News that Swaziland’s autocratic ruler King Mswati III
wants the kingdom’s constitution amended so that things he has done illegally
in the past become legal will surprise no one who observes the way he operates.
In particular, the king illegally appointed Barnabas
Dlamini Prime Minister in 2008. The constitution states the PM must be a member
of the Swazi Senate, but Dlamini was not.
The Times Sunday
newspaper in Swaziland reported the amendments would ‘incorporate, among other
things; prerogatives of His Majesty the King, which were mistakenly omitted’.
Who says they were ‘mistakenly omitted’ is not reported
by the newspaper.
Prince Guduza, Speaker in the House of Assembly, told the
newspaper there were moves afoot to amend the constitution, but he would not be
drawn on which parts.
The newspaper reported the Prince ‘said he would not disclose
the provisions that should be amended. He hinted though that those provisions
were political in nature.’
Observers of Swaziland’s recent history know that the constitution
of 2005 is not worth the paper it is written on. The king chooses to ignore it
whenever he wishes.
The most recent and most stark example of this happened
in October 2012 when the House of Assembly passed a vote of no-confidence
in the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. According to the constitution the king was obliged to sack the government (he had no discretion in the matter).
However, King Mswati, who is sub-Saharan Africa’s last
absolute monarch, ignored the vote. Instead, through his traditional structures
he put pressure on the House to re-run the vote, this time ensuring it did not
pass and the government survived.
Many organisations have called for Swaziland’s constitution
to be rewritten in the past, but their intentions were to make the kingdom more
democratic, not less.
In July 2008, the European Union declined an invitation to
monitor the Swaziland national election because, it said, it was clear the
kingdom was not a democracy. Later, it suggested a wholesale review of the constitution
was in order.
In November 2008, the Commonwealth
Expert Team, which had monitored the election 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 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment