ALL-BLACK ‘PERMANENT’ SUPREME COURT

Swazi Bill of Rights Blog

14 May 2012

SOURCE 

AN ALL-BLACK ‘PERMANENT’ SUPREME COURT

Chief Justice Ramodibedi has noted that the "permanent" bench of the highest court in Swaziland is all-black for the first time in its history (see article HERE).  This is truly an historic moment.

In using the word "permanent", it is supposed he was comparing this bench with the "rotational" justices provided mostly by the Commonwealth who fly into the country on short contracts to deal with case backlogs. But it  happened to remind everyone that there is little security of tenure for judges in Swaziland.  "Security of tenure" is the term used to describe the protections a judge has from being fired out of political motivations.  So, for example, judges with security of tenure would be more likely to act without fear or favour in a case involving a pension fund with large landholdings and deep ties to the ruling elite.

Sections 155, 156 and 158 of the 2005 Constitution seemingly guarantee that once a judge is appointed as a "substantive" office holder, s/he will hold that position until the age of 75 years, or until s/he retires, or until s/he is removed from office for "serious misbehaviour" or "inability to perform the functions of office arising from infirmity of body or mind."  The reality is somewhat different.  As far as I can tell, all the judges of the superior courts are on fixed contracts for a specified term.  Worse, the majority are officially only "acting" judges, whose terms are for less than six months.

This is a far cry from the sort of "permanence" laid out in the 2005 Constitution.  Without security of tenure, the judiciary in Swaziland is unlikely to be as independent as it should be.

SWAZILAND QUIZZED ON RIGHTS

Swazi Bill of Rights, Jackson Rogers

4 October 2011

SOURCE

UPR QUESTION RE 1973 DECREE

In about two hours (3PM Mbabane time), Swaziland will be answering questions about its human rights record before the Human Rights Council. The advance questions are now available (HERE).

Norway is asking the following question about the 1973 Decree:

· What steps are taken to strengthen and ensure the freedom of assembly and association in Swaziland? What steps will be taken to ensure that a space for plurality of opinion and political groups is created and maintained? What steps are being taken to repeal the 1973 Royal decree?

The answer can be watched live here:

http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/webcast/

For English, click on Channel 11.

SWAZILAND HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW

Jackson Rogers Swazi Bill of Rights

20 September 2011

SOURCE

Submissions to UPR now available

For those interested, the submissions made to the UN for the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) are now available:

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR/Pages/UPRSZStakeholdersInfoS12.aspx

Submissions have been made by the Centre for Human Rights at the University of Pretoria, Amnesty International and Action for Southern Africa among others. There is also a submission by the Swazi Human Rights Commission.

Swaziland's review comes up on 4 October 2011.

40 pc OF WORKERS ARE IN SECURITY

From Jackson Roger’s Swazi Bill of Rights Blog

29 May 2011

SOURCE

SECURITY PERSONNEL COSTS

As the whispers grow louder that government will not be able to pay its civil servant wage bill in June, there is a notable claim in the US State Department's Human Rights Report for 2010 (HERE).

Under s 1(d) 'Role of the police and security apparatus', the report states that:

"Approximately, 40 percent of the government's workforce is allocated to security."

If true, that is a shocking figure. Nationmaster lists Swaziland as 19th out of 163 in terms of military expenditure as a % of GDP (HERE). But the personnel costs are stated as quite low (HERE). If these figures are true, that would mean police, correctional services, customs, private security contractors and spies are making up a huge swathe of government employees.

SACKING A PM FOR INCOMPETENCE

From the Swazi Bill of Rights blog by Jackson Rogers.

23 May 2011

SOURCE

SACKING A PM FOR INCOMPETENCE

A journalist has said that a unionist said that a traditional ruler said that the King said that he could not sack the Prime Minister for ‘incompetence’ (2005 Constitution, s 68(1)(a)) until the Prime Minister had ‘done something unconstitutional’ (HERE). ‘Incompetence’ in this instance is to be distinguished from ‘infirmity of body or mind’ (s 68(1)(f)). The meaning to be taken from the article is (I think) that the PM has to have materially breached the 2005 Constitution. If this is His Majesty’s view, it is a noteworthy interpretation of a section which reads as follows:

“68(1) The office of the Prime Minister shall become vacant where –

(a) The King revokes the appointment for incompetence”

Interpreting this to mean that the PM has to have materially breached the Constitution is a very restrictive interpretation of the section. Of course, His Majesty’s view may be entirely different from what was quoted by someone quoting someone who was in turn quoting someone else. Even if they were direct quotes.