‘TIMES’ CENSORS ROYAL AIDE REPORT

The Times of Swaziland, the kingdom’s only ‘independent’ daily newspaper, is self-censoring again.

It runs a report today (22 December 2011) that a royal aide has been fined five cattle and banned from royal households for ‘handling a certain matter’ without first consulting traditional prime minister TV Mtetwa first.

The Times doesn’t name the female aide, nor does it say what she is alleged to have done.

But the newspaper says, ‘The Times Investigations Department’ (whatever that is) ‘has been reliably informed that the aide was summoned to Ludzidzini royal residence three times before the beginning of the Little Incwala’.

It says, ‘The case was eventually concluded on Friday, November 18, 2011 when the aide was told of the fine and the ban.’

So the Times leaves its readers in a fog. But some Swazis are asking, could this be the same story that the truly-independent Swazi Mirror ran about Inkhosikati laDube, the 12th wife of King Mswati III, who was last month (November 2011) chucked out of the royal palace by Mtetwa and his henchmen?

The Mirror reported that laDube sent an aide to the Ministry of Home Affairs to change her name to Nonthando Moosa.

LaDube came to international media attention (but the news was censored in Swaziland) in August 2010 when she was discovered in a sexual affair with Ndumiso Mamba, the then Justice Minister.

Meanwhile, the Times report unwittingly gives an insight into what it’s really like for women in Swaziland. They have no standing on their own and are the subjects of their male relatives.

The Times reports the female royal aide was told she had to attend at police headquarters.

The newspaper quotes her saying, ‘When I got there he told me that he had been sent by TV Mtetwa to take me to Ludzidzini. When we got there I found Mtetwa and Bheki Dlamini who told me the reason I had been summoned. They asked for my relatives and I told them my brother was Chief Mvimbi. I was told to come with him the following day.’

She said on the next day her brother told Mtetwa and Dlamini that she was now a married person and therefore her matter had to be tackled by her husband.

The aide said, ‘We were then told to come on the following day again, with my husband this time. Indeed, I came with my husband, brother and other relatives. That was when Mtetwa told us of the fine and that I was not to be seen within royal households anymore. This was done without affording any of us a chance to give our side of the story.’

See also

KING’S WIFE THROWN OUT OF PALACE

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2011/11/kings-wife-thrown-out-of-palace.html

‘TIMES SIDES WITH TV AGAINST QUEEN’

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2011/11/times-sides-with-tv-against-queen.html

SWAZI COURT BANS SEX CASE REPORT

Media Institute of Southern Africa

Media Release

12 May 2011

SOURCE

Swaziland Alert: Newspaper censored

A man has run to court to stop a newspaper from publishing a story in which he is accused of extra-marital affairs with school girls.

The unnamed director of a financial institution has obtained an interim High Court order stopping Swazi Mirror newspaper from publishing the story pending finalization of the matter.

According to a report in the daily Times of Swaziland newspaper, the man believes that story was defamatory and if published would harm his reputation.

In his court application, the man stated that on 26 April 2011 he received a telephone call from a reporter, Zweli Dlamini, informing him that the newspaper was in the process of publishing a story about him.

He said the reporter told him that the story was about him going out with school girls. He said the allegations were going to damage his social standing, hence his decision to approach the court to stop the publication of the story.

The newspaper has been ordered to respond by 3 June 2011 showing cause why the order should not be made final.

DOG EATS DOG IN SWAZILAND

Paul Loffler, publisher of the Times of Swaziland, is suing a tiny newspaper in the kingdom for defamation.

Loffler says the Swazi Mirror published an article that said he pays himself E1 million a month as salary whilst his employees earn peanuts.

Loffler’s lawyers now say, ‘If one juxtaposes our client’s alleged monthly remuneration of E1 million (which is not true) with the employees’ salaries, in the context, it implied our client is greedy, selfish and has no regard for the employees’ welfare.’

Loffler wants E400 000 (75 000 US dollars) in damages.

E400,000. Loffler greedy? You decide.