Government is led by Barnabas Dlamini, the Prime Minister who was

elected by nobody, but instead was appointed incontravention of the 2005 Swaziland

Constitution by King Mswati, who rules Swaziland as sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute

monarch.

Dlamini was not elected for the policies he would pursue while in office. He therefore has no

mandate from the people to do anything.

Take the example of the present economic crisis in Swaziland. In October 2010, Dlamini took

to the International Monetary Fund(IMF) a Fiscal Adjustment Roadmap (FAR) of financial

measures to try to save the economy. For the past three years the IMF’s view of what should

be the kingdom’s economic policy has dominated public life.

But, there has been no debate with the Swazi people about what the kingdom’s economic

policies should be and therefore no alternative policy that people can agree on has been put

forward.

If Swaziland had political parties that alternative would already be published and with the

consent of the people could be implemented in the future.

Swaziland: Striving for Freedom

Page 32

Political parties also allow leaders to come through. People can develop their leadership skills

within political parties and while part of the parliamentary ‘opposition’, prior to taking office

in government.

One great weakness of Swaziland politics at present is the very low calibre of most people in

parliament. Many have minimal education and few obvious skills. If political parties existed

they could attract people of high calibre who knew that they had the opportunity of

contributing to the future of Swaziland. Few present day members of the Swazi House of

Assembly or Senate could honestly say that about themselves.

In the case of Swaziland where there is no democracy at present, we cannot have political

parties without changes to the political system. To begin with all seats to the House of

Assembly and the Senate must be open to election with none in the patronage of King

Mswati, as now.

Second, the Swaziland Constitution must be respected. If political parties are to operate

properly we must have these: freedom of organisation; freedom of speech and assembly;

provision of a fair and peaceful competition; everyone to be included in the electoral process;

media access and fair reporting and transparent and accountable financing of political parties.

Opponents of political parties in Swaziland often misunderstand an important point: just

because political parties are allowed to exist that does not mean that people cannot stand for

election to parliament as individuals. It follows that if the voters prefer individuals over

political parties they will vote for them.

If there really is the love of the present system among Swazi people, as opponents of change

say, political parties will wither and die through lack of support.

But, if the opponents are wrong and the Swazi people embrace the political parties, the

benefit to them and the kingdom as a whole would be tremendous.

Swaziland: Striving for Freedom

Page 33

4. ELECTION

King instructs ‘Vote for Christians’

3 April 2013

King Mswati III of Swaziland has instructed his subjects to only vote for Christians in the

forthcoming national election.

The king, who rules Swaziland as sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch, said only

Christians would be humble enough to serve the kingdom.

The election due at a time still to be revealed by the king is for a parliament that has no

powers. It is widely recognised as being subservient to the wishes of the king.

There are two chambers of parliament, the House of Assembly and the Senate. Of the 65

members of the House, 10 are chosen by King Mswati and 55 are elected by the people. In

the Senate, King Mswati chooses 20 of the 30 places. The other 10 are chosen by members of

the House of Assembly. None are elected by the people.

Many prodemocracy organisations within Swaziland and outside have called on people to

boycott the elections because political parties are not allowed to take part.

King Mswati, preaching at the Somhlolo National Stadium at Easter weekend, said his

subjects should vote for people who were ‘God fearing’. ‘We can learn that we should be

humble. Even those who come to parliament,’ local media, who enthusiastically supported

the king’s view, reported him saying.

The king was also supported by the Swazi Conference of Churches President Bishop Stephen

Masilela. He said, ‘We fully support the king’s statement and we are getting ourselves ready

to take up the challenge. Very soon, we will be mobilising men and women who are

Christians to be ready to compete successfully during the upcoming elections.’

See also

CALL TO BOYCOTT ELECTION GROWS

Now, election meetings are ‘seditious’

26 April 2013

A youth leader in Swaziland has been charged with sedition because he allegedly tried to

organise a meeting to discuss the forthcoming elections in the kingdom.

