It says the Prince, aged 60, has admittedhe is the father of a four-year-old child to a woman who is now only aged 18. That means she must have been 13 or 14 when he had sex with her.
The SDC says that means at the time Prince Logcogco had sex with her she was ‘a minor’ (that is under 16 – the age of consent).
In a statement the SDC says, ‘the girl in question is said to be currently in her teens and the child at the centre of the custody battle between the chief and the teenager is currently four years of age.
‘The SDC wonders if at the time of the casual sex encounter the girl was not a minor who was in no position to legally consent to sex with a man old enough to be her grandfather in which case the chief committed statutory rape.’
The mother of the child also alleged in a newspaper interviewthat Prince Logcogco had abused the four-year-old child.
The SDC now calls on the Royal Swaziland Police and the media in the kingdom ‘to thoroughly investigate both the alleged sexual abuse (child) claims and the statutory rape (teenage mother) so that it is established if a crime or crimes were committed and those responsible are brought to book’.
The 60-year-old Swaziland Royal Prince at the centre of a child sex allegationsays he is not afraid of getting HIV,the virus that leads to AIDS.
Prince Logcogco, the chair of Liqoqo, the shady, but powerful, group that advises King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa's last absolute monarch, says the problem of HIV in Swaziland is exaggerated and there is an international conspiracy by drug companies to make sure a cure is never found.
The remarks by Prince Logcogco (also known as Prince Logcogco Mangaliso) were made in an interview with the Times of Swaziland,the only independent newspaper in the kingdom, ruled by King Mswati, Logcogco’s cousin.
Prince Logcogco boasted of his many sexual conquests. He said he did not live his life wondering how he would die but rather lived each day as it came, avoiding being reckless though.
‘I am not scared of HIV,’ he said.
Prince Logcogco is in the news this week because of a row he is having over custody of a child he fathered with a teenage girl. As I reported yesterday (17 August 2010) it seems he had sex with the teenager when she was under the age of consent and as such he has broken the law in Swaziland and, according to the Girls’ and Women’s Protection Act could face 24 lashes and a jail term. Media in Swaziland have so far ignored this aspect of his custody dispute.
He told the newspaper, as long as one had a body with all the senses and hormones, it was difficult to be pure and not have casual sex.
He said he would never encourage people to have one sexual partner or not to have concurrent sexual partners because that would be devoid of the reality on the ground.
He said the reality was that Swazis were having sexual intercourse with different people amid the ‘exaggerated’ threats of HIV.
He said the pharmaceutical industry was using the scourge of HIV to amass wealth.
‘This industry is making a lot of money and if there was no HIV there would be a lot of people who would lose business. What is now happening is that they are making so much exaggeration about HIV/AIDS so that they can keep their businesses afloat.’
In ordinary circumstances, one wouldn’t take much notice of someone as ignorant of the reality of HIV as Prince Logcogco, but his social status in the kingdom, as a ‘senior’ prince and also as chair of Liqoqo, gives him enormous influence in Swaziland.
As is the case of so many commentators who use the Swazi media to peddle their prejudices, Prince Logcogco chooses to ignore the facts if they allow him to justify his own despicable behaviour.
Here are the statistics on AIDS in Swaziland, courtesy of James Hall,‘The Guinness Book of the Decade, covering 2000 to 2010, lists Swaziland with the highest death rate in world, 22,1 deaths per 1000 people per annum, for the period 2005 to 2010.
‘The popular reference work also cites Swaziland has having the highest rate of death from AIDS: 145 5 persons per 100 000 annually.
‘At an event to mark World Population Day last week, Khanya Mabuza, Deputy Director of NERCHA, said the estimated figures on the rate of deaths related to AIDS might be even higher than officially reported. NERCHA estimates 7 862 deaths in 2008 out of a population of around one million, and 7123 deaths in 2009.'
First there was a media fanfare to announce a plan to build a 5 billion US dollar (E50 billion) power plant backed by donor money and supported by King Mwsati III who confidently guaranteed the money to pay for it was in place and it was all systems go.
