SWAZILAND P.M MEETS THE PRESS

Swaziland Coalition of Concerned Civic Organisations (SCCCO) Commentary on the Prime Minister’s First Meeting with the News Editors - 31 January 2009

The Swaziland Coalition of Concerned Civic Organisations welcomes Prime Minister Barnabas Sibusiso Dlamini’s commitment to continuing with his predecessor’s innovation of monthly meetings with the media. Such open access to the PM for the media is welcome as it allows the readers, viewers and listeners to closely examine the vision that the PM has for the government and the country and also manner in which he approaches problems and their solutions.

Assuming that the reports in the Media are accurate then the Coalition would like to make observations on the following issues covered.

‘Holistic’ Readings of the Constitution

The Meaning of Free Education

The attempts at influencing the press and the diplomatic corps

The government’s disregard for International Human Rights Norms

The use of Performance Incentives for Cabinet Minsters

We will take each of them in turn.

‘Holistic’ Readings of the Constitution

The Prime Minister has said that, like the Bible, the Constitution must be read as a whole, and that one cannot look at one section without taking into account other relevant sections. We agree. However, he seems not to have taken his own advice and selectively quoted from the Constitution when dealing with the government’s strict duty to provide free education under section 29 (6).

“Every Swazi child shall within three years of the commencement of this Constitution

have the right to free education in public schools at least up to the end of primary school,

beginning with the first grade.”

He referred to section 60 (8) of the constitution which says

“Without compromising quality the State shall promote free and compulsory basic

education for all...”

The PM, and Minister Ntshangase, seem to think that that in some way this takes away the force of s 29(6).

Of course this is a very selective and not at all ‘holistic’ reading of the Constitution. The right to free education comes under Section 3 of the Constitution. This is more commonly known as the Bill of Rights and the duties under that section can be enforced by a court. The section the Prime Minister relies (60) on is not under the Bill of Rights but the Directive Principles that are not subject to review by a court as s 56 (3) says

“The provisions of sections 57 to 63 inclusive are not enforceable in any court or tribunal.”

It must be obvious that there is a hierarchy of duties. Some are answerable in court and some are not. The strict duty to provide free education is not taken away by s 60. The proper interpretation is that free education remains a duty that the courts can force the government to abide by. If the drafters of the constitution wanted it any other way they would have put the right to free education in Chapter Five not in the Bill of Rights. Therefore the right to free education is actionable - however the quality is not.

So we agree with the Prime Minister when he says that a holistic reading of the Constitution will cast the proper light on the situation. We now hope that the holistic constitutional position of the duty to provide Free Primary Education is now clear.

The Meaning of Free Education

In reports from the day and from Minster Ntshangase earlier in the week say that there is not a common definition of what “Free” Education is. This may be so, but the Coalition would like to examine the problem from another angle.

If a parent has to pay money to a school (or the government) so that their child can be taught the normal curriculum in that school, then it cannot be called free education.

Any formulation of ‘Free’ that the government comes up with must pass this simple test.

The Suppression of Terrorism Act.

It has been commonly agreed by Parliamentarians (Observer 27/11) that were present at the time that the Suppression of Terrorism Bill was rushed through Parliament and that they were pressurised into voting it onto the Statute Book without amendment so that the safety of the international visitors for the 40/40 celebrations could be guaranteed.

On 14th and 15th of November the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister when speaking at separate occasions both undertook to review the Act.

An internationally respected panel of Human Rights Lawyers carefully analysed the Act and set out the problems with the Act in a long and detailed report that also called for a substantial review of the Act. The report set out in objective detail the shortcomings of the act in terms of balancing the provisions of the security of Swaziland against human and civil rights. The advice is based on the understanding that the best defence against terrorism is democracy and the enjoyment of human rights and any limitations to these must be measured, reasonable and proportionate.

The government’s response did not deal with any of these more important points of the report but relied on bluster, confusion and non existent international pressure. At no time has the Government explained what considerations it gave to Human Rights or the UN codes of Good Practice. It does quote the Commonwealth Models that were finalised in 2002, only one year after 9/11 but nothing after that.

It seems that the Prime Minister has not heeded any of the internal or external criticisms of the Act, nor does he seem to be interested in reviewing it at all now.

The Prime Minister’s assertions that the banning of the four organisations means that they are dead and should be ignored by the press and the diplomatic corps shows how far short this government is in understanding what a Bill of Rights is and how it protects the rights of ordinary people. The impossibly vague wording of the Act means that no one can be certain what it means and so the government’s understanding is only one of many interpretations of the Act. In a democracy, when the press does its job of reporting newsworthy events it cannot be said to be supporting terrorism or terrorist activities. Only a government hell bent on shackling freedom of expression or muzzling political dissent would define it so. Remember, every word of Osama Bin Laden’s statements is carried by the Western media that he has sworn to destroy. Why? So that his words and thoughts can be held up to public scrutiny. That is the right and the duty of the media in a democratic nation.

It seems that this government is doing exactly what is said it would not do. Using the Suppression of Terrorism Bill to target individuals and to silence and stigmatise legitimate dissent. As President Obama said in his inaguration speech: “To those who cling to power through ... the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history”

Diplomatic Immunity?

Equally, the most recent attempt at interfering with the proper function of the diplomatic community shows a deep misunderstanding of the modern role of diplomats. They are not only messengers for their governments but also representatives of their people, and the values that their systems of government stand for. It is now properly professional diplomatic good practice for diplomats to talk directly to citizens, civil society and political representatives and not just government officials. Minister Lutfo and the PM would be well advised to study ‘A Diplomat’s Handbook for Democracy Development Support’ that can be found at www.diplomatshandbook.org to get a better understanding of the role of the modern Diplomatic Community in the post cold war and post 9/11 era. The implied threat of throwing diplomats into jail and ‘pinching’ them while questioning them is extremely worrying and, of course, if it occurred, would be a gross violation of International Law.

Performance Targets for Ministers.

The Coalition and the whole of the country welcomes the emphasis that the PM is putting on improving the service delivery of government departments. However, there are concerns that the method of delivery of using crude performance targets may turn out to be counter-productive. Especially if they are linked to job security. There will be an inevitable temptation to cut corners, bend good governance rules and ignore inconvenient laws in order to meet these targets. Instead of rooting out corruption there is the possibility that this action could make the situation worse. We do welcome this initiative but urge caution in the choice of targets and their method of assessment.

Conclusion

In summary, the reports of the PMs first meeting with the editors show a tendency to bend the facts and respect for the rule or law for political and operational expediency. Given that the defining event of his last term in office was a rule of law crisis that ended up with the mass resignation of the Justices of the Supreme Court, we wonder what lessons the PM has reflected on in the past five years to prevent such a crisis happening again.

Swaziland Coalition of Concerned Civic Organisations

See also

SWAZI P.M. AND FREE SPEECH FARCE