Maxwell Dlamini, the secretary general of the Swaziland Youth Congress (SWAYOCO), is

also a former student leader and presently studies at the University of Swaziland.

Swaziland: Striving for Freedom

Page 34

He is alleged to have been one of the organisers of a rally at the Msunduza Township on 19

April 2013 (the same day as birthday celebrations were taking place for King Mswati III

elsewhere in the kingdom).

The rally was to discuss the national election that will take place in Swaziland this year at a

date yet to be set by the king. Political parties are banned from taking part in the election and

the rally was to bring attention to this.

SWAYOCO, which along with other political parties is banned in Swaziland, is also

campaigning for people to boycott the election.

He appeared in court in Mbabane this week charged with breaking three sections of the

Seditious and Subversive Activities Act of 1938.

According to local media, the charge sheet alleges that Dlamini wrongfully and unlawfully

attempted to commit an act with seditious intention by participating in an unlawful

demonstration held at Msunduza.

He is also charged with ‘uttering words with a subversive intention’ and with being in

possession of a banner inscribed with seditious words without a lawful excuse.

Dlamini was the third member of SWAYOCO to be charged with sedition this week

following the rally. The other two are Mfanawenkhosi Mntshali and Derick Nkambule.

King sees opposition as ‘treason’

26 April 2013

King Mswati III views all opposition to the elections in his kingdom later this year as

‘treason’, the Communist Party of Swaziland (CPS) said.

Activists have been arrested and charged with sedition for trying to hold an election rally

earlier this month (April 2013).

The CPS said the charges showed King Mswati, ‘views opposition to his elections as

treason’.

Those arrested include Swaziland Youth Congress (SWAYOCO) Secretary General Maxwell

Dlamini; SWAYOCO International Affairs Secretary Sonkhe Dube; Peoples United

Democratic Movement (PUDEMO) National Organiser and trade union leader Wonder

Mkhonza, and members of Communist Party of Swaziland Central Committee

Mfanawenkhosi Mtshali and Derrick Nkhambule.

CPS general secretary Kenneth Kunene said in a statement, ‘The regime is desperate to make

its elections appear respectable, fair and free so as to appease the international community.

But in reality they are the very opposite of freedom or fairness.’

No political parties are allowed to take part in the elections which are due to be held this year,

at a date yet to be announced by the king.

Swaziland: Striving for Freedom

Page 35

Kunene added, ‘The Mswati dictatorship is also clamping down more widely on opposition at

this time. Increasingly, we are seeing shows of force by the police and army, designed to

intimidate anyone contemplating resisting the regime.’

A report on human rights over the past year in the kingdom released last week by the US

State Department confirmed a raft of human rights abuses in the kingdom, ruled by King

Mswati, who is sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch.

The report stated, ‘Citizens remained unable to change their government. The three main

human rights abuses were police use of excessive force, including use of torture, beatings,

and unlawful killings; restrictions on freedoms of association, assembly, and speech; and

discrimination and abuse of women and children.’

The CPS has called on international organisations, including the Southern African

Development Community, African Union, European Union and the United Nations to, ‘take a

resolute stand on the crimes of the Mswati regime and to demand an end to the dictatorship’.

Police break up election meeting

20 April 2013

Only days after democracy activists accused Swaziland police of being a personal militia

for King Mswati III, police broke up a meeting to discuss forthcoming elections because, in

the words of a police spokesperson, they were, ‘having an event when all Swazis were

gathered at Siteki to celebrate with His Majesty [on his birthday]’.

The Swaziland Youth Congress (SWAYOCO) tried to hold a rally in Msunduza Township,

Mbabane, on Friday (19 April 2013) at the same time that King Mswati III was holding an

E10 million (US$1.1 million) party in another part of the kingdom to celebrate his 45th

birthday.

The Swazi Police Commissioner Isaac Magagula had warned SWAYOCO in advance that his

officers would stop any attempt at meeting.

