Swaziland Former Prime Minister Barnabas Dlamini Dies. Known as Serial Abuser of Human Rights

Swaziland’s former Prime Minister and serial human rights abuser Barnabas Dlamini has died aged 76.

Dlamini was appointed Prime Minister four times by King Mswati III who rules Swaziland as sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch.

He held office for seven-and-a-half years until 2003. He was reappointed in 2008 and was in office until the national elections of September 2018. He died at the Mkhiwa Clinic, a private hospital in Manzini, after a long illness.

Political parties are banned from taking part in elections in Swaziland (recently renamed Eswatini by King Mswati). The King appoints the Prime Minister and government ministers. 

When introducing Dlamini as the new PM in 2008, King Mwsati told him publicly to attack prodemocracy campaigners and all who supported them. 

Dlamini set about his task with zeal. He immediately banned four organisations, branding them terrorists. 

His Attorney General Majahenkhaba Dlamini told Swazis affiliated with the political formations to resign with immediate effect or feel the full force of the law. Under the Suppression of Terrorism Act (STA), enacted in 2008, the same year Dlamini resumed power, members and supporters faced up to 25 years in jail. 

Under the draconian provisions of the STA, which is still in force, anyone who disagreed with the ruling elite faced being branded a terrorist supporter. This happened at a time when the call for democracy in Swaziland was being heard loudly both inside the kingdom and in the international community. 

Immediately, the Dlamini-led Government clamped down on dissent. In 2011, Amnesty International reported the ill-treatment, house searches and surveillance of communications and meetings of civil society and political activists. Armed police conducted raids and prolonged searches in the homes of dozens of high profile human rights defenders, trade unionists and political activists while investigating a spate of petrol bombings. Some of the searches, particularly of political activists, were done without search warrants.

Amnesty reported that authorities continued to use the STA to detain and charge political activists. The STA was also used as a basis for search warrants and other measures to intimidate human rights defenders, trade unionists and media workers.

In 2010, Dlamini publicly threatened to use torture against dissidents and foreigners who campaigned for democracy in his kingdom. He said the use of ‘bastinado’, the flogging of the bare soles of the feet, was his preferred method.

Dlamini told the Times of Swaziland newspaper he wanted ‘to punish dissidents and foreigners who come to the country and disturb the peace’.

But Dlamini’s abuse of human rights did not start with his appointment in 2008. He was a former PM and held office for seven and a half years until 2003. While in office he gained a reputation as someone who ignored the rule of law. 

In 2003, he refused to recognise two court judgements that challenged the King’s right to rule by decree. This led to the resignation of all six judges in the Appeal Court. The court had ruled that the King had no constitutional mandate to override parliament by issuing his own decrees.

In a report running for more than 50,000 words, Amnesty International looked back to the years 2002 and 2003 and identified activities of Dlamini that ‘included the repeated ignoring of court rulings, interference in court proceedings, intimidating judicial officers, manipulating terms and conditions of employment to undermine the independence of the judiciary, the effective replacement of the Judicial Services Commission with an unaccountable and secretive body (officially known as the Special Committee on Justice but popularly called the Thursday Committee), and the harassment of individuals whose rights had been upheld by the courts.’  

In recent years he was at loggerheads with members of the House of Assembly and Senate for his dictatorial attitude.

The US State Department in a review of human rights in Swaziland in 2017 stated that in August, ‘the prime minister’s office forced a member of parliament (MP) to withdraw a statement made in the House of Assembly expressing his displeasure that the public had no role in the method used in appointing the country’s prime minister. The Prime Minister’s Office stated that the MP’s criticism constituted an attack on the constitution and the King. The MP was obliged to apologize and to donate cattle to the King as a token of contrition.’

The Swazi people did not want Dlamini to lead the kingdom. In October 2012 the Swazi House of Assembly passed a vote of no-confidence in him and his government. According to the constitution, King Mswati was obliged to sack him. But the King defied the constitution and Dlamini remained in office.

