MEDIA FREEDOM IN SWAZILAND

Monday (3 May 2010) is the UNESCO World Press Freedom Day where we stop and think about the state of the media in the world today.

This seems to me to be a good time to reflect on the past year or so in Swaziland. The Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) will soon be issuing its annual report on the lack of media freedom in Swaziland.

It will be the same old story of censorship, harassment and fear.

Here in advance of the MISA report, is an extract from the United States State Department report on human rights in Swaziland that was issued in March 2010.

I reproduce here the section on Freedom of Speech and Press ... every last depressing word.

The constitution provides for freedom of speech and of the press, but the king may waive these rights at his discretion, and the government restricted these rights during the year. Although no law bans criticism of the monarchy, the prime minister and other officials warned journalists that publishing such criticism could be construed as an act of sedition or treason, and media organizations were threatened with closure for criticizing the monarchy. The law empowers the government to ban publications if they are deemed "prejudicial or potentially prejudicial to the interests of defense, public safety, public order, public morality, or public health." Most journalists practiced self-censorship.

The king may suspend the constitutional right to free expression at his discretion, and the government severely restricted freedom of expression, especially regarding political issues or the royal family. Individuals--and family members of individuals--who criticized the monarchy risked exclusion from the traditional regiments (chiefdom-based groupings of Swazi males dedicated to serving the king) patronage system that distributed scholarships, land, and other benefits. Traditional chiefs were obliged to punish offenders when matters were brought to their attention. During the year the prime minister warned journalists against making statements that could be interpreted as seditious.

During the year the foreign minister criticized foreign diplomats for speaking publicly about political matters and warned that they were not to interfere in the internal affairs of the country.

There were two daily newspapers, the independent Times of Swaziland and the Swazi Observer, which was owned by the king's investment company, Tibiyo Taka Ngwane. Both newspapers criticized government corruption and inefficiency but generally avoided criticizing the royal family. The Ministry of Public Service and Information periodically published the Swaziland Today newspaper. Private companies and church groups owned several newsletters and magazines.

In November 2008 the attorney general warned that journalists who criticized the government could be viewed as supporting terrorists and arrested under the Suppression of Terrorism Act (see section 2.b.). Journalists continued to be threatened, harassed, and assaulted during the year.

For example, on January 12, after being pressured by police and government authorities, former cabinet minister and Times of Swaziland columnist Mfomfo Nkambule publicly apologized to the king for a series of articles that criticized the monarchy. Prime Minister Sibusiso Dlamini had threatened to charge Mfomfo Nkambule and other media commentators under the 2008 Suppression of Terrorism Act. Nkambule, who at one point had been ordered to buy between four and six cows as a fine to appease the king, reported in his newspaper column that failure to pay the fine could result in the eviction of his family from their homestead. On April 27, the Times of Swaziland stopped publishing Nkambule's articles.

Journalists were called to the offices of the king, prime minister, and senate subcommittee for their reporting on political events or the royal family.

For example, on May 12, a senate subcommittee summoned Times of Swaziland editor Mbongeni Mbingo and other journalists for reporting about a verbal exchange between Senate President Gelane Zwane and Senator Ndileka Dlamini. Senators advised journalists that internal parliamentary discussions were private and raised the possibility of charging journalists with contempt of parliament.

On June 30, at the George Tums Hotel in Manzini, organizers of an HIV/AIDS workshop ejected journalists covering the event after members of parliament (MPs) complained of the press presence. Parliamentarians cited an incident in which an MP was publicly embarrassed after papers headlined his statement that HIV/AIDS patients should be branded on their buttocks.

In August Prime Minister Dlamini reportedly threatened to close media outlets if they reported on an August royal trip abroad; there was no domestic coverage of the event. In August 2008 USDF soldiers assaulted Times of Swaziland journalists who were at the airport to cover the return of nine of the king's wives and their entourage from a lavish shopping spree abroad; soldiers also seized the journalists' cameras.

Journalists received anonymous telephone calls advising them not to pursue particular stories, and many of them complied. For example, freelance journalist and Times of Swaziland columnist Vusi Sibisi reported that he stopped writing after being told that a warrant for his arrest had been issued due to his articles that criticized the government and the monarchy.

Unlike in previous years, defamation laws were not used to restrict the press.

In March 2008 Speaker of the House Guduza, a brother of the king, sued the Times of Swaziland for two million emalangeni ($270,000) for articles it published about his involvement with a company that allegedly illegally imported cigarettes worth 17 million emalangeni (approximately $2.3 million). The case had not gone to trial by year's end.

In February 2008 the High Court awarded MP Marwick Khumalo a default judgment of 120,000 emalangeni ($16,200); in July 2007 Khumalo had sued Bheki Makhubu, the editor of the private Nation magazine, for defamation after Makhubu wrote an article accusing Khumalo of corruption. However, on February 22, the High Court granted the Nation magazine an order for stay of execution, and the case remained pending at year's end.

The March 2007 defamation suit filed by MP Maqhawe Mavuso against the Swazi Observer newspaper remained pending at year's end; the Observer had included Mavuso's name in an article about an alleged assault.

There was one government-owned radio station and one independent radio station that broadcast religious programs and public information programs on issues such as HIV/AIDS; however, the government generally restricted media content, especially on government television and radio. There was one privately owned television station; however, the owner's mother was a daughter of the previous king, Sobhuza II, and the station's reporting favored the monarchy. The government-owned Swaziland Television Authority and radio stations were the most influential media in reaching the public, but neither generally broadcast news about antigovernment demonstrations or criticism by "progressives." Government broadcast facilities retransmitted some Voice of America and BBC news programs in their entirety.

Consumers freely purchased and used satellite dishes to receive signals and programming from independent South African and other international service providers.

Internet Freedom

There were no government restrictions on access to the Internet or reports that the government monitored e-mail or Internet chatrooms. Individuals and groups could engage in the peaceful expression of views via the Internet, including by e-mail. Internet cafes existed in larger urban areas, but most citizens lived in rural areas. An estimated 4.1 percent of inhabitants used the Internet, according to International Telecommunication Union statistics for 2008.