The workers in Swaziland in collaboration with various civil political organisations will be petitioning the South African and US embassies tomorrow 1 June.
The petition is asking the representatives of these governments to stop supporting and shielding the Tinkhundla government. Please do not bail this corrupt and illegitimate system.
They have total destroyed and bankrupted the country. These people must be forced to resigned. Swaziland needs a clean transitional arrangement made up of honest men and woman; accountable until a political solution is found to the courses of the financial crises.
The crisis is due to financial mismanagement, endemic corruption, wrong priorities, lack of public participation and accountability in the Tinkhundla system of government.
The Swaziland forces' shoot-to-kill policy continues unabated. Three unarmed South African men were shot dead by Swazi soldiers when they were caught trying to smuggle four cows from Swaziland into the Republic.
They were killed at different spots along the very bushy and dense Sivule borderline, the Times Sundayreported.
Khanya Dlamini, PRO for Umbutfo Swaziland Defence Force (USDF), told the newspaper that the men were shot because they did not heed to army officers’ instructions not to move. They instead tried to flee. ‘The officers, from the Sivule Army Camp, first identified themselves before ordering them to halt, which is procedural.
‘Normally, when this happens you have to stop whatever you are doing and if you do not, then there’s a chance that you could be shot. This was what happened to the three,’ he said.
Or put another way: the soldiers shot three unarmed men in cold blood. They were not dangerous and they were accused of committing a relatively trivial offence.
The spokesperson said army officers were trained to open fire if a suspect continued to make movements, more especially at night along the borderline, which is a serious danger zone. This is because crime suspects operating along borderlines at night are known to return fire with fire.
Dlamini added that the officers were not about to put themselves in danger because they had no idea whether or not the three men carried weapons of some sort.
Had the men heeded the soldiers’ command, they would have been arrested and taken to the nearest police station. He believes they would be alive today.
Dlamini said the rustlers’ refusal to surrender only led to their sudden death. He emphasised the importance of not making a move if one has been ordered by army officers to stop. Failure to do so was dangerous and could lead to being shot.
Or put another way: the army has a shoot first – ask questions later policy: AKA a shoot-to-kill policy.
This killing is not an isolated incident in Swaziland, where police have been involved in a number of controversial shootings.
Last week it was reported police shot dead a man who was tending his dagga field and then planted a bullet in his underwear.
In October 2010, a suspect was shot six times even though he was handcuffed. Police said he was trying to escape.
In March 2010, police shot a man in cold blood who was trying to surrender to them.
In January 2010, Swazi policeman shot dead a man and critically wounded another when they shot at a car that failed to stop when they instructed.
Also in January 2010, police gunned down three men in cold blood. A man police claimed was shot while running away from them was later found to have bullet wounds in the front of his body.
Now we know why Barnabas Dlamini, Swaziland’s illegally-appointed Prime Minister, was so keen to block publication of the report into his corrupt land dealings.
Dlamini was back and forth to the Swazi High Court over the past few days to make sure the House of Assembly didn’t reveal the contents of a select committee investigation into the purchase of government land at knock-down prices to Dlamini, a slew of other cabinet ministers, and other high-ranking government officials.
The High Court backed Dlamini but the House of Assembly ignored its ruling and tabled and discussed the report yesterday (30 May 2011).
And here’s why Dlamini was so keen on secrecy. The select committee report described the conduct of Lindiwe Dlamini, Minister of Housing and Urban Development, in the deals as corrupt and treasonous.
The report states that the authority for land deals was unconstitutionally taken away from the King’s Office, by Lindiwe Dlamini.
‘The act of the minister was not only unconstitutional but also seriously undermined the authority and sovereignty of the office of the Ingwenyama [theking] and was therefore treasonous.’
It goes on, ‘Even the Crown Land Disposal Regulations of 2003 were not complied with, which is a factor that justifies a conclusion that the conduct of the minister was in fact corrupt.’
The Swazi Observerreported today that Lindiwe Dlamini has been called to resign with immediate effect or the House would pass a vote of no confidence on her.
The Times of Swaziland reported that the select committee called on King Mswati III to dismiss the Prime Minister and the entire cabinet.
Below are the findings of the select committee chaired by Khubuta MP Charles Myeza, as reported by the Observer:
1.That the minister for housing and urban development acted unconstitutionally and with total disregard of the Crown Land Disposal regulations of 2003, which were promulgated in line with the provisions of the Crown Land Disposal Act of 1911.
