Swaziland Newsletter No. 837 – 26 July 2024

 News from and about Swaziland, compiled by Global Aktion, Denmark (www.globalaktion.dk) in collaboration with Swazi Media Commentary (www.swazimedia.blogspot.com), and sent to all with an interest in Swaziland - free of charge.

 

Alarming rates of teen pregnancy, HIV

By Nonduduzo Kunene, Times of eSwatini (print edition), 23 July 2024 

LOBAMBA: Lack of proper parenting and poverty have been cited among enablers of the alarming rate of teenage pregnancy and high HIV rate among the youth.

Also counted among these are harsh economic conditions, power dynamics, fear of disclosure and uncoordinated intervention.

This is contained in a report that was tabled by the Deputy Prime Minister (DPM), Thulisile Dladla, in Senate. The deputy premier tabled the report in response to a motion that was moved by Senator Lorraine Nxumalo in May, where she moved that the DPM’s Office, as the ministry responsible for social welfare, in collaboration with other ministries, must investigate why teenage pregnancies and HIV infections persist, despite the introduced interventions.

The ministries that the DPM’s Office will work with are those of Health, Education and Training, Home Affairs and that of Sports, Culture and Youth Affairs. The government ministries were given 21 days to report to Senate, following the adoption of the motion. The motion came after it was reported, by this publication, that over 1 109 teenagers fell pregnant in a space of three months.

The report tabled by the DPM noted that approximately 70 per cent of the total population of Eswatini comprised of the youth. It says 58.9 per cent of the population lives in poverty and more than 20 per cent of them live in extreme poverty, which increases vulnerability to negative shocks. The report states that there is a lack of proper parenting and a weakening of the institution of the family, coupled with a lack of parental care and supervision, which is a major contributor to the increase in teenage pregnancy and HIV rates among the youth.

New family structures including single-parent families, blended (step) families and child-headed families also contribute to the increased rates. The report highlights that the absence of male role models in single-parent families has negative impacts on the development of a boy child. In the modern family setting, parents have to balance work and family time. It says the absence of proper parenting affects children’s emotional and psychological development.

It also mentions poverty and harsh economic conditions as contributors to social ills. “Poverty also provides fertile ground for social ills to be perpetuated. The lack of access to education and employment opportunities largely contributes to income inequalities and widening gap between the rich and the poor.”

It is also stated that the need to survive leads to unmet social and physiological needs that force low-income earners to engage in certain activities that may be detrimental to their health and well-being, which then undermines their quality of life. Additionally, the report highlights that poverty is not only an individual, but a broader social problem, not only confronting teenagers, but the youth and adults as well.

“Extreme deprivation may lead to crime, illegal activities such as prostitution, drug abuse resulting in teenage pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases and high rates of HIV infections,” states the report.

Global Fund approves R768million grant to support eSwatini fight HIV/AIDS and other diseases, Prime Minister applauds consistent support

By Musa Mdluli, Swaziland News, 25 July, 2024

SOURCE 

EZULWINI: The Global Fund has approved a grant amounting to R768million support eSwatini fight HIV/AIDS and other diseases, the grant will support the country until the year 2026.

Speaking at the Royal Villas-Ezulwini on Thursday during Eswatini Country Coordinating Mechanism, Prime Minister Russell Mmiso Dlamini applauded the Global Fund for the continued support.

“For the year 2023-2026, the Global Fund has approved a grant of about E768 million to continue the fight against HIV. His Majesty’s Government is grateful for this commitment to continue the fight. Through the Eswatini CCM, grants from the Global Fund for HIV, TB, and malaria have made a significant impact. To date, the Global Fund has committed about E6.4 billion and disbursed about E6.2 billion.

This support is received by the Kingdom of Eswatini through Eswatini CCM and implemented through NERCHA and CANGO as CCM Principal Recipients. The Global Fund partnership aligns with our national vision, which presents a unique opportunity to change the trajectory of HIV,TB, and malaria in our country,” said the Prime Minister as quoted by Government online platforms.

 

Education International launches petition in support of Swaziland National Association of Teachers

Adult Education International, 19 July 2024

SOURCE 

Education International (EI) launched a petition on the trade union platform LabourStart in support of the the Swaziland National Association of Teachers (SNAT), its affiliate in the country. EI called on the Eswatini Teaching Service Commission (TSC) to recognize the SNAT as a partner in social dialogue, reinstate SNAT President Mbongwa Dlamini to his teaching duties, and pay his salary arrears as ordered by the court.

