The case of Swaziland’s King Mswati III’s alleged abduction of an 18-year-old schoolgirl to be his bride has resurfaced in the kingdom 12 years after the event as a local newspaper reported that a former attorney-general was to face a sedition charge for allowing a court case against the King to proceed.
The case dates from 2002 when the King ordered the Swazi High Court to drop a case brought against himself alleging that he had ordered the kidnapping of the teenager so that she could become his bride.
Reports at the time could not agree whether she would become his 10th or his 11th bride. In 2014, the King, who rules Swaziland as sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch, is believed to have at least 14 wives.
International news media reported at the time that widow and single mother Lindiwe Dhlamini, 39, had
provoked the challenge to the King by not accepting the kidnapping of her
daughter, Zena Mahlangu, who was taken away by agents of the King on 9 October
2002. Ms Dhlamini went to court to demand that King Mswati return Zena to her.
The Afrol news agency reported, ‘Putting such a case to the courts is unheard of in
Swaziland, where the playboy King merely follows tradition when abducting
virgins to see whether they please him and eventually may marry them. Mswati has
already married nine Swazi girls in this way. Nevertheless, there is no legal
basis for these abductions, not even in Swaziland.’
The IRIN news agency reported in 2002 that Chief Justice Stanley Sapire agreed that court
papers filed by Mahlangu’s mother indicated she was abducted. At a hearing
presided over by a full bench of High Court Judges, including Justices Josiah
Matsebula and Thomas Masuku, he asked, ‘I want to know what happens in a case
where something is sanctioned by customary law yet it is a crime under common
law.’
IRIN continued, ‘The Swazi King and Queen Mother cannot be sued, arrested or prosecuted. The lawsuit filed by Mahlangu’s mother seeking the return of her daughter names the two men who took her away from school. The strategy of government as stated in the Attorney-General’s affidavit is to have King Mswati named as defendant.’ [If the King were named as defendant the case would not be able to continue as he is immune from prosecution.]
‘“(The plaintiff) seeks an order that the two (defendants) return the child forthwith, yet it is clear they were agents of the Royal Kraal. This was cowardly of the applicants. Their attacking the messengers is clear cowardice. The Ingwenyama (King) must be joined in the matter because it is clear he is the principal,” stated the Attorney-General.’
IRIN continued, ‘The Swazi King and Queen Mother cannot be sued, arrested or prosecuted. The lawsuit filed by Mahlangu’s mother seeking the return of her daughter names the two men who took her away from school. The strategy of government as stated in the Attorney-General’s affidavit is to have King Mswati named as defendant.’ [If the King were named as defendant the case would not be able to continue as he is immune from prosecution.]
‘“(The plaintiff) seeks an order that the two (defendants) return the child forthwith, yet it is clear they were agents of the Royal Kraal. This was cowardly of the applicants. Their attacking the messengers is clear cowardice. The Ingwenyama (King) must be joined in the matter because it is clear he is the principal,” stated the Attorney-General.’
The Swazi Observer reported on Tuesday (21 October 2014) that the Attorney-General at the time
Phesheya Dlamini was now to be tried for sedition, obstructing
the course of justice and contempt of court.
The
newspaper, which is in effect owned by King Mswati, did not report that the
King himself was the subject of the court case in question.
The Observer reported the case emanated from
a letter dated 1 November, 2002, which the former AG had addressed to then
Chief Justice Stanley Sapire, Justices Jacobus Annandale and Stanley Maphalala.
The
newspaper reported, ‘Dlamini, in the letter, informed the three presiding
justices that they were free to proceed with the case in question, but should
tender their resignations immediately upon handing down judgment on this
matter.
‘This was
after the former AG, in the company of army commander Major General Sobantu
Dlamini, Commissioner of Police Edgar Hillary, as he then was, and Commissioner
of Correctional Services Mnguni Simelane, as he then was, had informed the
three judges in an impromptu meeting that they should drop the case because it
had tarnished the image of the country internationally or resign.’
News reports
in 2002 said the judges
continued to hear the case as scheduled and in open court the Chief Justice
stated that they would preside over the case despite the threat which had been
issued against them.
At the time,
the AG’s action was seen in some quarters as an assault on the rule of law in
Swaziland.
The court
case was halted when the 18-year-old schoolgirl announced that she wanted to
marry the King.
Within weeks
King Mswati
sacked Chief Justice Stanley Sapire for ignoring his decree to drop the case.
Phesheya
Dlamini was also removed from office and he became a diplomat. He is presently
Swaziland’s High Commissioner to South Africa.
In a twist
to the story, the Times of Swaziland,
the only daily newspaper rival to the Observer,
published a report saying there was no intention to prosecute Dlamini
for sedition. On Wednesday (22 October 2014), it reported Registrar of the High Court Fikile Nhlabatsi
saying the Observer’s story was not
true.
The Times reported, ‘According to impeccable sources, the matter was erroneously included in the over 200 old cases that were recently recalled by the High Court.’
The Times reported, ‘According to impeccable sources, the matter was erroneously included in the over 200 old cases that were recently recalled by the High Court.’
It said the
matter was long withdrawn and it is not in the roll of cases to be heard at the
High Court.
No comments:
Post a Comment