In a statement carried by media in Swaziland, the police chief said, ‘As a police service and

organ of state responsible for internal security and maintenance of law and order, we wish to

state it in no uncertain terms that the political rally planned by SWAYOCO for April 19,

2013 will not be allowed to take place.’

He added, ‘[I]t is unthinkable that an event whose agenda includes sabotaging the

forthcoming national elections can be allowed to take place.’

SWAYOCO supporters went ahead with their attempt to meet with residents to discuss with

them why they should boycott the national election due later this year. Political parties are not

allowed to contest the so-called Tinkhundla election and the parliament that is selected is not

independent, but serves the wishes of King Mswati, who is sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute

monarch.

Swaziland: Striving for Freedom

Page 36

SWAYOCO is the youth wing of the People’s United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO),

the best-known opposition group in Swaziland. Both have been branded ‘terrorist’

organisations and banned by King Mswati’s government.

SWAYOCO Secretary General Maxwell Dlamini said, ‘We were able to inform the people

about genuine elections. We want a genuine political dialogue that will lead to a lasting

solution that will stimulate economic growth. In light of the way the police have been treating

our members we will be compelled to lobby the international community not to recognise the

Tinkhundla elections.’

Police said two people were arrested at the rally.

Police spokesperson Wendy Hleta told the Swazi News newspaper, ‘It took us by surprise as

to what kind of people were these who were having an event when all Swazis were gathered

at Siteki to celebrate with His Majesty.’

There has been increasing criticism of the use of King Mswati’s police and army in

Swaziland to stop legitimate protest in the kingdom.

The Swaziland United Democratic Front (SUDF) and the Swaziland Democracy Campaign

(SDC) in a joint statement last week called the police a ‘private militia’ with the sole purpose

of serving the Royal regime.

This was after a public meeting to discuss the forthcoming election was banned by police,

acting without a court order. Armed police physically stooped people from entering the venue

of the meeting, claiming it ‘presented a threat to national security’.

Separately, the Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa (OSISA) reported that

recently Swaziland police and state security forces had shown ‘increasingly violent and

abusive behaviour’ that was leading to the ‘militarization’ of the kingdom.

OSISA told the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (ACHPR) meeting in

The Gambia, ‘There are also reliable reports of a general militarization of the country through

the deployment of the Swazi army, police and correctional services to clamp down on any

peaceful protest action by labour or civil society organisations ahead of the country’s

undemocratic elections.’

Police ‘torture political activists’

22 April 2013

Two political activists arrested at an election rally in Swaziland have been tortured by police,

the kingdom’s Communist Party says.

Mfanawenkhosi ‘BOER’ Mntshali and Derrick Nkambule, both members of the banned

political party, People’s United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO), were at a rally to discuss

boycotting Swaziland’s forthcoming election.

In a statement, the Communist Party of Swaziland said the two men were taken by a special

police squad to police HQ in Mbabane, the kingdom’s capital.

Swaziland: Striving for Freedom

Page 37

The statement said, ‘Information is coming in that the two comrades are undergoing an

intensified torture session at the Police headquarters in Mbabane , this is a violation of the

normal procedure recognized internationally that when a suspect is apprehended he /she is

kept in a police station and charged within 48 working hours.’

The statement said the police HQ had ‘special interrogation chambers which are well

equipped for torturing suspects’.

The police have kept the two men in isolation and not allowed them to speak to lawyers.

Earlier this month (April 2013), the US Embassy in Swaziland said it had ‘deep concern’

about the way police engage in ‘acts of intimidation and fear’ against people seeking their

political rights. This was after police broke up a public meeting in Manzini to discuss the

election.

The Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa (OSISA) alsothis month reported that

recently Swaziland police and state security forces had shown ‘increasingly violent and

abusive behaviour’ that was leading to the ‘militarization’ of the kingdom.