For too many years, the Swaziland National Association of Teachers (SNAT), its President Mbongwa Dlamini, and General Secretary Lot Mduduzi Vilakati have been targeted by the authorities of Eswatini. In June 2024, the International Labour Conference expressed “deep concern over the deteriorating state of public order and its negative impact on trade union rights in Eswatini, along with a culture of impunity for crimes against trade unionists.” The ILO urged the Government to take effective, urgent, and time-bound measures to refrain from violent treatment, intimidation, or harassment (including judicial harassment) of leaders and members of trade unions in the education sector conducting lawful trade union activities, and to conduct independent investigations into the persecution of Mr. Mbongwa Dlamini. Furthermore, it called for ensuring that workers’ organisations, including the Trade Union Congress of Swaziland (TUCOSWA) and SNAT, have the autonomy and independence needed to fulfill their mandate and represent their members.

Since the ILO recommendations, the Principal Secretary of the Ministry of Education and his senior management have met weekly with SNAT representatives. However, the TSC continues to refuse to release the SNAT President's teacher wage despite two industrial court orders. The TSC also refuses to meet with teacher union representatives to address key policies and practices affecting the profession.

In March 2023, an EI High-Level Mission visited Eswatini to reiterate on-site the support of the global education union community to colleagues in the country. The EI delegation, composed of EI General Secretary David Edwards, EI Vice-President Mugwena Maluleke, and the Director of the EI Africa Regional Office Dennis Sinyolo, urged the national governmental authorities to put an immediate halt to the persecution of SNAT leaders.

EI will continue to advocate for the respect basic human and trade union rights of SNAT leaders and members and for the introduction of democratic governance in Eswatini.

 

eSwatini’s pro-democracy movement undeterred as MPs sentenced to prison

By Nokukhanya Musi, Voice of America, 18 July 2024

SOURCE 

MBABANE: The sentencing Tuesday [16 July 2024] in Eswatini of two former members of parliament to lengthy prison terms on charges of terrorism marks a significant escalation in the tensions between the monarchy and those advocating for democratic reform in the southern African nation. Human rights groups condemned the convictions, saying the court decision raises questions about human rights and political repression. Pro-democracy activists say they are undeterred.

The convictions of Mduduzi Bacede Mabuza and Mthandeni Dube, who were sentenced to prison terms of 25 and 18 years respectively, sent shock waves throughout Eswatini and the international community.

The two men were arrested in July 2021 during pro-democracy protests that were violently put down by security forces, leaving dozens of people dead. Demonstrators were pressing for reforms to a complex system of non-party elections that ensured Eswatini’s ruler, King Mswati the third, faced no meaningful dissent.

Rights group Amnesty International urged Eswatini authorities to immediately quash what it called “the unjust and baseless convictions and sentences of the former members of parliament.”

Alpheous Nxumalo, a spokesperson for the Eswatini government, told VOA’s English to Africa Service the convictions were “discharged through the provisions of the law, which guarantees the rights of each and everyone who has been sentenced to appeal to a higher court.” He added that Eswatini’s international partners and friends should respect the country’s sovereignty and rule of law.

Thantaza Silolo, a spokesperson for the Swaziland Liberation Movement (SWALIMO), told VOA that despite the harsh sentences handed down by the Eswatini High Court, the country’s pro-democracy movement remains resolute in its pursuit of democratic reform.

"These MPs were strong inside the chambers of parliament and outside in calling to say we need a prime minister that is elected by the people, not a prime minister that is being appointed by the King and for that reason, they were sentenced, they were arrested and charged with heinous offenses as if they were criminals, they were murderers and terrorists," Silolo said. "Yet, these are just advocates for change. These are just people who have been calling for freedom and we maintain as a movement that … we will continue to push for their release.”

Political analyst Sibusiso Nhlabatsi sees the sentences as a major setback for democracy and human rights in Eswatini. She said the sentences are a classic example of "guilty until proven innocent," with mere allegations being enough to secure a conviction.

“You can see that the intention was to induce fear and I think most of Emaswati will now live in that shadow of fear — we don’t want to do what these people did and even members of parliament will say we don’t want to do what the other members of parliament did because we might follow suit,” Nhlabatsi said. “I think through this judgment the state has successfully entrenched itself. It has successfully been able to threaten anyone who may want to raise a voice against the establishment.”

