Swaziland political parties unite in bid to end absolute king’s power

Political parties in Swaziland – some of them outlawed – have joined together to try to force an end to the rule of absolute monarch, King Mswati III.

Their leaders intend to march on Wednesday (13 November 2019) to deliver a petition to Swazi Prime Minister Ambrose Dlamini. They will also petition the South African High Commission to Swaziland, saying it is the accomplice and beneficiary of the ‘royal dictatorship’.

This will be followed on Saturday by a public gathering in Manzini.

The political parties include the Ngwane National Liberation Congress (NNLC), the Communist  Party of Swaziland (CPS), the Swazi Democratic Party (SDP) and the People’s  United Democratic Party (PUDEMO). They have formed a grouping called the Political Parties Assembly (PPA).

In Swaziland, political groups advocating for democracy are banned under the Suppression of Terrorism Act.

All political parties are banned from taking part in elections and the King appoints the government.

In a statement the PPA said it wanted to end the kingdom’s form of government, known as Tinkhundla, or monarchical democracy. They want power returned to the people. 

PPA stated, ‘We unanimously observed that the royal project Tinkhundla has reached a point of no return in dragging down our dignity and stretching beyond  limits our patience as a people.’

The announcement came days after it was revealed the King had taken delivery of at least 15 Rolls-Royce cars for his wives and family and 79 luxury BMW cars worth US$6 million for ‘escort duties’.

PPA said, ‘Brazen looting and plunder of national resources by the monarchy have reached levels unmatched in history, plunging our people into unbearable conditions as witnessed through escalating cost of living, crisis in education and health, high unemployment as well as poor general service delivery.’

In a statement, Mduduzi Gina, Secretary General of the Trade Union Congress of Swaziland (TUCOSWA), said, ‘A petition should be delivered to the office of the Prime Minister and other Ministries by the PPA lead coalition on Wednesday November 13 in Mbabane. A Mass Meeting of every concerned organizations and persons shall be convened on Saturday 16th, November at the SNAT Center starting at 0900hrs. A long-term program of action will be taken for implementation in the mass meeting envisaged. Any changes if any, will be communicated in due as we receive direction from the PPA.’

See also

King of impoverished Swaziland takes delivery of 79 luxury BMW cars worth US$6 million

https://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2019/11/king-of-impoverished-swaziland-takes.html

Not enough Supreme Court judges so Swaziland Terrorism Act appeal postponed

https://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2019/03/not-enough-supreme-court-judges-so.html

Swaziland Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal to Unban Political Parties at Elections Without Hearing the Case

Swaziland’s Supreme Court dismissed a case that political parties should not be banned from contesting the election in the kingdom without hearing arguments.

It upheld an appeal to the High Court’s earlier decision to dismiss the case.

The Swazi Democratic Party (SWADEPA) brought the case that was about the rights to freedom of expression and association during the election campaign period. 

Political parties are banned from contesting the election that takes place on Friday (21 September 2018). In Swaziland (recently renamed Eswatini by the kingdom’s absolute monarch King Mswati III) people are only allowed to elect 59 members of the House of Assembly; another 10 are appointed by the King. None of the 30-strong Swazi Senate are elected by the people.

The King also appoints the Prime Minister and Cabinet as well as top judges and civil servants.

In a review of SWADEPA’s case just published the Southern Africa Litigation Centre (SALC) said it ‘was summarily dismissed in the Supreme Court without the Court hearing arguments on the appeal’.

It said SWADEPA took the Elections and Boundaries Commission (EBC) to court to prevent it from interfering with: The rights of candidates for election to the House of Assembly to express their political and/ or other views or policies; The rights of candidates to associate publicly with their chosen political parties; The rights of candidates to receive sponsorship and support from political parties; and the rights of political parties to provide sponsorship and support to their members.

According to Section 79 of the Swaziland Constitution the Tinkhundla-based system of government that exists in the kingdom emphasises individual merit as a basis for election to public office. 

‘This section has been interpreted by the government and the Elections and Boundaries Commission to exclude political parties from the electoral process, SALC said. 

It added, ‘In contrast, [SWADEPA] submitted that the reference to “individual merit” in section 79 means no more than a requirement that each candidate for election be considered based on what he or she brings to the table. They submitted that the case was necessary to ensure that registered voters will be able to exercise their right to vote knowing all relevant information about the candidates running for public office.”

It said the EBC’s response ‘was primarily focused on narrow, technical issues, largely avoiding the important substantive issues.

‘For example, they argued that the applicants had no right to raise the merits of the case before the Supreme Court, as the case was dismissed on technical grounds in the High Court.’

One of the technical grounds was that SWADEPA could not seek relief on behalf of all ‘registered voters who choose to run as candidates for election’, and that the relief sought must pertain to the individual applicants. 

The EBC also claimed that a similar issue had already been determined by the Supreme Court in 2009. In that case, the Supreme Court held that the Constitution did not prevent a member of a political party from seeking election as an independent candidate, and once elected, joining up with others who think similarly to operate as a unit. 

SALC said, ‘What the previous judgment did not address was the nature and extent of permissible political party participation in any candidate’s election campaign.’

It added, ‘[SWADEPA] sought very simple relief which would not have run contrary to the current electoral legislation and did not require anything from government. Both the High Court and the Supreme Court decided not to hear arguments from either side and instead raised matters on its own accord from the bench. These matters were of a procedural nature and avoided dealing with the merits of the case. This runs contrary to jurisprudence in constitutional matters where courts are normally enjoined to hear matters where rights violations are alleged even if the procedural grounds for bringing such matter might be flawed in some respect.’

See also

Organised Certainty, Why elections in Swaziland are not democratic

https://www.scribd.com/document/384752084/Organised-Certainty-Why-Elections-in-Swaziland-Are-Not-Democratic

Swaziland (Eswatini) Election 2018: Links to Information and Analysis From Swazi Media Commentary

https://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2018/09/swaziland-eswatini-election-2018-links.html

 

 

U.S. Ambassador Encourages Parties

https://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2018/03/us-ambassador-encourages-parties.html

 

Swaziland Must Embrace Political Parties to Get on Track After Years of Failure

https://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2018/08/swaziland-must-embrace-political.html