The plan was to produce 1 000 MW of electricity (even though Swaziland at present only produces 70 MW through hydro electricity) to fulfil all the kingdom’s energy needs and to export some to neighbouring South Africa.
To save face (whose? The king’s?) we are told that the plan will not go ahead as planned but will be scaled down. But we are told, there will be a new electricity plant. Honest. No, really.
When the plan for Franken Mining to build the plant was first announced in April 2009 myself and others in Swaziland questioned whether the Swazi people were about to be victims of a gigantic fraud.
The office of King Mswati deliberately kept the plans from Parliament, with Swazi National Council (Liqoqo) chairman Prince Mangaliso playing a prominent part.
At the time, the Times of Swaziland quoted Prince Mangaliso saying that to avoid delays in seeing the project actually taking off, government had not been involved. He said government would only be brought on board once all important aspects had been covered.
Prince Mangaliso said, ‘Land and minerals are under the control of the king.’
The secrecy behind the power station deal raised concerns among civil society. The Swaziland Coalition of Concerned Civic Organisations (SCCCO) raised 20 specific questions about the deal and said, ‘In any normal society, the people would not be presented with decisions without some, if not a lot, of consultations.’ It remains a mystery why Franken Mining was chosen for the project and what tendering process was followed before contracts were issued.
According to a report yesterday (13 October 2009) from Reuters news agency, the original plan has been scaled down. Swaziland Electricity Company (SEC) still wants to build a coal-fired plant, but on a much smaller scale.
A feasibility study will be conducted first, SEC said.
According to Reuters no reason for the scaling down of the project was given, nor has a source of funding been found for the project.
There are many questions to be asked about this project but let’s start with this one: How is it that King Mswati, sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch, had the money to build the plant in April, but by October the money is no longer there?
The media in Swaziland are far too critical of the kingdom’s royal family.
Who says so? The royal family, of course.
I had another of those Laugh Out Loud moments when I read this in the Swazi Observer,the newspaper in effect owned by King Mswati III,sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch.
Prince Masitsela, the king’s brother, told a so-called SMART partnership meeting that there was a growing trend where the media would carry sensational stories about Royalty. He said many of these were ill-conceived and anti-Swazi culture.
Prince Masitsela said there was a marked lack of respect in some media houses in Swaziland. ‘This was never heard of in our time. What you are doing is destroying the country and you must go back to the drawing board. We are not saying do not criticise, but when you do so, do so with responsibility, truthfulness and respect for your country.’
Another member of the royal family Prince Logcogco Mangaliso told the same meeting that in the past children were encouraged to read newspapers to get fresh information and to enrich themselves with knowledge. ‘I wonder if we can encourage them to do the same today,’ he said.
King Mswati himself said the media ‘should be professional at all times and adhere to the spirit of respect, nation building and the promotion of peace’.
Of course it’s all nonsense. The media in Swaziland are not disrespectful of the king and the royal family, or of power in general.
As I revealed in July 2008 in my research for the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) the opposite is the case.
The research concluded fear of monarchy and the power it has over the kingdom and media houses within it is by far the main cause of media censorship in Swaziland. This is both censorship imposed by King Mswati III and self-censorship. The king has threatened to close down titles that offend him and in recent history has done exactly that. There are also high levels of self-censorship around the king and the Queen Mother, since editors, aware of threats made in the past by the king, do not want to get themselves into trouble.
Since my report was published King Mswati has been personally involved in intimidating the media.In May 2009 he forced the Times of Swaziland to drop Mfomfo Nkhambuleas a columnist in the newspaper because of his outspoken views on the power structure in Swaziland. The king was also angered by reports in the media (also covered by the international press) that he had spent 2.5 million US dollars (about E25 million) on top of the range Mercedes cars for his wives.
Times publisher Paul Loffler was hauled before the king and told to produce invoices to back up his story about the cars and then he was forced to apologise when he couldn’t. These apologies appeared in both the Times and the Times Sunday.
King Mswati has intimidated the Times group before. In 2007 it was forced to make an apology or face immediate closure after it repeated a news agency report that was critical of the king.