OSISA told the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) meeting in

The Gambia, ‘There are also reliable reports of a general militarization of the country through

the deployment of the Swazi army, police and correctional services to clamp down on any

peaceful protest action by labour or civil society organisations ahead of the country’s

undemocratic elections.’

Activist leader Maxwell in court

24 April 2013

Maxwell Dlamini, the Secretary General of the Swaziland Youth Congress (SWAYOCO),

appeared at Mbabane magistrates court today (24 April 2013) and was remanded in custody

until 2 May.

Dlamini is accused of participating in an ‘unlawful activity’, but, it is thought he might later

be charged with sedition.

SWAYOCO, is a banned organisation in Swaziland. SWAYOCO was prevented by police

from holding a public election rally at Msunduza Township, Mbabane, on 19 April, the day

of King Mswati III’s 45th birthday.

Dlamini was arrested following the rally, along with Sonkhe Dube the international secretary

of SWAYOCO. Dube was held by police for 17 hours and then released.

Dlamini has officially been charged with a crime of organising and participation in an illegal

activity on 19 April in Mbabane, according to the Swaziland United Democratic Front.

When Dlamini was arrested on a previous occasion he reported that he was tortured by Swazi

police.

This was when he put on trial for possession of explosives, a case that has been postponed

several times. Dlamini is out on bail for that charge.

Swaziland: Striving for Freedom

Page 38

SWAYOCO reported that the arrest of the two SWAYOCO leaders followed the police

clamp down on the rally that was part of the organisation’s campaign for an election boycott.

There have also been several recent arrests of other activists in Swaziland, including Wonder

Mkhonza, Mfanawnkosi ‘Boer’ Mntshaliand and Derrick Nkambule, the latter two who were

allegedly tortured.

See also

POLICE TORTURE STUDENT LEADER

HUMAN RIGHTS IN SWAZILAND

Swaziland is an absolute monarchy. King Mswati III and Queen Mother Ntombi, the king’s

mother who rules as his co-monarch, have ultimate authority over the cabinet, legislature, and

judiciary. There is a prime minister and parliament comprised of appointed and elected

members, but political power remained largely with the king and his traditional advisors.

International observers concluded that parliamentary elections held in 2008 did not meet

international standards. Security forces reported to civilian authorities.

Citizens remained unable to change their government. The three main human rights abuses

were police use of excessive force, including use of torture, beatings, and unlawful killings;

restrictions on freedoms of association, assembly, and speech; and discrimination and abuse

of women and children.

Other human rights problems included arbitrary arrests and lengthy pretrial detention;

arbitrary interference with privacy and home; prohibitions on political activity and

harassment of political activists; trafficking in persons; societal discrimination against

members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community and persons with

albinism; harassment of labor leaders; child labor; mob violence; and restrictions on worker

rights.

United States State Department – April 2013

Swaziland: Striving for Freedom

Page 39

5. KING MSWATI III

‘King gets 32 cars for his birthday’

18 April 2013

The People’s United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO), a banned political party in

Swaziland, says 32 BMW cars have been delivered to King Mswati III ahead of his 45th

birthday celebrations tomorrow (19 April 2013).

PUDEMO, in a statement on its Facebook page, said the ‘state-of-the-art’ cars were taken

through the Oshoek border between Swaziland and South Africa yesterday and later delivered

at Nkoyoyo Royal Palace.

The statement has not been confirmed by spokespeople for the king, who rules Swaziland as

sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch.

At his last birthday the king was embroiled in a row when he took delivery of a private jet

plane, worth an estimated US$46 million.

The king claimed that the McDonnell Douglas DC-9 twin-engine jet was a gift from an

admirer, but declined to say who it was. This led to speculation that the jet had been

purchased out of public funds.

See also

PRIVATE FIRM GAVE KING HIS JET

‘King’s birthday privately sponsored’

25 April 2013

King Mswati III’s US$3.6 million birthday party was privately sponsored and did not cost the

Swazi people anything, the government has claimed.

