SWAZI PM IS KIDDING ON FREEDOMS

Who does Barnabas Dlamini, Swaziland’s illegally-appointed prime minister, think he’s kidding when he says he encourages freedom of speech in the kingdom ‘to an extent that many countries in the world cannot match?’

Dlamini, appointed by King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch, also said he and his government respected freedom of association.

Dlamini made his comments in a speech to Swaziland’s House of Assembly, where most of his cabinet members are not elected and in a kingdom where all political parties are banned.

Dlamini gave the game away a bit when he told parliamentarians, ‘We encourage freedom of speech to an extent that many countries in the world cannot match. But where such speech corrupts or incites violence or civil disorder, our government will act to stop it. We owe that to the peaceful members of our society, who represent by far the majority.

‘The same applies to freedom to associate. We respect that, except where violence is anticipated. Then we must intervene to protect the innocent in our society, which is our priority.’

There is precious little freedom of speech or freedom of association in Swaziland, even though the Swazi Constitution that came into force in 2005 guarantees both.

For readers with short memories, here are some of the recent happenings in Swaziland where Dlamini ‘encourages’ freedom of speech and association.

Mario Masuku, president of the banned People’s United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO) is sick in jail awaiting trial for things he allegedly said in a speech in November 2008.

Former cabinet minister Mfomfo Nkhambule has been sacked from his local regiment and threatened with jail by Swazi police for writing a series of articles in the kingdom’s only independent daily newspaper the Times of Swaziland criticising the undemocratic political system and the role King Mswati plays in it.

The Swaziland chapter of the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) says freedom of speech is under attack in the kingdom like never before. It issued 15 ‘alerts’ about violations of media freedom in the first two months of this year (2009); it said it wouldn’t usually expect to issue 15 alerts in a whole year. According to MISA, the violations were mainly around harassment of journalists, censorship, intimidation and assault of media persons.

In February 2009, the government threatened to charge with sedition anyone who criticized the state of the nation address delivered by the King. This followed a number of statements by media commentators that the King’s speech was stale and lacked substance.

Amnesty International and the International Bar Association are to launch a campaign to highlight the lack of human rights in Swaziland. The two organisations want Swaziland’s Suppression of Terrorism Act (STA) amended or repealed so that it is in line with accepted human rights laws.

In March 2009, Dlamini announced that civil servants and others who are paid by the government will be sacked from their jobs if they speak out in favour of democracy. This is the latest move by Dlamini to silence dissent in Swaziland, which last year he introduced the STA, which is widely seen as a law to curb freedom of speech and association. He has also branded four political entities as ‘terrorists’ and members and supporters can face up to 25 years in jail.

Leaders of the Swaziland Youth Congress (SWAYOCO) have been harassed by police and a rally at the end of February intended in support of jailed Mario Masuku was smashed by police.

The US State Department in its annual review of human rights in Swaziland found the Swaziland Government restricted freedoms of speech and the press during the past year and banned the publication of criticism of King Mswati. The report stated, ‘During the year the attorney general and the prime minister warned journalists and diplomats against making statements that could be interpreted as seditious. After the arrest in November of Mario Masuku, President of the People’s United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO), several civic organizations, including the Council of Swaziland Churches and the Law Society, published notices in daily papers alerting the king to their concern about the ‘selective implementation of the country's constitution’. The State Department notes that journalists were threatened, harassed, assaulted, and detained during the year, particularly after Attorney General Majahenkhaba Dlamini warned in November 2008 that journalists who criticized the government could be viewed as supporting terrorists and be arrested under the Suppression of Terrorism Act.

So, Mr Prime Minister who do you think you’re kidding? And could you also please supply a list of those countries that you say ‘cannot match’ the levels of freedom enjoyed in Swaziland?

SWAZILAND DEMOCRAT SICK IN JAIL

Swazi democrat Mario Masuku is suffering ill health in jail as he awaits trial on terrorism charges.

Masuku, who suffers from diabetes, needs weekly medical treatment, but authorities at Matsapha Maximum Security Prison are refusing him help.

According to a report on the Swaziland Solidarity Network (SSN) Forum, Masuku has constant blackouts because his diet is not monitored and he is not provided with snacks between meals to deal with his medical condition.

He also has tooth problems and has requested to be seen by a dentist, but this request has also been refused by the prison authorities.

Despite ill health, Masuku, who was arrested in November 2008 on charges under the Suppression of Terrorism Act, is reported to be determined and strong.

Masulu, president of the banned Peoples’ United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO), said he refused to ask for bail because he knows the state uses bail to keep dissidents in perpetual bondage outside prison. ‘They will give me bail at an exorbitant fee with difficult conditions such as taking my passport and to report at the police station twice a week. They will not take the case to trial for many years making me a prisoner in the street. Let them try me and prove my innocence in court. I haven't committed any offence but I have spoken for the rights of my people,’ he said.