The House vote of no-confidence was not isolated. In August 2012 the Sibaya (where ordinary people gather at a cattle byre to air their views on matters of importance to them) told Dlamini and his government to quit. The people said they were corrupt and destroying the kingdom.

King Mswati claims Sibaya is the supreme policy-making body in the land because it demonstrates the peoples’ will. But, again, he ignored the voice of the people and stuck by Dlamini.

Richard Rooney

 Barnabas Dlamini, who has died, aged 76

                     

One of his last public appearances was on 4 September 2018, his last day in office as PM

He had a long hstory as a human rights abuser

                                     

He published his autobiography in early 2018

                                               

See also 

‘PM INCOMPETENT, UNTRUSTWORTHY, VAIN’

https://swazimedia.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/pm-incompetent-untrustworthy-vain.html
 

SWAZI PM IN ANOTHER NEPOTISM ROW

https://swazimedia.blogspot.co.uk/2018/04/swazi-pm-in-another-nepotism-row.html

ILLEGAL SWAZILAND PM CRACKS DOWN

https://swazimedia.blogspot.co.uk/2010/06/illegal-swaziland-pm-cracks-down.html
 

TRUE LIFE OF SWAZI PRIME MINISTER

https://swazimedia.blogspot.co.uk/2018/02/true-life-of-swazi-prime-minister.html

THE DAY DEMOCRACY DIED IN SWAZILAND

As attention in Swaziland is diverted towards King Mswati III’s 50^th birthday on 19 April 2018, one week earlier marks the 45^th anniversary of the date the kingdom stopped being a democracy and became an absolute monarchy.

On 12 April 1973 King Sobhuza II proclaimed a Royal Decree after he objected to his subjects electing members of a political party that was not under his control. He tore up the kingdom’s constitution that had been in place since Swaziland gained independence from Britain in 1968. Even though Swaziland adopted a new constitution in 2006, the kingdom, now ruled by King Mswati III, remains an absolute monarchy.

 

In his decree King Sobhuza announced, ‘I have assumed supreme power in the Kingdom of Swaziland and that all Legislative, Executive and Judicial power is vested in myself.’ 

He added, ‘The Constitution is indeed the cause of growing unrest, insecurity, dissatisfaction with the state of affairs in our country and an impediment to free and progressive development in all spheres of life.’ 

He also said, ‘All political parties and similar bodies that cultivate and bring about disturbances and ill-feelings within the Nations are hereby dissolved and prohibited.’ 

He said, ‘Any person who forms or attempts or conspires to form a political party or who organises or participates in any way in any meeting, procession or demonstration in contravention of this decree shall be guilty of an offence and liable, on conviction, to imprisonment not exceeding six months.’

Political parties remain banned and the King choses all members of the government and the judiciary. He also chooses 10 members of the House of Assembly, allowing his subjects to select the other 55 members. No members of the Swazi Senate are elected by the people. 

According to the Swaziland United Democratic Front, one of the more vocal opposition groups on Swaziland, ‘The decree criminalised political activity, saw the banning of political parties and the introduction of a system of governance benefitting a few elites and their cronies; all at the expense of the majority of Swazi’s who continue to languish in poverty, underdevelopment and perpetual neglect.’ 

In 2013, Swaziland’s Attorney-General Majahenkhaba Dlamini said there was no need to annul the Royal Decree. 

He was reacting to a report in the Times Sunday, an independent newspaper in Swaziland,  that traditionalists stopped the decree being repealed when Swaziland’s Constitution came into force in 2006. He said the Constitution in effect annulled the Royal Decree.

According to the Times Sunday ‘influential traditionalists’ feared Swaziland ‘could become a republic if this law was repealed’.

The newspaper said preparations to abandon the Royal Decree in 2005 were far advanced and a gazette had been drawn up.