Estimates of the costs of the birthday party held on 19 April 2013 vary between E10 million

and E33 million (US$3.6 million), but Percy Simelane, the official government spokesperson

said this money did not come out of the kingdom’s budget for celebrations and national

events.

He told Voice of America radio, ‘The king’s birthday was privately sponsored this year, as

[was] the case was last year.’

He added, ‘The budget for this year’s celebrations and national events was [$1,027,551].

There is just no way that [$3 million] could come from [$1,027,551].’

He did not say who sponsored the event.

Swaziland: Striving for Freedom

Page 40

Last year King Mswati, who rules Swaziland as sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch,

was embroiled in controversy when it emerged that he had received a McDonnell Douglas

DC-9 twin-engine private jet, costing an estimated US$46 million. Government said it was

given to him by private sponsors, but refused to name them, leading to speculation that it was

paid for out of public funds.

Simelane made his latest revelation in response to a pay claim from public sector works.

They want improved living conditions, and say the extravagant celebrations held for the

king’s 45th birthday were an indication that the economy had improved.

Days before the king’s birthday, the People’s United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO), a

banned political party in Swaziland, reported 32 BMW cars had been delivered to the King.

King misleads on First World status

26 April 2013

King Mswati III has once again told his subjects that Swaziland is on the way to becoming ‘a

First World Nation’.

And, true to form the media in the kingdom he rules as sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute

monarch, praised him for telling the ‘truth’.

The Swazi Observer, a newspaper the king in effect owns, called it a ‘relentless march to

First World status’.

The media in Swaziland are biased when it comes to reporting the king. Even those parts of

the media, such as the Times of Swaziland, that are not under the direct control of the ruling

elite, take an ‘Emperor’s New Clothes’ attitude to King Mswati.

It doesn’t matter how ridiculous the statement, or how devoid of any reality it is: if King

Mswati said it, it must be true.

In a speech to mark his birthday on 19 April, the king at least recognised that there were

hurdles to jump before his kingdom could really be called ‘First World’. Chief among these

was the level of poverty.

Nonetheless he told his audience, ‘I am confident it can be done. We have the national

resolve to succeed.’

In the past, King Mswati said First World status would be achieved by 2022.

But, nowhere in the media in Swaziland or what passes for public debate in the kingdom has

anyone actually defined what they mean by ‘First World’ status.

In fact, the term has begun to fall into misuse since the end of the Cold War, but when people

do talk about First World nations they usually mean the multi-party democracies who align

themselves (some more formally than others) to the economic and foreign policies of the

United States. They would include Canada, northern and western Europe, Japan, Australia

and New Zealand.

Swaziland: Striving for Freedom

Page 41

Swaziland does not have the potential to become a First World country. It is not a democracy

and if King Mswati has his way will never become one. Under the Royal Decree made by his

father King Sobhuza II in 1973 all political parties are banned. The decree has never been

rescinded and no parties will be allowed to take part in national elections due later this year.

Only this week activists in the youth group SWAYOCO were arrested and charged with

sedition because they tried to hold a public rally to discuss having political parties at the next

election.

Swaziland’s foreign policy makes it ineligible to ‘join’ the First World. By aligning itself

with Taiwan (and therefore against the United Nations) it places itself outside of the political

mainstream.

King Mswati sometimes says he wants Swaziland to become prosperous like the developed

countries. It could be that is what he means by ‘First World’.

But, Swaziland is nowhere close to becoming prosperous. In 2012 a report published by 24/7

Wall St in the United States, and based on data from the World Bank, identified Swaziland as

the fifth poorest country in the entire world.

It said 69 percent of King Mswati’s one million subjects lived in poverty.

Its report stated, ‘[T]he country’s workforce is largely concentrated in subsistence

agriculture, even though the country faces serious concerns about overgrazing and soil

depletion. While these factors harm the nation’s economy, health concerns are likely one of

the major factors preventing Swaziland’s population from escaping poverty.

