JOURNALISTS SAY THEY ARE UNDER THREAT

Seven in ten journalists interviewed by UNESCO in Swaziland said they had faced attempts from politicians or advertisers to interfere with what they were writing.
 

Meanwhile, there is evidence that journalists in private media are not only compromised by politicians but also ‘brown envelope journalism’ where media practitioners are given money or other financial benefits to push or hide information or stories.

Practitioners in state-run media have no editorial independence and are considered civil servants and are expected to abide by government orders.

The findings are contained in Assessment of Media Development in Swaziland, the most comprehensive report ever published on journalism and development in Swaziland.

UNESCO reported that in a survey journalists were asked, ‘Have you ever been faced with attempts by external actors (whether political or commercial) to interfere in the editorial content of an article or programme that you re working on?’ A total of 65 percent of the journalists interviewed answered ‘Yes, more than once.’ Another 5 percent answered, ‘Yes.’ A further 15 percent had no answer to the question.

UNESCO reported the number of respondents who had no answer, ‘may suggest that some respondents might have been responding with caution out of fear of reprisal.’

It added, ‘These results suggest lack of editorial independence in both private and state media and two recent cases illustrate this. In 2014, the government interfered with the editorial independence of the privately-owned Times of Swaziland as well as the state broadcaster. The government ordered the former, Times of Swaziland, to retract a story about the spending of E208 million (US$20,800,000) by the authorities reportedly sourced from Principal Secretary in the Finance Ministry, Khabonina Mabuza, to the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) in Parliament. 

‘In another case, the management of the state broadcaster suspended  information officer, Thandiswa Ginindza, from air after she broadcast a live interview with the Chairman of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security and Member of Parliament, Jan Sithole, on the country’s disqualification from benefitting from the USA’s African Growth Opportunity Act (AGOA). A controversy surrounded the number of benchmarks that Swaziland required to meet before being reinstated as a beneficiary. But the main reason for her suspension was that MPs are banned from using the state broadcaster.’

UNESCO also reported that in an interview, Swaziland Coalition of Concerned Civil Organisations (SCCCO) Director, Lomcebo Dlamini, ‘observed that the editorial independence of the private media is not only compromised by political pressure but also by “brown envelope journalism” where media practitioners are given money or other benefits to push or hide information or stories.’

It quoted Vuyisile Hlatshwayo, National Director of Media Institute of Southern Africa, Swaziland chapter, who said even in the private media editorial independence was compromised by editors and media owners who had ‘a cosy relationship’ with the government and big corporations. ‘The private media owners and editors ingratiate themselves with big corporations that reciprocate with handing out freebies to the editors and journalists. Such tendencies not only compromise the editorial independence of the media but also contravene Article 3(1) of the Code of Ethics for Journalists which states that: “Journalists should not accept bribes or any form of inducement to influence the performance of his/her professional duties,”’ UNESCO reported.

It also reported that Swazi TV and radio ‘are effectively departments of the civil service and government mouthpieces acting more as a vehicle for development’.

It added, ‘broadcast journalists are considered civil servants first and journalists second. As they are employed as information officers, they are part of the civil service and are thus expected to abide by the Government General Orders.

‘As government information officers they are expected to censor disruptive or critical information likely to compromise national security and frustrate government’s realisation of socioeconomic development goals, which clearly contravenes the spirit of editorial independence. 

‘In addition, the ICT [Information, Communications and Technology] Ministry has invoked the Public Service Announcement (PSA) Guidelines to control the state broadcasters. These guidelines bar all Swazi citizens, irrespective of their status, from airing their opinions on the radio and television stations before their opinions have been cleared by their chiefs.’

See also

TV CENSORS PUBLIC SERVANTS’ MARCH

https://swazimedia.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/tv-censors-public-servants-march.html

 

‘EDITOR FLEES AFTER DEATH THREAT’

https://swazimedia.blogspot.co.uk/2018/01/editor-flees-after-death-threat.html

BROADCASTING IS NOT FOR THE PEOPLE

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2013/02/broadcasting-not-for-people.html
 

GOVT ‘TIGHTENS GRIP ON CENSORSHIP’

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2013/01/govt-tightens-grip-on-censorship.html

JOURNALISTS ‘SCARED TO DO THEIR JOBS’

https://swazimedia.blogspot.co.uk/2018/01/journalists-scared-to-do-their-jobs.html

HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION IS BOGUS

Swaziland’s Human Rights Commission (HRC) is denying women access to its offices if they wear trousers.

And women who are in mourning are also barred.

As Swaziland claims to be close to becoming a ‘First World’ nation, it is revealed today (6 January 2011) that the main body set up to support human rights in the kingdom doesn’t understand the first concept about them.

Women in trousers (pants) and those in mourning are barred because they violate Swazi traditional law and custom: even though Section 28 (1) of the Swaziland Constitution says, ‘women shall have equal opportunities as men in political, economic and social activities.’ The constitution also expressly gives women the right to ignore Swazi law and custom if they wish, but the HRC denies them their constitutional rights.

Keen observers of Swaziland, ruled by King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch, will know that the ruling elite disregard the constitution whenever it likes. King Mswati also tries to curry favour with the international community by pretending that it a ‘democratic’ nation. The king and his hangers-on like to claim Swaziland’s has a ‘unique’ democracy, although in practice this means elections are bogus, political parties are banned, and traditional custom takes precedence over constitutional law.

Now, the HRC is exposed as a sham.

The Women and Law in Southern Africa (WLSA) Swaziland chapter has complained about the ban at the Nkanini national offices where, as with royal residences, women in mourning gowns and in trousers cannot enter the premises.

David Matse, Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs told the Times of Swaziland, the only independent newspaper in the kingdom, that the matter was of primary importance to him and would address it as soon as possible.

But instead of instructing the HRC to immediately lift its ban on women, Matse, himself a former Chairperson of the HRC, said ‘Human rights are a vital issue and we are working on it to ensure that visitors who cannot access the Nkanini offices, for whatever reason, are accommodated elsewhere, particularly in town.’

Lomcebo Dlamini, speaking on behalf of WLSA, told the Times, ‘Right now the perception, because of where they are situated, is that they are not totally independent because some people could have reservations about going there.’

Dlamini said the Commission should be located at a place where all people would feel safe and not fear to report cases.

On the issue of trousers, Dlamini said it was ridiculous that in 2011 there were certain places, in particular courts and Parliament, where women could not enter because they were wearing pants.

I have written before about how Swazi women are unable to get their rights. Last week I reported on the High Court where a judge ruled that women were the property of their fathers for life. Last month (December 2010), I reported how a woman was stripped in public on the orders of a chief because she was wearing trousers.