CHAOS AS GOVT FAILS TO PAY SCHOOL FEES

The Government in Swaziland / Eswatini has failed to pay primary school fees for grade one pupils leading to chaos across the kingdom.
 

The European Union (EU) pays the government the fees but they have not been passed on to the schools, the Observer on Saturday newspaper in Swaziland reported (23 June 2018). The second term of the school year is just coming to an end.

The Swaziland Constitution requires that all primary school children receive free education.

The Observer reported headteachers and principals across Swaziland said they were in huge debts and unable to pay suppliers. It said the problem was with the government which faced financial challenges. It reported one school principal saying education in the kingdom would continue to deteriorate if the situation did not improve. Teacher morale is low. Because of a lack of government funding children are going without free meals at school and this is often the only meal they get.

Schools across Swaziland have been in chaos since at least the start the year. High schools as well as primaries have been affected. Children were turned away from high schools because there were no spaces for them in classes. This was because the kingdom has in recent years introduced free primary school education. Now children have graduated there are not enough places in secondary schools. Parents were reported by local media to be walking from school to school in unsuccessful attempts to get their children placed.

In January 2018 the Ministry of Education refused to pay school fees to about half the 650 primary schools in Swaziland because pupils did not have personal identification numbers (PINs). The Ministry said to avoid audit queries it had to pay fees against a PIN not a name of a pupil.

Parents are also outraged that some primary schools are charging top-up fees when the Swazi Constitution and Government policy says primary education should be free. 

Swaziland, is ruled by King Mswati III as sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch. Political parties are banned from taking part in elections and the King appoints the Prime Minister and top ministers. Seven in ten of the estimated 1.1 million population live in abject poverty with incomes less than US$2 per day. 

The kingdom’s economy has been mismanaged for decades. Swaziland cannot afford to pay for its free primary education policy. Government pays E580 per child, but this is heavily subsidised by the European Union (EU). Up to December 2016, the EU had spent a total amount of E110 million (about US$8 million). In 2015, it reportedly sponsored 34,012 learners in 591 schools. The EU plans to continue paying for the school fees until the end of 2018. The EU started funding all first grade pupils in the whole country in 2011. 

The problem does not end at primary level. An investigation by the Swazi Observer (27 January 2018) revealed that some high schools charged nearly E9,000 per child per year in top-up fees. It also found (1 February 2018) that some schools were not allowing children, including OVCs (orphaned and vulnerable children) to attend classes until deposits on fees were paid.

The Ministry of Education then announced that no school in Swaziland had been given permission to charge top-up fees because none had made the necessary formal request to do so. Permission can take up to a year.

The Swaziland national budget has been mismanaged for years. Swaziland is broke and the government is living from hand to mouth. Earlier this month Finance Minister Martin Dlamini told the House of Assembly as of 31 March 2018 government owed E3.28 billion. Dlamini said budget projections indicated ‘exponential growth in the arrears’. 

Despite the funding crisis, the Swazi Government still found US$30 million to buy the King a second private plane. It has also earmarked E1.5bn (US$125m) this year to build a conference centre and five-star hotel to host the African Union summit in 2020 that will last only eight days and it has budgeted E5.5 million to build Prime Minister Barnabas Dlamini a retirement house. There are also plans for a new parliament building that will cost E2.3 billion.

The excessive lifestyle of King Mswati has also been under the spotlight. He now has two private planes, 13 palaces and fleets of top-of-the-range BMW and Mercedes cars.

He wore a watch worth US$1.6 million and a suit beaded with diamonds weighing 6 kg, at his 50th birthday party. He received E15 million (US$1.2 million) in cheques, a gold dining room suite and a gold lounge suite among his birthday gifts.

Meanwhile, the World Food Program has said it cannot raise the US$1.1 million it needs to feed starving children in the kingdom in the coming six months.

See also

END OF FREE SWAZI PRIMARY SCHOOLING

https://swazimedia.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/end-of-free-swazi-primary-schooling.html

KING EATS OFF GOLD, CHILDREN STARVING

https://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2018/06/king-eats-off-gold-children-starving.html

ABSOLUTE KING DEMONSTRATES HIS POWER

King Mswati III, the absolute monarch in Swaziland, has signed what amounts to a decree to formalise his unilateral decision to change the kingdom’s name to Eswatini.