According to human rights activist Lucky Dlamini, the harsh sentencing of the MPs signals a wider attack on democracy and human rights in Eswatini. He said the country is a dictatorship, with the monarchy using state security forces to suppress dissent and violate fundamental human rights.

“We remain under a cruel system of government which is an absolute monarchy where there’s immunity [for] the security forces against human rights activists and political activists and human right defenders, where they cannot be able to access justice in the courts, where they cannot be able to hold on to demonstration, where they cannot exercise freedom of the right to political participation, the right to freedom of expression, the right to freedom of access to the media, the right to freedom of assembly,” he said.

A lawyer for the two former MPs said they plan to appeal their sentences.

 

King Mswati to pay R2m and 100 cattle lobolo for Zuma’s daughter

By.Mzilikazi wa Afrika, Sunday World (South Africa), 21st July 2024

SOURCE 

Nomcebo Zuma, the sassy 21-year-old daughter of former president Jacob Zuma was this week unveiled as King Mswati III’s liphovela – an official girlfriend – and made her first public appearance in eSwatini along with one of the monarch’s 15 wives.

Three independent sources confirmed to Sunday World that King Mswati is expected to pay R2-million and 100 head of cattle aslobolo for Nomcebo, the daughter of Zuma and Nonkululeko Hloniphile Mhlongo, also known as MaMhlongo.

“MaMhlongo’s eyes are on the lobolo price, which is reportedly to be six figures and about 100 cattle,” said a member of the Zuma family, who asked not to be named as he isn’t allowed to speak to the media on family matters.

Nomcebo will now warm the 56-year-old king’s bed even after her father, Zuma, stormed out of the lobolo negotiations two weeks ago.

After Zuma walked out, MaMhlongo, who has two children with the former presi­dent, apparently told everyone that the negotiations would go on with or without him.

She and Zuma couldn’t be reached for comment.

Nomcebo, dressed in red Swati regalia, made her first public appearance accompanied by the king’s 15th wife, Siphelele Mashwama, during the opening of a R50-million chicken project in Malkerns, eSwatini, on Monday.

The king married Mashwa­ma in September 2017. In October 2022, she accompanied him to Zulu King MisuZulu kaZwelithini’s coronation.

Zuma abandoned lobolo negotiations when it turned out that the king, who had initially reportedly told him that he wanted his son, who is in his 30s, to marry the former president’s daughter, only to be told during the negotiations that the king wanted Nomcebo for himself.

To read more of this report, click here

https://sundayworld.co.za/news/king-mswati-pays-r2m-and-100-cattle-lobolo-for-zumas-daughter/

King Sobhuza II birthday celebration

By Mancoba Shabangu, Swati Newsweek, 22 July 2024

SOURCE 

Today, 22 July 2024, King Mswati’s government and Royal family is celebrating the Birth of the late king Sobhuza ll.

King Sobhuza formed Tibiyo Takangwane. When Swaziland (now Eswatini) was still colonised by British, the late king ordered our grandfathers to sold their cattle and give the money to him so that he buy back Swaziland from the Britains.

However, when our grandfathers have already given him the money (or cattle), the Britains decided to give emaSwati Swaziland back for free. Then Sobhuza said, ‘now that the Britains have given us our land back for free, the money (or cattle) that was meant to buy back the land, we will now use it to form Tibiyo Takangwane, it will helps emaSwati.’

But today those who benefits from Tibiyo Takangwane is only the Royal Family.

When the Britains decided to give emaSwati their land, they said, ‘We do not want to give the land to an individual because he will boost and oppress the others saying ‘this is my country.’ Therefore, go and form political parties and vote for them, we will give the winning party the key to rule the country.

King Sobhuza formed Imbokodvo Movement (now Tinkhundla System), there was also Ngwane National Congress among others. Votes were made, the Imbokodvo Movement won. Britains gave the Imbokodvo Movement (now Tinkhundla System) key to rule. Sobhuza was the ‘President’ of the Imbokodvo Movement.

While emaSwati were waiting for voting for their loved political parties in the next elections, King Sobhuza took advantage of being in power and in 1973 he said political parties devide us as a nation, so he banned political parties in participating in election. He said only Imbokodvo Movement will rule. But he said if one day emaSwati decide to unban, allow the political parties to participate in election, they will do so.

