YOU READ IT FIRST ON FACEBOOK

People in Swaziland are bypassing the ‘official’ media in the kingdom and using Facebook to expose the behaviour of members of the ruling elite.

Yesterday (31 January 2011), the Facebook site, Umgosi Eswatini: The Real Staff, reported that King Mswati III’s ‘principle financial and investment advisor’, Sthofeni Ginindza, Chief Executive of African Alliance Swaziland, was responsible for the breakup of the marriage of Nelisiwe Shongwe, Swaziland’s Minister for Information, Communication and Technology and her husband Petros Shongwe, a former banker.

Nelisiwe Shongwe was discovered by her husband kissing with Ginindza in a car.

Umgosi Eswatini reports, ‘The Minister stepped out of Ginindza’s car and he sped off. That was the beginning of fists and kicks meted out by the angry husband on his wife the minister who has since left their marital home and relocated to her parental home.’

It goes on, ‘She has, however, secured herself an apartment in the capital city, Mbabane, which she is yet to furnish.’

Last August (2010), Nelisiwe Shongwe told the Swazi Senate that the government was looking at ways to control what people in Swaziland could access on the Internet. Now, we know why. I suppose she will redouble her efforts after this revelation.

There is a twist to this story. The Swazi Observer, the newspaper in effect owned and edited by King Mswati, reported today (1 February 2011) that, ‘Social networking site Facebook was abuzz yesterday afternoon with shocking revelations of a minister who was allegedly caught by her husband kissing and fondling with a well-known businessman and socialite.

‘The names of the two are splashed all over the social networking site, but will not be printed [in this newspaper] for ethical reasons.’ It goes on to name precisely which Facebook site it is that makes the ‘shocking revelations’.

Why the Observer thinks it is OK to tell its readers where the allegations may be found on the Internet, but unethical for it to publish the names of the couple involved itself is beyond me.

Perhaps, it’s not ‘ethics’ that we should be thinking about here, but ‘hypocrisy’.