The newspaper quoted one of the traditionalists, Brigadier General Fonono Dube, who was a member of Liqoqo, an advisory council to the King, saying, ‘There was no way we could have revoked a law that establishes the country. We couldn’t have allowed the authorities of the country to annul the decree because that would have turned the country into a republic. We don’t need a president in Swaziland. We need the King.’

The Times reported, ‘The argument by the traditionalists to keep the decree in the statutes was that it was the “heart” of the country and its repeal was tantamount to killing the whole country, – the whole government machinery, thus depriving authorities of powers to govern the kingdom.’

The anniversary of the Royal Decree is marked by pro-democracy advocates in Swaziland. It is usual for the State police and armed forces to intervene. The Suppression of Terrorism Act 2008 makes it illegal to campaign for democracy. 

In 2015, for example, activities to mark the 12 April anniversary were abandoned amid fears that police would attack participants. The US-based Solidarity Center reported, ‘Swaziland’s union movement cancelled a planned rally over the weekend after concerns the police would break up the gathering as they have multiple times in the past several weeks. In February and March, large numbers of police disbanded meetings of the Trade Union Congress of Swaziland (TUCOSWA), injuring at least one union leader.

‘Two weeks ago, the Swaziland National Association of Teachers (SNAT) gathered for a prayer service, when a large number of police showed up and sought to disrupt the event, physically injuring the union’s secretary general in the process, according to union leaders. Union members refused to be intimidated and carried on their service, say union leaders, adding that the government is increasingly prohibiting workers from meeting or publicly speaking out.’

In 2014, police illegally abducted prodemocracy leaders and drove them up to 30 kilometres away, and dumped them to prevent them taking part in a meeting calling for freedom in the kingdom. Police staged roadblocks on all major roads leading to Swaziland’s main commercial city, Manzini, where protests were to be held. They also physically blocked halls to prevent meetings taking place.  Earlier in the day police had announced on state radio that meetings would not be allowed to take place.

In April 2013, on the 40^th anniversary of the Royal Decree, armed police and state security forces in Swaziland broke up a series of events, including meetings, prayers and a rally, which had been called to debate the political situation in the kingdom. 

In 2012, four days of public protest were planned by trade unions and other prodemocracy organisations. They were brutally suppressed by police and state forces and had to be abandoned.

In 2011, a group using Facebook, called for an uprising to depose the King Mswati III. State forces took this call seriously and many prodemocracy leaders were arrested. Police and security forces prevented people from travelling into towns and cities to take part in demonstrations. Again, the protests were abandoned. 

See also

SWAZILAND STATE ‘TERRORISES’ ITS PEOPLE

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2013/04/swaziland-state-terrorises-its-people.html

 

SWAZILAND ‘BECOMING MILITARY STATE’

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2013/04/swaziland-becoming-military-state.html

 

RIOT POLICE FORCE HALT TO PRAYER

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2013/03/riot-police-force-halt-to-prayer.html

SWAZI SUPREME COURT NEPOTISM FEAR

A raft of appointments of judges to Swaziland’s Supreme Court has raised questions about nepotism in the kingdom ruled by absolute monarch, King Mswati III.

Even one of the newspapers in Swaziland that he in effect owns has raised doubts about the wisdom of appointing judges who are related to one another.

And, the Swazi Attorney-General Majahenkhaba Dlamini has been appointed a temporary Supreme Court judge for the month of July 2015, raising questions about the independence from government of the judiciary.

On Friday (26 June 2015), seven acting judges to the Supreme Court were announced, which the Sunday Observer newspaper reported, ‘resulted in the kingdom’s judiciary turning into a close knit family affair of spouses and siblings’.

The newspaper reported, ‘Newly-appointed Judge of the Supreme Court Majahenkhaba Dlamini joins his wife High Court Judge Mumcy Dlamini as members of the judiciary.

‘Former High Court Judge Qinisile Mabuza and her brother Sipho Nkosi have both been appointed Judges of the Supreme Court – the latter’s appointment is on an acting basis while the former’s is permanent.