 

SWAZI MEDIA COMMENTARY

Find us:

Blog: https://swazimedia.blogspot.com/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/142383985790674

X (formerly Twitter): https://twitter.com  @Swazimedia

 

As Swaziland marks the anniversary of Independence, what happened to the optimism?

By Richard Rooney

As Swaziland (eSwatini) marks the 52^nd anniversary of its independence from Great Britain I can’t help but wonder what happened to all the optimism that was voiced in 1968?

In 1968, the New York Times reported ‘Swaziland achieves independence today with much brighter immediate prospects than the other two former British High Commission territories in south Africa.’

It added, ‘It is smaller (area 6,705 sq miles: population 400,000) than Botswana or Lesotho, but commands far greater natural resources and a robust foreign trade and payments surplus.’

Those prospects were soon extinguished. Even before the present coronavirus (COVID-19) emergency all but destroyed the economy the International Monetary Fund was reporting Swaziland’s economic situation was dire. In February 2020 the IMF reported the economy in Swaziland continued to be in free-fall. Public debt was still rising, domestic arrears had grown, and international currency reserves had fallen ‘below adequate levels’. 

The growth in private investment was slowing and declining external competitiveness was hindering the kingdom’s growth prospects. Now, 40 percent of the 1.1 million population are living in extreme poverty and unemployment is high.

The political situation is equally dire. In 1973 the then king, Sobhuza II tore up the constitution and began to rule by Royal Proclamation. Despite a new constitution that came into effect in 2006 that proclamation has not been repealed.

The present king, Mswati III rules as an absolute monarch. Political parties are barred from contesting elections and groups that advocate for democratic reform are banned under the Suppression of Terrorism Act. 

People only elect 59 of the members of the House of Assembly; the King appoints a further ten. None of the 30-member Senate are elected by the people. The King chooses the Prime Minister and his Cabinet as well as top judges and civil servants.

King Mswati and his family continue to use public money to fund their own lavish lifestyles.

 

Back in 1968, people hoped for so much more (no, expected so much more from Independence). The New York Times reported (6 September 1968), ‘Swaziland achieves independence today with much brighter immediate prospects than the other two former British High Commission territories in south Africa. It is smaller (area 6,705 sq miles: population 400,000) than Botswana or Lesotho, but commands far greater natural resources and a robust foreign trade and payments surplus.

‘This is not to suggest that the Swazis lack problems. Their position as almost an island within South Africa would by itself insure long-range headaches. They currently enjoy political stability under the shrewd if traditional leadership of King Sobhuza II and the royalist Imbokodvo party of Prime Minister Mahkosini Dlamini.’

Swaziland was seen as a stable, peaceful country. Much of the credit for this was put at the feet of the then king, Sobhuza II.

The New York Times reported. ‘The 69-year-old King has been on the throne since 1921. He personifies his country: one foot in the past and the other in the future.

‘The king of the Swazis, once one of Africa’s great warring tribes, is equally at home in formal Western clothes or Mahia, the colourful national costume. He is reported to have about 170 wives and platoons of children. Statistics are sketchy, but the records do show that the king took his 50^th bride in 1933.’

The Financial Times, London, UK, reported, ‘If, then, today [1968] the King reigns supreme in this tiny country ... it is very largely because it was he, and not some populist movement, that provided the impetus, back in 1960, which set his country on the road to independence.

‘This is important, for it meant that the King and his men were able to a large extent to call the tune in their negotiations with the British Government – the one attempt to impose a Whitehall-inspired constitution in 1964 was very short lived. Furthermore, by being identified from the start with the ‘struggle’ for independence in the minds of the people, the Imbokodvo has been able to stay one jump ahead of any local opposition – notably the Pan-Africanist Ngwane National Liberatory Congress – and in the end to annihilate it.’

It was the control exerted over Swaziland by King Sobhuza that for many was the key to the stability in Swaziland.

The Financial Times pointed out that it is arguable that the Whites in Swaziland would not have been willing to abandon their demand for an entrenched representation in parliament without the influence of Sobhuza.

‘There can be little doubt that Swaziland’s Whites draw great comfort from the knowledge that a conservative monarch who makes little secret of his appreciation for the White’s continuing economic contribution to the country is in charge.’