Masuku also spoke out against Barnabas Dlamini, Swaziland’s illegally-appointed prime minister, who said that supporters of political organisations will be dismissed from public sector employment.

Masuku called upon trade unions in Swaziland and the world to come to the support of those affected. ‘This is an infringement of the freedom of association as a basic human right enshrined in the UN Universal Declaration of Rights,’ he said.

SUPPORT FOR SWAZILAND KING EBBS

Does anyone on the international stage still support Swaziland’s King Mswati III?

I ask the question following news that leaders of South Africa’s ruling party, the African National Congress (ANC), have come out against the undemocratic regime in Swaziland, including the king.

King Mswati, sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch, rules his subjects with an iron fist. Political parties are banned and he makes all the important decisions in Swaziland. Last year he unconstitutionally appointed Barnabas Dlamini as prime minister and most of his cabinet ministers are not elected.

Jesse Duarte, spokesperson for ANC told a seminar hosted by the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) at its headquarters in Braamfontein that the ANC does not support King Mswati.

According to Swaziland’s independent newspaper, the Times Sunday, Duarte is not the only member of the ANC to have criticised Swaziland’s system of governance. Other members of the ANC have expressed similar sentiments in the past. In one instance, ANC members participated in a well attended march against the king during a Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) meeting in Sandton, in 2008.

Although the ANC is South Africa’s ruling party and is expected to comfortably win the forthcoming elections in that country we shouldn’t expect any change in policy soon. I have always believed that if South Africa wanted regime change in Swaziland it could achieve it with the click of a finger. Although Swaziland is politically ‘independent’ it is in effect an economic province of South Africa, sharing a common foreign exchange rate among other economic matters.

If South Africa were to impose trade sanctions on Swaziland, the kingdom would fold inside a month. Those people who presently uphold King Mswati’s despotism would abandon him the moment it became clear the king had to be removed and political form enacted to save the kingdom.

Although King Mswati remains in power he is discredited. As the US State Department in its annual review of human rights in Swaziland noted earlier this year, ‘Government agents continued to commit or condone serious abuses, and the human rights situation in the country deteriorated. Human rights problems included inability of citizens to change their government; extrajudicial killings by security forces; mob killings; police use of torture, beatings, and excessive force on detainees; police impunity; arbitrary arrests and lengthy pretrial detention; arbitrary interference with privacy and home; restrictions on freedoms of speech and press and harassment of journalists; restrictions on freedoms of assembly, association, and movement; prohibitions on political activity and harassment of political activists; discrimination and violence against women; child abuse; trafficking in persons; societal discrimination against mixed race and white citizens; and harassment of labor leaders, restrictions on worker rights, and child labor.’

When you read a list like that it makes you yearn for the ANC to pull the plug on King Mswati right now.

SWAZILAND TO REVIEW CONSTITUTION

Swaziland’s illegally-appointed prime minister, Barnabas Dlamini says his government is to ‘review’ the Swazi Constitution.

He told the Swazi House of Assembly the constitution which came into effect in 2005 was ‘a newly-crafted document defining the principles by which the state will operate’.

He said the review would take place sometime over the next four years.

Unfortunately, he didn’t say why the review was needed or what process would be used.

There is reason to be pessimistic since Dlamini’s government has little respect for the constitution. Dlamini was himself unconstitutionally appointed prime minister by King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch. Most of the government was also appointed illegally.

Earlier this month, the Swazi High Court ruled that the government was in breach of the constitution by not providing free primary schooling for all children in Swaziland.

I suspect the general principle of a review of the constitution will be welcomed by democrats. In November 2008, following the elections, the Commonwealth Expert Team called for a review

because the elections were not credible since political parties were banned in Swaziland.

It said that the review ‘should be carried out through a process of full consultation with Swazi political organisations and civil society (possibly with the support of constitutional experts).’

There was also very little credibility in the way in which the constitution was originally drawn up. King Mswati invited the International Bar Association (IBA) to review the first draft of the constitution and the IBA’s verdict was damning.

The report called the constitution ‘flawed’ and went so far as to cite one critic who called the constitution ‘a fraud.’

One of the IBA’s main conclusions was that the ‘position and powers’ of some ‘stakeholders’ in Swaziland, ‘including the Monarchy’ are in effect ‘actually placed above the Constitution and its principles’.

The IBA said that the judiciary and NGOs were not allowed to contribute to the drafting process and individual Swazi people were interviewed in the presence of their chiefs. As a result the ‘overwhelming’ majority wanted the King to keep all his powers and wanted the position of traditional advisers to the King to be strengthened. They also wanted Swazi customs to have supremacy over any international rights obligations.

Considering how the ‘consultation’ of the Swazi people was conducted it is no surprise they reached this conclusion.

Now we must wait to see how Barnabas Dlamini proposes to conduct the constitutional review. If he is serious that the kingdom needs a legitimate constitution he must allow everyone who wants to take part in a truly open and transparent process. Then we’ll really see how many Swazis want the present set up.