A challenge to the legality
of Swaziland’s anti-terror and sedition laws is
taking place in the
kingdom’s High Court.
At stake is the future of
the Suppression of Terrorism Act 2008 and Sedition and Subversive Activities
Act 1938.
Pro-democracy campaigners say both Acts are used to silence dissent
in Swaziland where King Mswati III rules as sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute
monarch.
Political
parties are
banned from taking part in elections and groups that advocate for
multi-party
democracy are banned under the Suppression of Terrorism Act. Individual
protesters have also been arrested and jailed under the Act.
The hearing in the Swaziland High Court began in
September 2015, but it was adjourned because there was not enough time to hear
the case fully.
Advocates
against the two acts are arguing that they are
unconstitutional as they infringe the right to free expression. They say the
definitions of ‘terrorism’ and ‘sedition’ are too vague and can be applied at
times when people have legitimate rights to speak or act.
The Southern Africa Litigation Centre (SALC), one of
the international organisations including Amnesty International that are
campaigning for a change in the laws, reported
‘This hearing was a consolidation of four
separate cases – each of which involved criminal charges in terms of these laws
which had been brought against activists who had expressed opinions against the
Swazi governmental system. What characterized the activities that led to these
charges was that they were all peaceful.’
The case is highlighting Mario Masuku, President of
the People’s United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO) and Maxwell Dlamini, Secretary
General of PUDEMO’s youth wing, SWAYOCO. They were arrested
and charged with sedition, subversion and terrorism
after participating at a May Day celebration in 2014. They were accused of
supporting PUDEMO, which had been banned under the Suppression of Terrorism Act.
They were in pre-trial detention for nearly 15 months, before the Supreme Court
released
them on bail in July 2015.
In a report
from the court on Monday (8
February 2016), SALC said lawyers for the Swazi state (the Prime Minister, the
Minister of Justice, the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the Attorney
General) argued that the law in Swaziland was based on international standards.
The case is continuing.
Both The Suppression of
Terrorism Act and The Sedition and Subversive Activities Act
have been criticised by global human rights groups as
oppressive.
Amnesty International in April 2015 renewed its criticism
of Swaziland for the ‘continued persecution of peaceful political opponents and
critics’ by the King and his authorities.
The human rights organisation called for both Acts to
be scrapped or drastically rewritten.
It said the Swazi authorities were using the Acts, ‘to
intimidate activists, further entrench political exclusion and to restrict the
exercise of the rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful
assembly.’
In a public statement to draw attention to the
‘repression of fundamental freedoms’ in Swaziland, Amnesty said 14 people were
currently charged in five separate trials.
‘Ten are charged under both laws, including Mario
Masuku, Maxwell Dlamini, and Mlungisi Makhanya, the Secretary General of the
opposition organization, PUDEMO, along with six other co-accuseds.
‘The authorities also initiated trial proceedings
under the Sedition and Subversive Activities Act against Thulani Maseko in September
2014, on sedition charge first raised against him in 2009.’
It added, ‘The alleged offences include shouting
slogans at a Workers’ Day rally, utterances made at funerals, possession of
PUDEMO leaflets, wearing PUDEMO t-shirts while attending the trial of Thulani
Maseko and Bheki Makhubu, or calling for a boycott of the elections held in
2013.
Amnesty said the Sedition and Subversive Activities
Act violated Swaziland’s human rights obligations. It placed the onus on the
accused to prove that their alleged acts, utterances or documents published
were not done with ‘seditious intention’.
The Sedition and Subversive Activities Act also
obliged courts to conduct proceedings in camera relating to an offence under
the Act if so requested by the prosecution.
Amnesty also said the Suppression of Terrorism Act was
incompatible with Swaziland’s human rights obligations because of, ‘The failure
to restrict the definition of ‘terrorist act’ to the threatened or actual use
of violence against civilians.
‘The failure of the definition to meet the
requirements of legality, that is, accessibility, precision, applicability to
counter-terrorism alone, non-discrimination and non-retroactivity.’
It added offences were, ‘defined with such
over-breadth and imprecision that they place excessive restrictions on a wide
range of human rights, including the right to hold opinions without
interference and the right to freedom of expression.’
See also
SWAZI TRIALS POLITICALLY MOTIVATED: AMNESTY
AMNESTY ATTACKS SWAZI JUSTICE
http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2014/03/amnesty-attacks-swazi-justice.html
No comments:
Post a Comment