It was generally recognised internationally that ‘democracy’ in Swaziland in 1968 had shortcomings. The Financial Times put it like this, ‘In theory, he [King Sobhuza II] is only a constitutional monarch, and as Head of State he will have to live with a Parliament consisting of a 12 man Senate and a 30-man House of Assembly. But, in practice, it is very difficult to see the legislature going against the king’s wishes; for in practically every sense it is the King’s Parliament. To start with, all 24 elected members in the Assembly belong to the Royalist Imbokodvo National Movement, founded in early 1964, and headed by Prince Makhosini Dlamini, a member of the Royal family and now Swaziland’s first Prime Minister.

‘Secondly, the King has the power to appoint six Senate members with the remainder being elected by the House of Assembly.

‘Thirdly, there is his influence in the Swazi National Council, the body of chiefs and elders through which kings have traditionally governed the Swazi nation. And as long as Swaziland retains its unitary tribal structure, the SNC is likely to remain an important body for it is here that the vast majority of the people will make their grievances immediately felt, which will then be transmitted via the king to parliament, rather than the other way round...’

History tells us that this confidence in Sobhuza was misplaced. In 1973, after the people of Swaziland freely elected members of parliament of whom he disapproved, the King abandoned the parliament, tore up the constitution and ruled by decree. Swaziland is still (technically, at least) ruled by this decree.

The total lack of democracy in Swaziland, the banning of political parties and the stripping of power from Parliament dates from 1973. Most of the kingdom’s present day shortcomings can be directly attributed to the crushing lack of democracy that stifled debate and penalised those who dare to have a view contrary to those of the ruling elite.

The lack of political sophistication in Swaziland was noted by the Financial Times, ‘the very lack of political sophistication in the country – no small reason for the King’s strong hold over its affairs – is likely to bolster this stability in the short term.’

Even in 1968 there were concerns about whether the people of Swaziland were being truly represented in Parliament. Elections in 1967 had seen the Ngwane National Liberatory Congress (NNLC) get 20 percent of the vote, but no seats.

The Financial Times reported with more foresight than it probably realised at the time, ‘Votes came mainly from the tiny, but growing, white-collar urban working class.

‘Moreover, with hindsight it is now apparent that the vote was not so much for the NNLC but against the Establishment, so that even if Dr Zwane [the NNLC leader] disappears from the scene, the forces which had been channelled through his party, will remain.’

See also

Anniversary of day Swaziland stopped being a democracy and became absolute monarchy

https://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2020/04/anniversary-of-day-swaziland-stopped.html

 

Swazis did not choose political system

https://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2013/04/swazis-did-not-choose-political-system.html

Anniversary of day Swaziland stopped being a democracy and became absolute monarchy

It was 47 years ago today (12 April 2020) that Swaziland (now known as eSwatini) stopped being a parliamentary 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.’

In 1973 the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) believed King Sobhuza had taken control from the Swazi Parliament because he feared people were becoming educated and would mount a serious threat to his power.

In 1968 Swaziland had what the CIA called a ‘British-imposed’ constitution with a formal ‘Western style’ parliament working alongside the Swazi National Council (SNC), ‘a group of chiefs and headmen dominated by the King’.

In a secret report which has since been declassified the CIA stated, ‘In theory the SNC only dealt with tribal matters but it always maintained a strong voice in governmental affairs.’

It added, ‘The veneer provided by the British-imposed constitution and parliamentary form of government left the King a great deal of room for exercising political power but it also left room for a substantial degree of political manoeuvring by non-traditional oriented political parties.

‘King Sobhuza staked his prestige on the formation of his own political party [the Imbkodvo National Movement] and won an overwhelming victory, sweeping 24 seats, during the country’s first post-independence election in 1967. During the next election in 1973, however, Sobhuza’s party lost three of the 24 parliamentary seats [to the Ngwane National Liberatory Congress] and the King dissolved Parliament, suspended the Constitution, and assumed power by decree.’

The CIA report added, ‘Most of the vote against Sobhuza’s party in 1973 came from an area that contained the capital city [Mbabane], much of the country’s developed industry, the civil servants, and almost half of Swaziland’s urban population.

‘While many observers did not feel that the loss of three parliamentary seats represented a serious threat to the King and his party, the King probably interpreted the vote as the initial stages of the breakdown of tribal authority.’

The CIA report stated, ‘As the Swazi people and the economy become more sophisticated, Sobhuza’s autocratic style is being viewed as an anachronism by growing numbers of educated Swaziland.’

