A constitutional crisis may be looming in Swaziland after
the House of Assembly voted to sack the Government.
The Swazi Constitution of 2005 requires King
Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch, to comply with the
vote, but expectations are that he will not do so. Reports from the kingdom
suggest that he has been in talks with advisers to find a way to ignore the
vote and allow the government he personally handpicked to remain in power.
His supporters have been deliberately confusing people
about the validity and significance of the vote, especially as it relates to
the Constitution, so here is a summary of what has been happening this week and
what the Constitution really says on this issue.
On Wednesday (3 October 2012) the House of Assembly
passed a vote of no confidence in the Government with 42 members in favour, six
against and two abstentions. This total was more than the three-fifths of all
members of the House required for S68 (5) of the Constitution of 2005 to kick
in.
This clearly states that where a resolution of no
confidence is passed on the Cabinet by three-fifths of all members of the House
the King ‘shall dissolve Cabinet’.
There is a slight complication, however, because S134 (5)
(b) of the same Constitution also states, ‘where the House passes a resolution
of no confidence in the Government of Swaziland and the Prime Minister does not
within three days after that resolution resign, the King may dissolve
Parliament or Cabinet.’
This goes further than S68 (5). It gives the King the
option to not only sack the Government but also the entire Parliament.
But, it is clear that the House of Assembly in its vote
this week never intended for the whole of Parliament to be sent home, so the
King’s choice in this case is clear: sack the Cabinet but not Parliament.
S134 also allows a three-day period in which the sacked
government can honourably resign and clear its collective desk. In the present
situation Prime Minister Barnabas Dlamini made it clear from the moment the
no-confidence vote passed that he had no intention of resigning. The three days
deadline has now passed so there is no reason for further delay on the part of
the King.
Supporters of the Government have been trying to suggest
that the House of Assembly vote is invalid because the vote of the House alone is
not enough to sack the government: the Senate must also vote. This is not the
case. Sections 94 and 95 of the Constitution clearly differentiate between the
roles of the Senate and the House of Assembly. Both S68 and S134 when dealing
with votes of no-confidence clearly state it is the vote of the House of
Assembly that counts. So, in the present situation, the Senate has no say.
The Swaziland Government’s Attorney-General Majahenkhaba
Dlamini claimed the vote was invalid because members of the House had censured
the Government over its handling of the telecoms parastatal SPTC, when courts
had already ruled on the matter - and forced the government's hand. Thereby, he argues,
the Cabinet has done no wrong.
Others, including the Swaziland Coalition of ConcernedCivic Organisations and the Constituent Assembly, say the House of Assembly was
not only commenting on the telecommunications industrial issues but on the
underperformance of the Cabinet and government as a whole.
In reality, it does not matter what were the motives of
members of the House when passing the vote. The fact alone that the motion has
been passed is all that matters when considering the present Constitutional
position.
So what happens now? If King Mswati really believes in
democracy as he says he does, then he must follow the Constitution and sack the
Prime Minister and Cabinet.
But, that will not be an end to the crisis. In Swaziland,
where all political parties are banned, there is no alternative government. The
present government was picked by the King. He appointed the present PM in 2008
in contravention of S67 (1) of the Constitution that states ‘the king shall
appoint the Prime Minister from among members of the House’, but Barnabas
Dlamini was not a member of the House and had not been elected to any office.
The King simply decided to ignore the Constitution and put his own man in the
job.
Members of the Cabinet were also appointed by the King, with
S67 (3) only requiring that at least half the Cabinet ministers have been
elected to the House. This leaves scope for more of the King’s placemen to be
appointed.
The lack of political parties in Swaziland means there is
no ‘official opposition’ as is common in parliamentary democracies and
therefore there is no government in waiting. The best the Swazi people can hope
for is that King Mswati will sack the present government and replace it with
people very much like those who have been deemed to have failed.
See also
CALL FOR CABINET TO QUIT GROWS
KING EXPOSED BY NO-CONFIDENCE VOTE
No comments:
Post a Comment