‘There is also High Court Judge Nkululeko Hlophe whose wife is Supreme Court Registrar and Judicial Service Commission (JSC) Secretary Lorraine Hlophe.

‘With Majahenkhaba and his wife Judge Mumcy, questions have been raised on what would happen should the former, in his capacity as acting Supreme Court Judge, find himself having to review cases that were decided by the latter at the High Court.

‘There are suggestions that there are strong possibilities of this scenario coming true.’

There are also concerns that some of the new judges might not be suitably qualified.

The Observer reported, ‘A senior judicial expert who spoke to the Sunday Observer, though stating clearly not being opposed to the appointments, was worried that Acting Judges Nkosi and Cloete were appointed straight to the Supreme Court without any experience of presiding in the lower courts, especially the High Court.

‘“There is a lot that they need to learn, which they can do by presiding at the High Court before they are elevated to the Supreme Court,” said the expert.’

 The appointment of Attorney-General Majahenkhaba Dlamini to the Supreme Court for one month has raised doubts about King Mswati’s commitment to the separation of powers between the legislative, the executive and the judiciary. 

Dlamini is a member of the Swazi Government that was hand-picked by King Mswati, an ex-official member of the House of Assembly and now a judge. That gives him a place in all three branches of government.

The full list of Supreme Court Judges:

• Acting Chief Justice Bheki Maphalala

• Dr. Ben Odoki JA

• Justice Stanley Maphalala JA

• Justice Jacobus Annandale JA

• Justice Qinisile Mabuza JA

• Justice Mbutfo Mamba JA

• AG Majahenkhaba Dlamini JA

• Lawyer Robert Cloete AJA

• Lawyer Sipho Nkosi AJA

ROYAL DECREE SHOULD STAY: SWAZI A-G

Swaziland’s Attorney-General Majahenkhaba Dlamini has said there is no need to annul a 1973 Royal Decree that bans all political parties and puts all legislative, executive and judicial power in the hands of the King.

Dlamini was reacting to a newspaper report in Swaziland that traditionalists stopped the decree being repealed when Swaziland’s Constitution came into force in 2006. He said the Constitution in effect annulled the Royal Decree.

‘Why do they [prodemocracy campaigners] want us to revoke the decree through a gazette? What if we don’t want to do that?’ the newspaper reported him saying.  

According to the Times Sunday, an independent newspaper in Swaziland, ‘influential traditionalists’ feared Swaziland ‘could become a republic if this law was repealed’.

The newspaper said preparations to abandon the Royal Decree in 2005 were far advanced and a gazette had been drawn up.

The newspaper quoted one of the traditionalists, Brigadier General Fonono Dube, who was a member of Liqoqo, an advisory council to the King, saying, ‘There was no way we could have revoked a law that establishes the country. We couldn’t have allowed the authorities of the country to annul the decree because that would have turned the country into a republic. We don’t need a president in Swaziland. We need the King.’

The Times reported, ‘The argument by the traditionalists to keep the decree in the statutes was that it was the “heart” of the country and its repeal was tantamount to killing the whole country, – the whole government machinery, thus depriving authorities of powers to govern the kingdom.’

The Royal Decree came into force in 1973 after King Sobhuza objected to his subjects electing members of a political party that was not under his control. He tore up the kingdom’s constitution that had been in place since Swaziland gained independence from Britain in 1968.

In his decree, King Sobhuza announced, ‘I have assumed supreme power in the Kingdom of Swaziland and that all Legislative, Executive and Judicial power is vested in myself.’

He added, ‘The Constitution is indeed the cause of growing unrest, insecurity, dissatisfaction with the state of affairs in our country and an impediment to free and progressive development in all spheres of life.’

He also said, ‘All political parties and similar bodies that cultivate and bring about disturbances and ill-feelings within the Nations are hereby dissolved and prohibited.’