A confidential cable (later declassified) from the US Embassy in Swaziland to the State Department in Washington dated 13 April 1973, the day after King Sobhuza’s proclamation, read in part, ‘King Sobhuza stated he had taken drastic action to prevent breakdown of law and order and to reverse process of disharmony, bitterness and division which existed in country. Prince Sifuba [head of the Swazi National Council], on behalf Swazi nation, had stated that nation wished King to know it had never been so divided as at present. King laid blame for present “very serious situation” in country directly to constitution which introduced “undesirable political activities” into country bringing bitterness and threats to peace, law and order.’

It added, ‘Extent of action surprised Western observers who perceive no serious threat to law and order. Non-Swazis and even some Swazis profess belief King yielded to pressures and over-reacted to insignificant opposition.’

The cable said the King repealed the Swaziland constitution, dismissed parliament and assumed personal control of the country as King-in-Council. 

The cable listed what it called some ‘fairly tame’ activities that had taken place in the previous months that traditionalists and monarchists said was disruptive. These included brief work stoppages at the Havelock and Ngwenya mines; some civil servants requested a meeting of all civil servants in December 1972 because they were dissatisfied with wage increases; modernization and proliferation of commerce and industry in Swaziland had led to attempts to organize unions; students had voiced complaints and grievances and there had been growing pressure in the rural areas for different rules for land tenure which, the cable said, implied a reduction in the real power of the local chief.

Political parties remain banned in Swaziland 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 59 members. No members of the Swazi Senate are elected by the people. 

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 believed 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 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. 

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

Anniversary of day Swaziland stopped being a democracy and became absolute monarchy approaches

It is approaching 46 years since Swaziland (now known as /eSwatini) stopped being a parliamentary 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.’ 

In 1973 the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) believed King Sobhuza had taken control from the Swazi Parliament because he feared people were becoming educated and would mount a serious threat to his power.

In 1968 Swaziland had what the CIA called a ‘British-imposed’ constitution with a formal ‘Western style’ parliament working alongside the Swazi National Council (SNC), ‘a group of chiefs and headmen dominated by the King’.

In a secret report which has since been declassified the CIA stated, ‘In theory the SNC only dealt with tribal matters but it always maintained a strong voice in governmental affairs.’

It added, ‘The veneer provided by the British-imposed constitution and parliamentary form of government left the King a great deal of room for exercising political power but it also left room for a substantial degree of political manoeuvring by non-traditional oriented political parties.

‘King Sobhuza staked his prestige on the formation of his own political party [the Imbkodvo National Movement] and won an overwhelming victory, sweeping 24 seats, during the country’s first post-independence election in 1967. During the next election in 1973, however, Sobhuza’s party lost three of the 24 parliamentary seats [to the Ngwane National Liberatory Congress] and the King dissolved Parliament, suspended the Constitution, and assumed power by decree.’

The CIA report added, ‘Most of the vote against Sobhuza’s party in 1973 came from an area that contained the capital city [Mbabane], much of the country’s developed industry, the civil servants, and almost half of Swaziland’s urban population.

‘While many observers did not feel that the loss of three parliamentary seats represented a serious threat to the King and his party, the King probably interpreted the vote as the initial stages of the breakdown of tribal authority.’

The CIA report stated, ‘As the Swazi people and the economy become more sophisticated, Sobhuza’s autocratic style is being viewed as an anachronism by growing numbers of educated Swaziland.’

A confidential cable (later declassified) from the US Embassy in Swaziland to the State Department in Washington dated 13 April 1973, the day after King Sobhuza’s proclamation, read in part, ‘King Sobhuza stated he had taken drastic action to prevent breakdown of law and order and to reverse process of disharmony, bitterness and division which existed in country. Prince Sifuba [head of the Swazi National Council], on behalf Swazi nation, had stated that nation wished King to know it had never been so divided as at present. King laid blame for present “very serious situation” in country directly to constitution which introduced “undesirable political activities” into country bringing bitterness and threats to peace, law and order.’

It added, ‘Extent of action surprised Western observers who perceive no serious threat to law and order. Non-Swazis and even some Swazis profess belief King yielded to pressures and over-reacted to insignificant opposition.’

The cable said the King repealed the Swaziland constitution, dismissed parliament and assumed personal control of the country as King-in-Council. 