‘Few nations have a lower life expectancy at birth than Swaziland, where the average person

is expected to live just 48.3 years. One of the reasons for the low life expectancy is the high

prevalence rate of HIV/AIDS among those 15 to 49 — at 25.9% it is the highest in the

world’.

The king has no answer to any of this, except to distract attention from the true dire situation

in Swaziland and mislead his subjects about the prospects of achieving the promised land of

First World status.

See also

SWAZI BUDGET NOT FOR THE POOR

PM GETS IT WRONG ON POVERTY

Swaziland: Striving for Freedom

Page 42

6. MEDIA

Criticism of Swazi King censored

9 April 2013

The Times Sunday newspaper in Swaziland has been caught out censoring one of its regular

writers because he made mild criticisms of King Sobhuza II, the father of the kingdom’s

present autocratic king.

Musa Hlophe, who is the coordinator of the Swaziland Coalition of Concerned Civic

Organisations, a prodemocracy group, was commenting on the 40th anniversary of King

Sobhuza’s proclamation in 1973 that ushered in a state of emergency into the kingdom that

has never been completely rescinded. The anniversary is on 12 April.

But, the fact that his original article was censored by the newspaper has been revealed on

social media sites across Africa.

Hlophe , who writes each week for the newspaper, wrote that this proclamation has led

directly to the present situation in Swaziland. Today. King Mswati III rules as sub-Saharan

Africa’s last absolute monarch and the governments appointed by the king silence discussion

and debate.

Here is part of what Holphe originally wrote before the censors took a hand. Some of the text

was altered by the newspaper’s editors to minimize criticism of the king. Other parts of the

text were cut out altogether.

‘In 1973, His Majesty, declared a state of emergency that has never been openly repealed.

He set up an army that is only capable of threatening or harming its own people.

‘Worst of all, he set in motion a series of events that has led to Swaziland being among the

sickest, the poorest, the most corrupt and the unhappiest nations in the world. Swaziland is

no longer a place of African heritage and pride, it is now a place that most other Africans

either pity or scorn.

‘Of course that was not his plan.

‘I believe that he thought that he had the best interests of the nation at heart.

‘As the Father of the Nation, he felt could not allow us to descend into the open conflict and

civil war that he saw breaking out across the continent at that time.

‘He thought that he knew best for all of us.

‘I am afraid that, like everyone else who spends more time being revered, rather than

challenged, he was wrong.

‘In trying to prevent the completely imagined threat of a deadly internal war, he also stopped

the possibility of the discussions that could have brought the nation to peaceful, wealthy,

happiness.

Swaziland: Striving for Freedom

Page 43

‘His declaration was not a way to bring our nation together under one common vision but an

attempt to say that people who to publicly disagreed with him, could, should, and would, be

silenced.

‘His basic aim was to stop people coming together to discuss and debate ideas. He wanted to

maintain the Swazi custom of us talking as lowly individuals to the powerful. That way he

could stop us forming organised oppositions.

‘But, in our Swazi culture we say “a chief is a chief because of his people.” This means that

a chief should listen. In April 1973 King Sobhuza slit the throat of that idea. It took a while

to die, but die it surely did.

‘Look at the conflicts that are now arising in the very heart of our culture - our chieftaincies.

I read recently that there are over one hundred chieftaincy disputes now in Swaziland. That

is nearly one in three!

‘We used to have a settled way of appointing chiefs, based on family discussions, community

dialogues and mutual respect between communities and the higher authorities. Now that we

have moved the powers of appointment from the communities to those authorities, we have

exactly the type of conflicts that King Sobhuza II was trying to prevent. We can now see that

his proclamation in 1973 actually caused them.’

Holphe also wrote, ‘Even though the traditional authorities and the government have tried to

stop ordinary Swazis speaking, they cannot stop us feeling or thinking.

‘I, and the people that I work with, have spent hundreds of hours working with normal people

on the ground, mainly in rural areas of Swaziland. What we hear is that people are not only

unhappy but they are now angry. People also know where the real causes of their problems

lie, in the waste, the greed and the arrogance of the powerful.’