It demonstrates how much the kingdom is under his control and signals a reminder that elections due to be held later this year have no validity.

A Legal Notice No 80 of 2018 was released on Thursday (17 May 2018) confirming the name-change came into force on 19 April 2017. It was then at an event to jointly mark his 50^th birthday and the 50^th anniversary of Swaziland’s independence from Great Britain, King Mswati announced his proclamation. 

The Legal Notice states that, ‘reference in any written law or international agreement or legal document to Swaziland shall be read and construed as reference to Eswatini’.

The King’s announcement in April was received with mixed emotions. The heavily-censored news media in Swaziland welcomed the move joyously. Meanwhile, critics argued that the King should not make the change without first consulting the people and parliament. 

The King’s decree is a reminder that Swaziland is not a democracy. On Sunday (13 May 2018) voter registration began ahead of national elections later this year. Political parties are banned from taking part and the King picks the Prime Minister and Government. At past elections people only got to select 55 of 65 members of the House of Assembly. The King chose the other 10. At this election there will be an additional four seats for people to vote for. It has not been announced how many members the King will choose but the Swaziland Constitution allows him to pick up to ten.

As in previous years, none of the 30 members of the Swazi Senate will be elected by the people; the King will choose 20 and the other 10 will be chosen by members of the House of Assembly.

The European Union Election Experts Mission (EEM), one of a number of international groups that monitored the conduct of Swaziland’s previous election in 2013, made much of how the kingdom’s absolute monarchy undermined democracy.

In its report it stated, ‘The King has absolute power and is considered to be above the law, including the Constitution, enjoying the power to assent laws and immunity from criminal proceedings. A bill shall not become law unless the King has assented to it, meaning that the parliament is unable to pass any law which the King is in disagreement with. 

‘The King will refer back the provisions he is not in agreement with, which makes the parliament and its elected chamber, the House of Assembly, ineffective, unable to achieve the objective a parliament is created for: to be the legislative branch of the state and maintain the government under scrutiny.’

The EEM went on to say the ‘main principles for a democratic state are not in place’ in Swaziland.

It stated, ‘Elections are a mechanism for the popular control of government and ensure the government accountability to the people. The King appoints the Cabinet. A vote of no confidence in the prime minister and government from more than two-thirds of the members of the House, in October [2012], was easily reversed although the Constitution provides that in such cases the prime minister shall be removed from office. 

‘In this context, an analysis of the legal framework for elections seems quite a redundant exercise, as the main principles for a democratic state are not in place. Although the electoral legal framework contains the technical aspects required for the proper administration of elections, it does not conform to international principles for the conduct of democratic elections, as it does not respect one of the fundamental rights for participation –the freedom of association.’

The EEM was not alone in recognising Swaziland as undemocratic. In its report on conduct of the 2013 election, the African Union (AU) mission called for fundamental changes to ensure people had freedom of speech and of assembly. The AU said the Swaziland Constitution guaranteed ‘fundamental rights and freedoms including the rights to freedom of association’, but in practice ‘rights with regard to political assembly and association are not fully enjoyed’. The AU said this was because political parties were not allowed to contest elections.

The AU urged Swaziland to review the constitution, especially in the areas of ‘freedoms of conscience, expression, peaceful assembly, association and movement as well as international principles for free and fair elections and participation in electoral process’.

In its report on the 2013 elections, Commonwealth observers recommended that measures be put in place to ensure separation of powers between the government, parliament and the courts so that Swaziland was in line with its international commitments.

They also called on the Swaziland Constitution to be ‘revisited’. 

The report stated, ‘This should ideally be carried out through a fully inclusive, consultative process with all Swazi political organisations and civil society (needed, with the help of constitutional experts), to harmonise those provisions which are in conflict. The aim is to ensure that Swaziland’s commitment to political pluralism is unequivocal.’

It also recommended that a law be passed to allow for political parties to take part in elections, ‘so as to give full effect to the letter and spirit of Section 25 of the Constitution, and in accordance with Swaziland’s commitment to its regional and international commitments’.

In 2015, following a visit to Swaziland, a Commonwealth mission renewed its call for the constitution to be reviewed so the kingdom could move toward democracy.