The cable listed what it called some ‘fairly tame’ activities that had taken place in the previous months that traditionalists and monarchists said was disruptive. These included brief work stoppages at the Havelock and Ngwenya mines; some civil servants requested a meeting of all civil servants in December 1972 because they were dissatisfied with wage increases; modernization and proliferation of commerce and industry in Swaziland had led to attempts to organize unions; students had voiced complaints and grievances and there had been growing pressure in the rural areas for different rules for land tenure which, the cable said, implied a reduction in the real power of the local chief.

Political parties remain banned in Swaziland 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 59 members. No members of the Swazi Senate are elected by the people. 

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 believed 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 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. 

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

Apartheid South Africa financed Swaziland kings through secret political fund

The government of South Africa financed Swaziland’s then King Sobhuza II through a secret fund during the apartheid years.
 

After the king died it continued to make secret payments to his successor and present king, Mswati III. When the apartheid government fell, the South African government under President Nelson Mandela thought it worth its while to continue making the payments.

The payments to Sobhuza and Mswati came from a secret fund set up specifically to promote the policies of ‘white’ South Africa and to fund operations directed against the opponents of apartheid.

The existence of the fund and the payments to the Swazi monarchs was revealed by South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). The information was published in October 1998 but has gone largely unnoticed in the years since.

The mandate of the TRC was set up in 1996 after the apartheid era ended to bear witness to, record and in some cases grant amnesty to the perpetrators of crimes relating to human rights violations, reparation and rehabilitation.

The TRC reported it had not received information on the specific nature of the activities undertaken by those like the Swaziland monarchs who received ‘covert funding’, nor did it investigate the actual use made of the funding. But, it added, it was clear there were funds in ‘secret bank accounts’.

The TRC said it received information about the secret funds from the reports by the Advisory Committee on Special Secret Projects, chaired by Professor Ellison Kahn (known as the Khan Committee) and the Secret Services Evaluation Committee.

 

The TRC reported, ‘The Auditor-General reported that a total of more than R2.75 billion was expended through the Secret Services Account between 1978 and 1994. This does not, however, constitute the full amount spent by state departments on secret and other sensitive projects.’

The TRC reported, ‘Most projects appear to be related to the establishment of front organisations or actions aimed at counteracting the activities of the African National Congress (ANC) and its allies, primarily in the sphere of information, communication, disinformation, propaganda and counter-propaganda. 

It said one of the key goals of the secret projects was ‘sanctions busting’. Separately from the TRC investigation it has been revealed that in 1978 King Sobhuza’s government lobbied the United States and the United Kingdom not to impose economic sanctions on South Africa.

The TRC highlighted what was called ‘Project Swaziland.’ The entry in the TRC’s report (Vol 2, Chapter 6,  page 529) on Project Swaziland was based on information from South Africa’s Department of Foreign Affairs. The full entry in the TRC report on Project Swaziland is as follows, ‘Young King Mswati III took it for granted that, like his father, he would be furnished with the part-time services of an attorney at the expense of the South African government. Pretoria lawyer Mr Ernst Penzhorn was employed at an annual fee of around R50,000 to advise the King generally, accompany him to conferences, draft speeches for him, persuade him not to act in undesirable ways, and protect him from the machinations of undesirable characters.’

No further mention is made in the TRC report of Project Swaziland. However, the Khan Committee had previously been tasked with going through the secret funds to recommend which should be allowed to continue post-apartheid.  Khan reported on Project Swaziland, on 19 November 1991. It called it, ‘A line function par excellence. Activity endorsed.’ This recommendation that King Mswati should continue to receive secret funding was later accepted. 

Minutes of the South Africa Secret Services Evaluation Committee of 8 April 1993 show the enthusiasm of South Africa’s Department of Foreign Affairs for continuing Project Swaziland. The minute reads, ‘The Department would like to fund this from the open budget, but there are problems with the need for secrecy for the two involved.’ It added department officials would ‘consider other ways of providing this assistance henceforth’.

According to a profile published in the Mail & Guardian (South Africa) in February 1998, the Pretoria lawyer Ernst Penzhorn who was employed to serve King Mswati was closely associated with one-time President of South Africa, PW Botha. The newspaper said Penzhorn’s speciality was, ‘the art of smoke and mirrors, and the negotiation of the shifting sands of international realpolitik where countries have no friends, but only interests’.

It added he was, ‘a sort of legal agent-cum-fixer extraordinaire’.

