SWAZI ELECTION CREDIBILITY DAMAGED

The credibility of the election nomination process in Swaziland has been damaged as it emerged that many people who wanted to nominate candidates were prevented from doing so.

And, separately it has been reported that some people were nominated against the election rules.

Also, cabinet ministers in the outgoing government who were nominated may not be eligible to stand, according to the Swazi Constitution.

Nominations took place across Swaziland at the weekend (3-4 August 2013) to choose candidates for the ‘primary’ elections that will take place in chiefdoms on 24 August.

But, the Times of Swaziland, the only independent daily newspaper in the kingdom, reported that people who wanted to nominate candidates could not so because they failed to get the attention of the electoral officer. The process used required people to gather at a meeting place, often a kraal, and wait to be called by an electoral officer to make their nomination.

At many places crowds were large and not everyone who wanted to make a nomination was spotted by the electoral officer.

Burns Dlamini, a writer for the Times, reported he personally was prevented from nominating. He wrote, ‘In my case I had my hand up for a better part of the two hours while the community battled with nominating MPs and I ended up giving up.’

He added, ‘I mean, when you have a hundred people with their hands up to nominate and you end up with only 11 nominations, how fair and representative is that?’

He went on, ‘For starters, the failure by election officers to give everyone proposing a nomination a chance to nominate was, in my view, fatal and to me that rendered the whole thing a travesty and a farce to say the least. I mean, how fair and transparent is the process after all?’

He said similar problems happened at nomination centres across Swaziland.

He wrote, ‘Again the method used by the election officers to pick nominators at random is testimony that the whole nomination process is a game of chance; and the nominees have to be double-lucky to be nominated, first by having the nominated person lucky to be picked and then have those supporting the nomination.’

Elsewhere, Elections and Boundaries Commission (EBC) Chairman Chief Gija Dlamini said nominated candidates who did not have consent letters from their employers should have been disqualified.

Speaking on state-controlled radio, he said it was expected that public servants should have brought with them the letters, which in turn should have been read in front of all the voters.

There is confusion over the status of nine cabinet ministers who were nominated at the weekend. The Times reported they could be disqualified from taking part in the election because they hold public office and this is not allowed under the Constitution.

The confusion is made worse because it is uncertain whether technically the nine are still cabinet ministers.

Attorney General Majahenkhaba Dlamini told the newspaper that ministers were not supposed to stand for nomination if they were still in office – as the nine maintained.

‘Their nomination was irregular because a Cabinet office is a public office. If anyone can challenge their nomination in court they (challenger) can be successful, the Times reported him saying.

He added, ‘That is why even police officers and other members of the security forces as well as any government employee have to resign or apply for leave of absence in order to stand for the elections because they are in public office. They (ministers) ought to have also resigned from office so as to be eligible to stand.’

Some people boycotted the election nomination completely in protest that venues selected for the nominations were unsuitable. Elsewhere equipment failures delayed the start of nomination.

The nominations are the first stage of the controversial election for members of the House of Assembly. Political parties are barred from taking part in the election and the parliament that is elected has no power as this rests with King Mswati III, who rules Swaziland as sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch.

The election is only to select 55 members of the 65-seat House of Assembly. The other 10 members are appointed by the king. No members of the Senate House are elected by the people. Of its 30 members, 20 are chosen by the king and 10 are elected by members of the House of Assembly.

See also

CHAOS AT ELECTION NOMINATION

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2013/08/chaos-at-election-nominations.html

SWAZILAND IS NOT A DEMOCRACY. PERIOD

Swaziland’s Prime Minister Barnabas Dlamini told the House of Assembly that MPs needed a workshop so they could understand what their responsibilities were.

He told them that they did not understand the principle of ‘separation of powers’ between the executive (government ministers and their departments), the legislative (parliament) and the judiciary (judges and the courts).

He said parliament had an important responsibility but seemingly, it overlapped sometimes with his government, the Swazi Observer newspaper reported him saying. What he meant was he did not want parliament interfering with his decisions. 

The newspaper reported, ‘Dlamini said there needed to be a clarification on the separation of powers of the three arms so that none of them got in the way for the other, thus making the operation of government smooth in as far as that was concerned.’

But, Dlamini fails to acknowledge that in Swaziland any workshop on separation of powers is irrelevant. This is because Section 64 (1) of the Swaziland Constitution says that the executive authority of Swaziland rests in the king as head of state.

S11 of the constitution goes on to state that the king cannot be questioned in court, so this means his decisions cannot come under judicial scrutiny. Since King Mswati III has executive authority and his decisions cannot be overruled by the courts, this makes him an absolute monarch.