Nkhambule gained international attention for his articles that appeared each Monday in the Times and were largely critical of Swaziland’s ruling elite, including the king. He was hauled in by Swaziland’s state police and threatened with torture if he continued to criticise the king. He was later dropped from his traditional regiment, threatened with banishment from his homeland, and his family was threatened because he refused to be silenced.
To read my full report on media censorship in Swaziland, click here.
It seems those of us who have questioned King Mswati III’s 5 billion US dollar (E50 billion) power station scheme have touched a very raw nerve.
We are asking how a company called Franken Mining (which nobody can find a trace of) managed to secure a deal using international donor funds, without anybody having to go through an open tender process. We also are alarmed that King Mswati has deliberately by-passed the Swazi Government because, according to Prince Mangaliso, chair of the Swazi National Council (SNC), the close adviser to the king, ‘we wanted to avoid the delays, bickering and disagreements that characterise many government projects’.
The secrecy surrounding the deal and concerns about corruption have been raised both in Swaziland and internationally. Leading the public concern is the Swaziland Coalition of Concerned Civic Organisations (SCCCO) which says the project for two coal fired power stations ‘has the potential to destabilise the country, ruin the environment, destroy communities and set back the cause of poverty reduction by many years if not forever.’
SCCCO asked for 20 specific questions to be answered about the project ranging from the bone fides of Franken Mining; how the deal was organised; who has the expertise to make the project work and where the money was coming from.
These are all pertinent questions and in a society that had good governance and transparency the answers would be readily available.
Instead, SCCCO’s questions got a furious response from Prince Mangaliso. Even in Swaziland where public debate is rarely temperate, the Prince’s outburst was exceptional. In an interview with the Times Sunday, the Prince called SCCCO ‘Judas’. He went on to launch a bitter personal attack on Bishop Mabuza, the chair of SCCCO, and then, in what can only be described as a rant, attacked the Anglican Church.
What the Prince didn’t do was answer any of the questions. His response is revealing because it is out of proportion. I suspect he and the others at the heart of this dodgy deal are angered that it has become public before they are able to deliver it signed and sealed.
The questions, SCCCO want answered are as follows:
1 No-one can find any independent reference to a Company called Franken Mining – what is its background, experience, and financial capacity to undertake a project of this size. Who are the directors?
2 How was Franken Mining chosen and why was an auctioning process not used?
3 Why is there talk of donors when private equity could develop and run this project?
4 Will the Swazi Nation or Tibiyo borrow any money to help fund this project? If so what are the repayment terms?
5 What specific experience does Professor Whelpton have in international mineral extraction contract negotiation?
6 Who else is in the Swaziland Negotiating Team, what relevant skills and experience do they have and how were they chosen?
7 What is their mandate, what are the limits of their mandate, who are they responsible to?
8 What expert support do they have access to in terms of legal, economic, business, environmental, geological, technical, policy impact, poverty reduction, taxation etc?
9 What arrangements will be in place to ensure that the income generated goes towards developing a sustainable future for Swaziland?
10 What oversight arrangements will be in place to ensure equity, and fairness?
11 Given that this type of project does not feature in the Poverty Reduction Strategy will the strategy be readjusted to take it into consideration?
12 Given the attitude of Prince Mangaliso, that government involvement and oversight is an unnecessary hindrance, when will government become involved?
13 At what stage does the negotiating team expect to carry out environmental impacts, water usage and social impact assessments?
14 How will these assessments feed into the negotiating process?
15 Will there be parliamentary oversight or ratification of the process?
16 What consultation will there be with civil society, business, affected communities etc?
17 When will the cost benefit analysis be available?
18 What analysis has been done on opportunities for corruption and what measures are being undertaken to prevent them?
19 What comparisons to other similar projects have been undertaken, were renewable energy sources considered?
20 Is the Prince aware of the Extraction Industries Transparency Initiative and the United Nations Resolution on Strengthening Transparency in Industries and is it prepared to support the processes that they advocate for? If not, why not?