2.That the plots listed were allocated to the following ministers:
n Prime minister : Lot 1082 of farm 2 measuring 6084 square metres.
n Deputy prime minister: Lot 872 of Farm 2 measuring 1 1362 hectares
n Minister of natural resources and energy: Lot 1081 of Farm 2 measuring 5 004 square metres.
n Minister of home affairs: Lot 1087 of farm 2 measuring 2 6307 square metres.
n Minister of economic planning and development: Lot 1088 of Farm 2 measuring 3 149 square metres.
n Minister of agriculture: Lot 1089 of Farm 2 measuring 2695 square metres.
3.That the decision to apportion Crown Land to the ministers was a cabinet decision: a decision that did not detail the procedure of how this land was going to be apportioned. The minster of housing and urban development was directed to facilitate that cabinet ministers get Crown land for their personal use.
4.That the Land Management Board’s initial directive to the land transactions was not honoured until much later, when the minister for housing and urban development acted as a result of authoritative pressure.
5.That only Lot 1087 has been transferred and registered in the name of Chief Mgwagwa Gamedze. The remaining plots had not been registered at the time of this enquiry.
6. that the argument by government on the absence of a law that operationalises the Land Management Board (LMB) is misplaced and irrelevant because the constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land that supersedes any other law, after all, it is the duty of the very same government to promulgate laws that would operationalise the LMB, not unless it is conceding failure on its part.
7. That the issue of apportioning land to some cabinet ministers was discussed in two forms. The first one was a concern on the inappropriateness of the accommodation of the prime minister at government house; and also the deputy prime minister who had no official accommodation at the time. The second one was when the minister of housing and urban development invited other cabinet ministers who wanted crown land to forward their applications.
8. That the cabinet ministers concerned used their positions to gain unfair advantage over other Swazis who had applied for the land many years ago, by-passing the Crown Land Disposal Committee in the process.
9. Several ministers did not take up the offer of land allocations for various reasons. Some stated that they were very sceptical with the manner in which the whole deal has been handled; some indicated that they were yet to file applications; whereas some did not need to purchase because they did not need the land.
One minister actually stated that, based on his past experience at cabinet and as a matter of personal principle, the whole deal of land allocations to ministers was irregular.
10. that the land in question is un-serviced land and this is illegal
11. That the valuation report for portion 1081 for Farm No. 2 Hhohho District (5004 square metres) apportioned to Princess Tsandzile, incumbent Minister for Natural Resources and Energy and a valuation report for portion 1082 of Farm No.2 Hhohho district (6 084 square metres) apportioned to Prime Minister Sibusiso Dlamini could not be traced by government senior property valuer from the official files.
12. That the prime minister has a copy of a valuation report of portions 1081 and 1082 signed R. Kalima (Former Senior Property Valuer) and the value of portion 1082 is E304 000.
Portion 1081 was valued at E250 000. Efforts by the current Senior Property Valuer, M.S Mpila, acting on instruction from the Committee to get hold of R. Kalima proved futile as he flatly refused to state where he was. What is noteworthy about him is that he erased everything in the computer he was using and the valuation report is not in the file as per the procedure.
13. That the current Senior Property Valuer, after being sent by the Committee to re-value all the plots, particularly Portion 1081 and 1082 of Farm 2 Hhohho District, submitted that the values of the properties as of Monday, 28th march 2011:
Portion 1081 of Farm No.2 Hhohho District:
Five Hundred and Fifty Thousand Emalangeni (E550 000)
Portion 1082 of Farm No.2 Hhohho District:
Six Hundred and Sixty nine thousand Emalangeni (E669 000)
This shows that the prime minister and the minister for natural resources and energy bought the land at ridiculously low prices. The most disturbing aspect is that the prime minister was awarded the certificate to develop his portion and designs approved without having paid for the plot and records show that he only did so on February, 22 2011, long after the Select Committee was appointed.
14. That the current administration has no respect for the constitution, as there are many laws that deal with land issues and until now they have not been aligned with the constitution.
15. That the Attorney General was never consulted on this land deal.
16. That the allocation of land to ministers through a cabinet decision was unlawful and it smacks of an element of personal aggrandisement since such action is not supported by any legal instrument. Receiving a housing allowance on the one hand and on the other hand apportioning crown land to oneself, is tantamount to theft of State property.
17. That the argument of accommodation being used as the driver to acquire crown land by ministers is dubious and baseless because they enjoy lucrative housing allowances good enough to acquire suitable and befitting houses for rent. There is not a single submission made by any minister to the fact that they ran short of houses for rent.
18. That there is neither a government policy nor a provision in the Circular No.1 of 2010, wherein it is stipulated that ministers will be allocated or apportioned crown land in the event they ran short of accommodation.