See also

‘THE FAILURE OF SWAZI POLITICS’

Paper censors report on king

21 April 2013

The United Kingdom Foreign and Commonwealth Office presented a special case study of

Swaziland in its annual Human Rights and Democracy report published this week.

It was a damning indictment of the human rights situation in Swaziland and made critical

references to King Mswati III and the power he yields in his kingdom.

But, its contents were misrepresented in an article published by the Weekend Observer

newspaper in Swaziland on Saturday (20 April 2013).

Swaziland: Striving for Freedom

Page 44

Alec Lushaba, the Weekend Observer editor, who wrote the article, left out all references to

King Mswati.

Lushaba, in addition to being the Weekend Observer editor, is chair of the Swaziland chapter

of the press freedom advocacy group Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA).

First among the omissions he made from the UK report was that it labelled the king and his

family, ‘sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarchy’.

It also went on to describe why Swaziland cannot be considered a democracy.

This is what the report said and the Weekend Observer in Swaziland left out.

‘Although Swaziland has a parliament, with elections due in 2013, there is no effective

democracy. The King has the power summarily to appoint and dismiss ministers, all

parliamentary candidates require the approval of their chief (who is dependent on the

monarch for wealth and power) and while political parties are not forbidden, they are banned

from participating in elections. All candidates must run as independents.’

Lushaba also missed out most of this section, ‘Swaziland continues to suffer from a range of

governance problems which adversely impact human rights and inhibit the country’s social

and economic development and its ability to attract much-needed foreign investment.

‘The judicial system has suffered repeated crises; the Suppression of Terrorism Act has been

used to prevent legitimate expression of political views; peaceful protests have been disrupted

and in some cases excessive force used against protesters.

‘The absence of clearly documented land rights has prevented small farmers from developing

their land. Efforts to amend Swaziland’s laws to prevent domestic violence and to improve

the legal status of women have made little progress.’

There are elections due in Swaziland this year that many democrats in the kingdom and much

of the international diplomatic community consider bogus. They say political parties are

banned from taking part and the parliament that will be selected has no powers and simply

does the bidding of the king. They have called for a boycott of the election.

However, the Weekend Observer did report in a separate article that King Mswati in a speech

to mark his 45th birthday, ‘urged all those planning to boycott the forthcoming national

elections not to be afraid’.

The Weekend Observer, which is in effect owned by the king, quoted him saying, ‘I urge the

whole nation to take part in the forthcoming national elections. This is the time for your voice

to be heard in the decision making process of the country.’

In January 2011, writing in his own newspaper, Lushabasaid the Weekend Observer would

report, ‘without fear or favour all news of public interest’.

He went on to say, ‘We are just a newspaper that serves the nation.’

Swaziland: Striving for Freedom

Page 45

7. HUMAN RIGHTS

Girl’s flogging ‘broke constitution’

3 April 2013

Another human rights organisation in Swaziland has stepped in to condemn the school that

thrashed a teenager because her parents could not afford to pay school fees.

The Swaziland Action Group Against Abuse (SWAGAA) called the beating of the 17-year-

old school student a gross violation of the Swazi constitution.

Save The Children, a rights group in Swaziland, had already called the punishment

‘inhumane’ and ‘a crime’.

The 17-year-old student at Emtfonjeni High School had been given 22 strokes of the cane by

a male teacher, against the regulations laid down for the use of corporal punishment in

schools in the kingdom.

The student had been lashed because she continued to attend school even though her

unemployed parents had not paid fees.

A SWAGAA spokesperson Maureen Littlejohn said giving a child a 22 strokes punishment

for not paying school fees was wrong.

Littlejohn said the punishment broke the constitution which stated that children should not be

subjected to abuse or torture or other cruel inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment

subject to lawful and moderate chastisement for purposes of correction.