This has been demonstrated many times in Swaziland, most recently last month when Prime Minister Dlamini lost a vote of confidence in the House of Assembly. According to the constitution, King Mswati was required to sack him, but he chose not to do so and Dlamini remains in power.

The supremacy of the monarch is not in doubt, but it is not talked about much in Swaziland.

Prime Minister Dlamini is not the only major figure in Swaziland to misrepresent the status of separation of powers; the Attorney General (AG) Majahenkhaba Dlamini did the same in January 2008, when he claimed in a speech that separation of powers were enshrined in the constitution and that the executive (government ministers) was ‘first among equals’ in the three branches of government.

The Swaziland Lawyers for Human Rights made several important criticisms of the AG’s at the time and in doing so gave an excellent account of just how undemocratic a state Swaziland is. 

In a statement the lawyers said the King and iNgweyama (his Mother) had a special and revered role in Swazi traditional law and custom to such an extent that Swazi custom dictates that ‘the King cannot tell a lie’.

‘This is not a prohibition of royal falsehoods but a statement on how truth and reality are recognized in Swazi Traditional Law.

‘The King and iNgweyama also has an elevated role under the Swazi Constitution where under section 11 he cannot be questioned in court and therefore his decisions cannot come under judicial scrutiny either.

‘Therefore it follows that our Executive is not first among equals but first among strongly weighted unequals.’

The lawyers continued, ‘The Attorney General [says] that the separation of powers can be found in the constitution. We strongly contest that assertion. Separation of powers is a philosophy of providing checks and balances between the three branches of government: the executive (government ministers and their departments), the legislative (parliament) and the judiciary (judges and the courts).

‘In theory, it distributes the power of the state between these three branches and maintains a healthy tension of oversight and accountability between them.

‘In a democracy that practices separation of powers the ultimate power rests in the will of the people, and so parliament and the legislature become the final arbiter of how the country is governed - not the executive.

‘We have already seen that in Swaziland the King has supreme executive authority. Let us look at parliamentary authority in Swaziland today. Section 106(a) of the Constitution says ‘the supreme legislative authority of Swaziland vests in the King-in-Parliament’.

‘It goes on to state the King can appoint nearly one fifth of the House of Assembly and two thirds of the Senate. The majority of both houses is required for a bill to become law. In any case, under section 134(b), the King has the absolute authority to dissolve parliament. It is impossible to argue that emaSwati [Swazi people] have any real political power in this arrangement.

‘We know that the real power lies with the traditional authorities and Liqoqo in advising the King. In other countries, parliamentary elections are typically closely fought and so often the people in the centre hold the balance of power. This promotes a culture of problem solving, compromise and respect for minorities.

‘The Swazi system ensures an inbuilt majority for those who are sympathetic to traditional causes in all but the most extreme situations. Democracy is not reflected in the simple rule of the majority. It is equal access to power and influence by all.

‘The arrangement is Swaziland is simply and clearly not democratic.’

The lawyers then turned their attention to the judiciary in Swaziland.

‘Section 141 guarantees the independence of the judiciary. However, the senior judges of the country are chosen by the Judicial Services Commission.

‘The majority of this commission is directly appointed by the King and his advisors. Given this fact, how independent can new judges really be?’

The lawyers continued, ‘Thus we can see that the combined position of the Monarchy and its advisors directly controls the makeup of, and has the potential to manipulate the decisions of, all three branches of government.

‘We therefore must disagree in the strongest of terms with the Attorney General that the Swazi Constitution embodies the doctrine of the separation of powers.’

KING ORDERS HALT TO COURT CASE

Evidence that King Mswati III of Swaziland has full control of the judiciary in his kingdom emerged this week when he ordered the High Court to drop a case concerning a disputed chieftaincy.

King Mswati, who is sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch, instructed the Attorney General Majahenkhaba Dlamini, who is himself a member of the Swazi Royal family, to tell the High Court to drop a case in which two factions were disputing who was the rightful chief in the Nkhaba area.

In Swaziland, chiefs are a direct link between the king and his subjects. They are often seen as speaking on behalf of the king and people who live in chiefdoms are often referred to as the chief’s ‘subjects’.

The Swazi News, an independent newspaper in the kingdom, reported that the attorney-general conveyed the king’s order to the High Court that the case should be dropped with ‘immediate effect’. It reported that the king instructed the matter should be dealt with by ‘traditional authorities’ and not the law court.

The Centre for Human Rights (CHR), Swaziland, in a statement, said the case proved, ‘how the Swazi monarch continues to interfere in the operations of the judiciary in Swaziland’, despite in the past giving assurances to the United Nations that it would not.

The CHR said, ‘The judiciary continues to suffer from within and without. As recently as 2011, lawyers took to the streets, boycotted Supreme Court sessions, boycotted all courts in the land because of a judicial crisis that was sparked by Chief Justice Michael Ramodibedi's interference in the running of the courts, and how individual judges deal with specific matters.’