A separate report in the Mail & Guardian in March 1995 said, ‘Penzhorn’s speciality appears to be acting for South African agents captured in foreign countries while on clandestine missions.’

The payments were made to King Sobhuza until his death in 1982. The payments continued when King Mswati III succeeded him to the throne. It is not known if the payments continue to the present day.

Sobhuza is still widely revered within Swaziland, 37 years after his death. He was chosen to be king of Swaziland when he was only four months old and became the monarch after he had reached the age of 21. He died aged 83. He was said to have had 70 wives, 210 children and at least 1,000 grandchildren at the time of his death. 

In 1973, five years after Swaziland’s independence from Great Britain, King Sobhuza tore up the kingdom’s constitution and ruled as an absolute monarch. He was succeeded to the throne by King Mswati III in 1986 who continues to rule as an absolute monarch to the present day.

During the height of the apartheid years in South Africa  King Sobhuza’s Swaziland government lobbied the US and UK Governments not to support economic sanctions on South Africa, according to a confidential communication from 1978.

The then Swazi Prime Minister Maphevu Harry Dlamini said the sanctions would be ‘disastrous’ for the Swaziland economy.

The information challenges the present-day belief that King Sobuza II and his Swazi governments were stanch supporters of the struggle for freedom in South Africa during the apartheid era.

Dlamini was said to have ‘pleaded strongly’ with the US and UK not to support sanctions.

This was revealed in a confidential electronic telegram sent from the United States State Department on 7 November 1978. It was distributed to the UK, Zambia, Mozambique and France.

The electronic telegram said, ‘During 30-minute meeting in his office November 2, Prime Minister pleaded strongly with UK and US reps to urge our governments to prevent adoption of UN sanctions against South Africa, especially on oil, on ground that sanctions would be not only suicidal for Swaziland but also extremely detrimental to blacks.’

The writer of the cable, who was not named, but was likely to be the US Ambassador to Swaziland said the US and UK representatives at the meeting agreed to seek clarification of positions from their governments ‘soonest’.

The confidential message added, ‘In unprecedented move, Prime Minister Maphevu summoned British High Commissioner and me jointly to his office November 2 for urgent approach on issue of UN sanctions against South Africa. 

‘Prime Minister said that from series of telexes and telecons from Swazi UN representative Malinga, he understood that United Nations was on brink of voting on sanctions issue and that Western powers, possibly reflecting disenchantment with South Africa’s posture on Namibian election question, were leaving impression in New York that they might not repeat not veto a sanctions resolution. 

‘Although worried about effect that any kind of sanctions would have on Swaziland’s economy, Prime Minister was principally concerned about oil sanctions. 

‘Prime Minister said he did not have to remind UK and US reps in Mbabane, who saw situation first-hand, how dependent Swaziland economy is on South African economy. 

‘Oil sanctions would be “disastrous” for Swaziland. 

‘He added that one could be sure that not only Swaziland’s population, but also blacks in South Africa itself, would be the first to feel the pinch if sanctions were imposed; he gave the example of black entrepreneurs in South Africa, who he said would certainly be treated far less favorably by South African authorities when rationing began. 

‘Several times in his forceful half-hour presentation the Prime Minister talked as spokesman for blacks in all of Southern Africa and not merely for Swazis. 

‘He said sanctions would be “indirect killing of black people in Southern Africa”.

‘For Swaziland to vote for sanctions would be “suicidal.”

‘Prime Minister asked rhetorically which black leaders in South Africa itself would support sanctions. He hoped that Western policy-makers were not taking advice from “blacks who left South Africa ten to twenty years ago and who are now living comfortably in Europe and America.”

‘He downplayed any hard-line advice that might be given by front-line leaders, who continue their own economic dealings with South Africa (as Swaziland does) because there is no alternative to such cooperation; he cited Zambian railroad move as one recent example.’

Maphevu Harry Dlamini was Prime Minister of Swaziland from 31 March 1976 until his death on 25 October 1979.

The telegram was classified confidential when it was written in 1978, and was declassified in 2014. It is now publicly available through the Wikileaks’ Public Library of US Diplomacy. 

Richard Rooney

 

King Sobhuza II

King Mswati III wearing a suit beaded with diamonds at his 50th birthday celebration

See also

Swaziland King tore up Constitution in fear educated people might challenge his power, CIA report suggests

https://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2018/10/swaziland-king-tore-up-constitution-in.html