He said, ‘Any person who forms or attempts or conspires to form a political party or who organises or participates in any way in any meeting, procession or demonstration in contravention of this decree shall be guilty of an offence and liable, on conviction, to imprisonment not exceeding six months.’

The Royal Decree was never abolished and today King Sobhuza’s son, King Mswati III, rules Swaziland as sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch. Political parties remain banned and the King choses all members of the government and the judiciary. He also chooses 10 members of the House of Assembly, allowing his subjects to select the other 55 members. No members of the Swazi Senate are elected by the people.

National elections were held in September 2013, but the full results of the voting have never been revealed publicly.

In April 2013, on the 40^th anniversary of the Royal Decree, armed police and state security forces in Swaziland broke up a series of events, including meetings, prayers and a rally, which had been called to debate the political situation in the kingdom.

POLITICAL CRISIS: FACTS REMAIN HIDDEN

The political crisis in Swaziland continues into a third week after a vote of no-confidence in the Swazi Government was passed and then reversed 12 days later.

According to the constitution, the government should have resigned or been sacked by King Mswati III after the first vote – but neither of these things happened. Instead, the government forced a revote which it won. There is no legal reason why the revote was allowed and for the constitution to be ignored.

Swaziland is not a democracy and King Mswati rules as sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch. It seems that he refused to accept the vote and this set in place a chain of events that led to it being overturned.

Freedom of speech is severely curtailed in Swaziland and people are fearful of talking publicly about what has really been happening in Swaziland in the recent past. They are particularly fearful of being seen to criticise King Mswati – no matter how mildly they do it.

This fear makes it difficult to get people to talk ‘on the record’ about what has caused the present political crisis and who is to blame for it. But this is what Swazi Media Commentary has managed to piece together so far.

On 3 October 2012, by a vote of 42 in favour and six against, the House of Assembly passed a no-confidence motion in the government – this was more than the three-fifths majority (39 votes) of the House membership needed to trigger the constitution. 

According to sections 68 and 134 of the Swaziland Constitution, the government had three days in which to resign. If it did not, the King was obliged by the constitution to sack the Prime Minister and the cabinet.

At midnight on the day of the no-confidence vote PM Barnabas Dlamini held a press conference to announce that he did not recognise the vote and he would not resign. Three days then went by but King Mswati III did not sack the government.

By protocol, when the House of Assembly makes a decision, it has to be personally conveyed to the king by the Speaker of the House. In this case King Mswati refused to meet with Speaker Prince Gaduza. This meant that officially the king did not know about the vote of no-confidence and therefore he felt he did not have to act.

This gave time for the king’s advisors from the Liqoqo (Swaziland National Council) to meet to decide what they should advise the king about the no-confidence vote.

They were not prepared to allow the vote to stand so they looked for excuses to ignore it. The king’s advisers are all traditionalists and are in charge of interpreting Swazi Law and Custom. The laws and customs are administered by chiefs who rule over their subjects in the name of the king. The laws and customs operate outside of the constitution. It is not in the interests of the traditionalists to have their actions subjected to constitutional law.

King Mswati always decides which motions from the Swaziland Parliament he wishes to support and those he does not. He did not wish to support the no-confidence vote. He has also on numerous times in the past sent instructions to Parliament on actions he wishes them to take. They always without discussion or hesitation do as he tells them. The Parliament made up of the House of Assembly and the Senate, therefore, cannot be seen as an institution independent of the monarchy.

King Mswati had personally appointed Dlamini as Prime Minister in 2008 in contravention of the Constitution which states that the PM must be a member of the House of Assembly. Dlamini was not. He came into parliament specifically at the king’s instruction to be PM. The government was also chosen by the king. Therefore, to criticise the performance of the PM and cabinet can also be seen as criticism of the king’s choices.

When it became clear that King Mswati would not support the vote of no-confidence, Dlamini felt confident enough to insist that a new vote be taken by the House to over-turn it. This vote was held and passed on 15 October 2012.  