It added, ‘In this latest move to undermine the judiciary, royal orders from His Majesty King Mswati III were conveyed to the court by the Attorney General, himself a member of the royal family, to the effect that the court should immediately stop dealing with the matter. The matter would instead be dealt with under customary structures.

‘This violates the rights of the litigants to a fair hearing, to choose the forum that will determine their case and it further erodes any hope that the individual in Swaziland has any remedy in case of a violation.’

See also

SWAZI JUDGE FIRED FOR ‘DISRESPECT’

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2011/10/swazi-judge-fired-for-disrespect.html

SWAZI GOVT ATTACKS TRADE UNIONS

The newly-formed Trade Union Congress of Swaziland (TUCOSWA) has been deregistered by the government which is claiming it was incorrectly registered in the first place.

This means TUCOSWA, the only trade union federation in the kingdom, is not recognised by the state and cannot represent unions and workers on any issues.

Speculation is rife in the kingdom, ruled by King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch, that the deregulation came in retaliation after TUCOSWA resolved it would oppose the national elections due in 2013. TUCOSWA said the elections were fake because all political parties and opposition groups are banned in Swaziland and cannot take part.

Majahenkaba Dlamini, the Swazi Attorney General, revealed this week that the Commissioner of Labour had incorrectly registered TUCOSWA when it was formed last month (March 2012). He said although there was provision in the Industrial Relations Act 2000 to register individual trade unions no mechanism existed to register federations such as TUCOSWA. He instructed TUCOSWA to be deregistered.

This ruling comes as a surprise because TUCOSWA was born out of the amalgamation of the Swaziland Federation of Labour (SFL) and the Swaziland Federation of Trade Unions (SFTU), both were federations and were registered with and recognised by the Swazi Government. If the present ruling concerning TUCOSWA is correct then neither the SFL nor SFTU should have been registered.

Also, business federations such as the Federation of Swaziland Employers and Chamber of Commerce and the Federation of Swaziland Business Community are registered under the same Act.

TUCOSWA is due to take part in national protests on Thursday (12 April) as part of a wider campaign organised by pro-democracy groups in the kingdom.

Pro-democracy activist Wandile Dludlu told the AFP news agency, ‘This is a crackdown on the pro-democracy forces as a means to weaken the forces for change in light of the upcoming April 12 protests.’ Dludlu, who coordinates the umbrella Swaziland United Democratic Front (SUDF) organisation, said protests would go ahead despite the setbacks.

The suspicion that the move to deregistered TUCOSWA was political follows a resolution by the federation to oppose next year’s elections, taken during its founding congress in March. The resolution stated, ‘The current system of governance in Swaziland is one that is undemocratic, repressive and dictatorial and that the federation, shall cause for a total boycott of the national elections in 2013 unless the elections are held under a multiparty system.’

The Swazi News newspaper reported that following this decision, the acting Commissioner of Labour Khabo Dlamini wrote to TUCOSWA complaining the resolution was ‘purely political’ and stating that TUCOSWA was not permitted to engage in politics.

‘The Commissioner of Labour wishes to express her shock and dismay at the sudden change of the objectives for which TUCOSWA was registered. We view this as a serious misrepresentation of facts, which were material and influenced the commissioner in granting registration of the federation,’ she wrote.

See also

SWAZI UNION TO BOYCOTT ELECTIONS

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2012/03/swazi-union-to-boycott-elections.html

NEW UNION PRESSES FOR DEMOCRACY

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2012/03/new-union-presses-for-democracy.html

‘TIMES’ CONTEMPT OF COURT THREAT

The Times of Swaziland newspaper is being threatened with a contempt of court action for publishing reports about Swazi Chief Justice Michael Ramodibedi.

The Times received orders from the Swazi High Court on Wednesday (13 July 2011) barring it from reporting that the Law Society of Swaziland wanted Ramodibedi sacked immediately. The Law Society listed transgressions that lawyers believed he had made.

The Times went ahead and published.

The High Court order follows an application from the Judicial Services Commission, which is chaired by Chief Justice Ramodibedi.

Now, Majahenkhaba Dlamini, the Attorney General, has written to the newspaper group to threaten it with contempt of court proceedings. A letter to the newspaper group says it should ‘desist from any further violation of the said court orders’ and if it doesn’t, ‘matters [will be] taken forward to their logical conclusion’.

See also

SWAZI LAWYERS CHARGE CHIEF JUSTICE

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2011/07/lawyers-charge-chief-justice.html

LAWYERS TO FIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2011/07/lawyers-to-fight-chief-justice.html