The Swazi media are all too ready to toe the line when it comes to their relationship with government. This observation is contained in the latest annual report from the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA).
The report ‘So This is Democracy?’ says that when addressing editors in April 2006, the Swazi King commended the media for their ‘patriotism and maturity’ during a border blockade staged by the Congress of South African Trade Unions and banned political parties in an attempt to force political change in Swaziland. The media had joined trade unions in opposing the blockade. Later in the year the Swazi Prime Minister praised the media for a ‘job well done’.
The MISA report has got it about right, but there have been some exceptions. The truth is that media are not strong in Swaziland and find themselves in deep trouble if they voice criticism of the ruling elite, especially the King Mswati III. In March 2007 (a period not covered by the MISA report), The Times of Swaziland Group of Newspapers was forced into publishing an abject apology to King Mwasti III after the Times Sunday ran a news commentary sourced from the international news agency Afrol News in which the following appeared. ‘Swaziland is increasingly paralysed by poor governance, corruption and the private spending of authoritarian King Mswati III and his large royal family. The growing social crisis in the country and the lessening interest of donors to support King Mswati’s regime has also created escalating needs for social services beyond the scale of national budgets.’
Such open criticism of the king is not allowed in Swaziland (not even in so-called independent newspapers like the Times Sunday). On the Thursday following publication a front page ‘unreserved apology’ to the king was published on the front page of the Times of Swaziland (repeated in the following week’s Times Sunday). The apology signed by both the publisher and managing editor of the Times Group said the article ‘was disparaging to the person of His Majesty in its content, greatly embarrassed him and should not have passed editorial scrutiny.’
It went on, ‘Our newspapers take great care with matters regarding the monarch, being conscious always of the unbreakable link of the King with the Nation. What occurred is reprehensible and we will renew our vigilance in editorial matters with the utmost vigour.’
To make absolutely certain that there was no doubt of the newspaper group’s subservience to the King, it finished the apology, ‘Once again your Majesty, our sincere and humble apologies.’
This was not an isolated incident, but it is the most extreme in recent times. Sitting here at my keyboard I can think of many other recent cases of media suppression. There may be more, so apologies in advance for those I have missed.
May 2006
King Mswati III banned newspapers from writing about his wives without his permission, even while covering official events, after the Times Sunday interviewed one of his wives (with her consent) while she was sick in hospital. This was the second time in 12 months that the Swazi king gagged the media from reporting about royalty. It should be noted that this ban was not reported within Swaziland. This banning by the king simply continued a trend that had been operating since before the new constitution, for example, in 2005, the king ordered the media to stop writing about his lavish spending after newspapers published that he had purchased US$500,000 worth of luxurious vehicles for his 13 wives.
October 2006
Parliament ordered the Times of Swaziland to apologise for an opinion expressed in the newspaper that referred to a select committee that investigated the operations of the Swaziland Broadcasting and Information Service as a ‘kangaroo court’.
In an editorial the Times declined to apologize thus: ‘We are of the view that parliament has seriously been ill-advised by the select committee in its recommendation, which has not only caused the House to violate a constitution passed by itself, but also seeks to deny the author of the article his fundamental right to freedom of expression.’
November 2006
The Public Services and Information Minister S’gayoyo Magongo instructed Swazi TV to reinstate an employee the station wished to dismiss (Swazi TV complied with the instruction). In Parliament the minister said Section 75 of the constitution empowered him to do this as it charges ministers with responsibility ‘for the policy and general direction and control’ over their departments'.
December 2006
Members of the ruling elite in Swaziland resent the media when they public views that run contrary to its own. The Times of Swaziland came under attack a by a committee that was putting together a case to demand the return from neighbouring South Africa of land that Swaziland claimed belonged to it. At a press conference members of the committee including the chair Prince Khuzulwandle, a member of the Royal Family, criticised the newspaper for collecting views on the issue from members of the public. The response the newspaper received was hostile to the demand for restoration prompting the committee to question why the newspaper asked ordinary people instead of people who were knowledgeable on the subject.
The Times’ response (in an editorial in the newspaper) was to reassert its readers’ constitutional rights to freedom of speech.
March 2007
In one of the more bizarre examples of media restriction controversial church pastor Justice Dlamini threatened two journalists with death through divine intervention.
Dlamini (who incidentally writes a regular column in the Weekend Observer newspaper) shocked a church gathering, which also included cabinet ministers, when he declared from the pulpit that he was praying for the death of two journalists, Times of Swaziland managing editor Martin Dlamini and reporter Nhlanhla Mathunjwa, whom he claimed wrote badly about him.
This followed a story published by the Times of Swaziland in which the pastor was said to have been involved a squabble over a church vehicle with one of his subordinate pastors.
June 2007
The Minister for Health and Social Welfare, Njabulo Mabuza, banned health workers from talking to the media in response to a number of stories highlighting the impact of a critical drug shortage.
Workers were forbidden to have any type of communication, including interviews and casual or ‘indiscreet’ conversations, whether at clubs, hotels, bars or private parties. Journalists were also barred from Mbabane Government Hospital, the country's key medical facility, whose problems have been highlighted in the press. These problems were considered by the press to be typical of the wider crisis afflicting the healthcare system.
On 23 June, the Times of Swaziland experienced the effects of the Minister's censorship order when its photographer, Albert Masango, was denied access to the hospital. Hospital security harassed and pulled Masango out of the premises and carried him out to the gate.
Amid Masango's protestations, the security personnel stressed that, in accordance with a new ‘law’, permission had to be obtained from either the Minister or his Principal Secretary before the media would be allowed to cover anything inside the hospital.
An official at a health facility in the central town of Manzini was quoted by the IRIN news agency that the regulation barring health personnel from speaking with the media was not new. ‘In fact, it began three ministers ago, but it is now being enforced because of all the stories about deaths in government hospitals.
July 2007
The Swazi House of Assembly set up a select committee to investigate the editor of the Times Sunday following a comment piece the newspaper ran criticising the House Speaker for not allowing a debate to take place on possible amendments to the kingdom’s constitution. The House of Assembly said the editor was in contempt of Parliament. The editor, Mbongeni Mbingo faces a maximum two-year prison sentence if found guilty.
The MISA report, which looked at the year 2006, concluded that the media environment in Swaziland was worsening with the survival instincts of newspapers resulting in self-censorship and journalists shifting their focus to soft stories, involving mainly crime. The need for the media to unite and fight for their freedoms is greater than ever before.
No comments:
Post a Comment