But, the PM did not have the confidence that he would win by a respectable margin. Only 32 members of the 65-stong House voted and nocount was taken. Instead, the Speaker simply relied on a shout of Aye or Nay from the members present. We will never know how many voted for the reversal of the no-confidence vote. But, with only 32 members of the 65-strong House present the vote could not have been three-fifths (39) of the total membership of the House. 

According to standing orders there have to be at least 30 members of the House present for a vote to be taken. During the rerun of the vote some members left the chamber taking the number below 30. The Deputy Prime Minister Themba Masuku left the chamber to search for missing members and found some of them relaxing in the canteen watching the proceedings on a monitor. The MPs say the DPM bullied and threatened them to return to the chamber. He denies this and says he simply ‘lobbied’ them back into the chamber. They did, however, return. 

After the vote, accusations have been published in Swazi local newspapers that some members were either threatened or bribed to support reversing the no-confidence vote. Reports say some were promised high office or cash to help them get re-elected in next year’s national election. 

Immediately the revote was taken, civil society organisations, pro-democracy activists and lawyers in Swaziland protested that it was unconstitutional and that the government had no right to force a re-vote: only a court could do so. The Attorney General Majahenkhaba Dlamini in a newspaper interview agreed that the constitution did indeed say the court was the place to go to get clarity on the constitution, but that government had decided not to do so. 

The Law Society of Swaziland has said it will challenge the revote in court. 

See also

CONSTITUTION EXISTS MERELY ON PAPER

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2012/10/constitution-exists-merely-on-paper.html

TOP LAW OFFICER DEFIES CONSTITUTION

Swaziland’s Attorney-General Majahenkhaba Dlamini has said that the Government decided not to follow the constitution when it succeeded in having a no-confidence vote against it overturned.

Dlamini who supports the government action said that although the preamble to the Swazi constitution states, ‘Whereas all the branches of government are the Guardians of the Constitution, it is necessary that the courts be the ultimate Interpreters of the Constitution,’ the government decided not to go to court but simply to demand a re-run of the vote.

He told the Times of Swaziland newspaper, ‘Government decided not to go to court, but even this route to rescind the vote is valid. Government could have gone to court but decided against it.’  

Politics in Swaziland has been in turmoil for the past two weeks since the House of Assembly passed a vote-of no confidence in the government by a majority greater than three-fifths. According to the constitution, when this happens the government must resign within three days. Failing this the constitution obliges the king to sack the government.

The government neither resigned, nor did King Mswati III, who is sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch, uphold the constitution.

Prime Minister Barnabas Dlamini, who was not elected to parliament but personally appointed to his position by King Mswati, refused to recognise the no-confidence vote. He claimed that correct procedures had not been followed before the vote.

On Monday (15 October 2012), the government forced a rerun and the no-confidence vote was overturned. This time only 32 of the 65 members of the House of Assembly were present. No vote was counted, so it is impossible to know how many supported the motion.

It has emerged that some members of the house who were opposed to overturning the vote were denied the chance to make submissions on Monday and staged a walkout.

The Government has been under severe criticism for forcing through the vote with lawyers in the kingdom claiming that it had no constitutional right to do so. They say only the courts can interpret the constitution, not the government.

When questioned on this point the AG recognised that the constitution made this clear in its preamble. ‘Government could have gone to court but decided against it,’ he told the Times. He said the government relied on parliamentary standing orders.

He attacked the lawyers who opposed the government action.  ‘They don’t know what they’re talking about. All I’m saying is that some of these lawyers know nothing. I don’t know where they got the notion that you can’t rescind a motion.’

He went on: ‘The rescinding is allowed by standing orders.’

Advocate Lucas Maziya said it was unheard of that parliament standing orders could overrule the constitution. Another lawyer, Titus Mlangeni, said that once a vote of no-confidence had been passed in the house it could not be reversed.

See also

GOVT NO-CONFIDENCE VOTE REVERSED

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2012/10/govt-no-confidence-vote-reversed.html