Since the circular is the only legal instrument that makes provision for salaries, benefits and allowances for politicians, including ministers, therefore, encroaching into other areas not covered by the said document is not only wrong but mischievous.
19. That the prime minister paid for the land on the 22nd of February 2011 exactly seven (7) days after he had received an invitation (in a letter dated 15 February) to appear before the Select Committee. He was scheduled to appear before the Committee on Friday 25th February 2011.
20. That, as a custodian of State assets and property, by virtue of its position in government, cabinet had no legal right to take a collective decision on the allocation of land to ministers, even worse, that in the process it violated the Constitution, 2005.
21. That, as of emulating the actions of their seniors, the Committee discovered that some members of staff at the City Council also helped themselves to pieces of land around the same time without adhering to legal procedures.
22. The Committee, during its deliberations, discovered that there were numerous irregularities that took place in the past, before the constitution was enacted and even after it had taken effect. However, the Committee’s mandate was confined to the terms of reference as directed by the House. It is the Committee’s considered view that not much time should elapse without this area being re-visited.
The CC of the CPS notes with concern the rapidly deteriorating economic situation in Swaziland.
Recently, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) sent another of its missions to Swaziland to try to put the Mswati autocracy on track to getting a cash bailout to try to stave off its financial meltdown.
The IMF mission revealed that the government has only about a month of spending power left. And it issued stern warnings and rebukes to the king’s puppet Prime Minister [Barnabas] Sibusiso Dlamini about the government’s failure to change its wasteful spending habits.
The CPS has no affection for the IMF, as it is only keen to hamstring developing poor countries through indebtedness and force them to favour capitalist privatisation at the expense of human development.
In Swaziland the IMF recognises a country on the brink of collapse, and the Fund is unwilling to contemplate supporting a loan to Mswati’s regime. Swaziland is a bad bet for the time being. But the IMF would like to turn things around and see Swaziland receive its money (or through the African Development Bank). This would give the IMF a greater foothold in the country to pursue its support for the expansion of private capital and ownership.
This is a strategy the fund, as one branch of the treasury of imperialism, applies wherever it uses loans. It is one mechanism in expanding and entrenching capitalism, and in rolling back pro-poor strategies run as integrated government programmes.
The IMF is correct to point out the hopelessness of the situation in Swaziland. It is also correct when it says that bold steps are needed to tackle the situation. The Fund was too scared to openly attack the massive waste of money and resources in Swaziland on sustaining the Mswati royal household – even though this spending is one of the main reasons the country is in such a mess. But the IMF did indirectly propose that the government should use royal-owned companies to raise cash.
Clearly, the IMF does not want to rock the political boat in Swaziland. It fears any form of popular uprising that might disrupt the chances of creating a space for capitalism to once again flourish under the autocracy. Together with other imperialist interests, it would like to see Swaziland have a more liberal-democratic face that would give capitalism an easier ride.
The CPS warns that IMF designs on Swaziland are inherently harmful and against the interests of the Swazi people. The Fund has no interest in the development of the country, of having a government able to bring about a planned reconstruction of our country. The fund cares nothing for the 70% poverty levels that afflict our country or that the 26% HIV-AIDS rate has already destroyed much of the productive capacity and potential of our population. The IMF is no friend of the Swazi people. It is a harmful and potentially disastrous influence. As elsewhere in the world, it is only interested in securing investments through its loans and promoting capitalist exploitation.
The pro-democracy movement must use the financial crisis in Swaziland as a crucial lever to bring down the Mswati regime. The crisis and bankruptcy of the government offer an improved environment to turn popular protests into more strategic action. The crisis is causing our people hardship, but we must show that that it represents a point of change, a great opportunity to force the government out and to strip the king and the royal household of all their powers.
The CPS calls for concerted strategic planning and action by the broad pro-democracy movement, especially PUDEMO and the trade union movement, to exacerbate the crisis of the regime.
The CPS is devoting all its energy to mobilising its growing membership on the ground in Swaziland and its allies inside and outside the country to force the direction of the crisis. All action and planning must be geared towards reaching a point of change that will benefit the workers and poor – the majority of our country – by creating a democratic dispensation that puts their interests first.
We call for the resignation of the government, the stripping of all executive and judicial power from the monarch, and the formation of an interim government drawn from all democratic and progressive forces to plan the creation of a democratic dispensation. This will be the start of Swaziland’s national democratic revolution.
The Mswati regime is morally, politically and financially bankrupt. We must sweep it aside.