Littlejohn added, ‘The Convention on the Rights of the Child has recommended that

Swaziland consider, as a matter of priority, explicitly prohibiting by law corporal punishment

in all settings and conduct awareness-raising and educational campaigns to ensure that

alternative forms of discipline are used in a manner consistent with the child’s human

dignity. This is in line with international standards and should be the way forward.’

See also

INHUMANE THRASHING OF SCHOOLGIRL, 17

Swaziland: Striving for Freedom

Page 46

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Richard Rooney was associate professor at the University of Swaziland 2005 – 2008, where

he was also the founding head of the Journalism and Mass Communication Department.

He has taught in universities in Africa, Europe and the Pacific. His academic research which

specialises in media and their relationships to democracy, governance and human rights has

appeared in books and journals across the world.

His writing regularly appears in newspapers, magazines and on websites. He was a full-time

journalist in his native United Kingdom for 10 years, before becoming an academic.

He has published the blog Swazi Media Commentary since 2007 and also has other social

media sites that concentrate on human rights issues in Swaziland.

He holds a Ph.D in Communication from the University of Westminster, London, UK.

He presently teaches at the University of Botswana, Gaborone.

Swaziland: Striving for Freedom

Page 47

Publications from Swazi Media Commentary available online free-of-charge

BOOKS

2013. The beginning of the End? 2012, a year in the struggle for democracy in

Swaziland

This compilation of newsletters from Africa Contact in collaboration with Swazi Media

Commentary contains an assortment of news, analysis and comment covering the campaign

for freedom in Swaziland throughout 2012. These include the Global Action for Democracy

held in September; campaigns for democracy spearheaded by trade unions and students and

the continuing struggle for rights for women, children, gays and minority groups.

2012. The End of the Beginning? 2011, a year in the struggle for freedom in Swaziland

This book looks at activities in the freedom movement in 2011. It starts with a section on the

unsuccessful April 12 Uprising followed by separate chapters looking at events in each

month of 2011, including the Global Week of Action held in September. They also highlight

the numerous violations of rights suffered by the poor, by children, by women and by sexual

minorities, among others, in the kingdom.

2011. Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland.

This volume of pages from Swazi Media Commentary focuses on media freedom and

censorship. It starts with some overview articles that set out the general terrain, moving on to

look at repressive media laws. Other sections of this book relate the daily threats journalists

in Swaziland face when they want to report, but are not allowed to.

Swaziland: Striving for Freedom

Page 48

OCCASIONAL PAPERS SERIES

No. 1. 2013. Cynicism Eats Away at Swaziland Journalism: The state of Swazi

journalism, 2013

One thing that shines out about journalists and their editors in Swaziland is the deeply cynical

way they operate. Swazi journalists claim to be upholders of fine ethical traditions of honesty

and inquiry, but instead they are often publishing lies or playing with readers’ emotions to

boost company profits.

This article explores the state of newspaper journalism in Swaziland, a small kingdom in

Africa, ruled over by King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch. Editors

are deliberately misleading their readers by publishing material that is intended to provoke

controversy and reaction, even though they know it also contains lies. This is done in order to

boost profits for owners.

No. 2. 2013. Swaziland Broadcasting Not For The People

A review of broadcasting in Swaziland that demonstrates through research that radio in the

kingdom only serves the interests of King Mswati III and his intimate supporters. All other

voices are excluded from the airwaves.

The paper contrasts a ‘public broadcasting service’ with ‘public service broadcasting’ and

demonstrates that changes in the kingdom’s broadcasting cannot be made until it becomes a

democratic state.

No. 3. 2013. Swaziland Media Need Code of Conduct for Covering Elections

A review of how media have covered past elections in Swaziland highlighting a number of

areas for improvement. The paper includes a suggested code of ethical conduct that Swazi

journalists can adopt in order to improve performance.

Swaziland: Striving for Freedom

Page 49

Swazi Media Commentary

Containing information and commentary

about human rights in Swaziland

Click Here