The constitutional review has not taken place.

Richard Rooney

Legal Notice No 80 of 2018

See also

NO NAME-CHANGE YET IN SWAZILAND

https://swazimedia.blogspot.co.uk/2018/04/no-name-change-yet-in-swaziland.html

GOVERNMENT NO-CONFIDENCE VOTE REVERSED

https://swazimedia.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/govt-no-confidence-vote-reversed.html

KING SAYS VOTE ONLY FOR CHRISTIANS

King Mswati III of Swaziland has told his subjects they should only vote for Christians in this year’s national election.

His call goes against the spirit of the Swazi Constitution which protects freedom of religion.

King Mswati who is sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch preached a sermon to Christians at the Somhlolo National Stadium on Sunday (1 April 2018) and said people should ask for God’s guidance when heading for the polls.

Political parties are barred from taking part in elections and groups that advocate for multiparty democracy in the kingdom have been banned under the Suppression of Terrorism Act. The King choses the Prime Minister and government.

The Swazi Observer, a newspaper in effect owned by the King, reported on Tuesday (3 April 2018), ‘His Majesty has on many occasions warned people to be wary of those campaigning for parliamentary seats and urged the electorate to make sober decisions when they get to the polls for the betterment of the country.’

The newspaper reported the King saying, ‘This year the nation will be heading to the polls and one prays and hopes that people will apply their minds when voting. A clear mind is found in God, if you seek God’s guidance, he will help you elect the right people. If you apply your mind, then you will elect people that are of Godly character and will be able to serve the electorate, the country and God.’

The newspaper added, ‘His Majesty said. He said individuals who served God were trustworthy people who were capable of serving the nation diligently.’

S23 of the Swaziland Constitution that was adopted in 2006 says a person has a right to freedom of religion. In the drafting of the Constitution it was discussed that Swaziland should be designated a Christian country, but this was dropped in the final version.

Elections are held every five years in Swaziland and are declared not free and fair each time by international observers. People only get to select 55 of 65 members of the House of Assembly. The King chooses the other 10. No members of the Swazi Senate are elected by the people; the King chooses 20 and the other 10 are elected by members of the House of Assembly. 

Freedom of assembly is severely curtailed in Swaziland, especially in the run-up to elections. The Swazi Parliament has no real powers as the King can and does overrule decisions if he wishes.

 

See also

KING INSTRUCTS ‘VOTE FOR CHRISTIANS’

http://swazimedia.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/king-instructs-vote-for-christians.html

 

CALL TO BOYCOTT ELECTION GROWS

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2013/03/call-to-boycott-election-grows.html

KING IN TOTAL CONTROL OF HIS KINGDOM

Analysis

The Swaziland Attorney-General’s announcement that the conflict within the three arms of government in the kingdom is ‘normal’ and there cannot be a separation of powers between them is irrelevant because all power rests with the absolute monarch, King Mswati III.

The political structure in Swaziland exists only to deliver on the King’s wishes. Political parties are banned from taking part in elections, the prime minister and government ministers are appointed by the King and the monarch is above the Constitution.

Attorney-General Sifiso Khumalo made his comments because for many years there has been conflict in Swaziland between the three branches of government: the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. In simple terms, the executive is responsible for the day-to-day running of government and is headed by the prime minister. The legislature is parliament made up of the House of Assembly and the Senate and is responsible for enacting and amending the law and controlling the money necessary to operate the government. The judiciary interprets and makes judgements about the law.

Members of Parliament who make up the legislature have complained from time to time that the Prime Minister (the senior member of the executive) interferes in their work and he should keep out of their business.

The Attorney-General wrote an opinion to the prime minister and this was revealed in detail in the Observer on Saturday (24 March 2018), a newspaper in effect owned by the King. The newspaper reported, ‘He made it clear in his opinion that separation of powers is not possible – neither in theory nor in practice.’

But the Attorney-General misses the point. Separation of powers is a democratic concept, and Swaziland is not a democracy. In a constitutional democracy there are three separate branches each of which has defined abilities to check the powers of the others, thereby protecting the interests of the citizen. There are no ‘citizens’ in Swaziland, everybody is a subject of the King.

Lawyers can debate amongst themselves whether or not Section 64 of the 2005 Constitution that states ‘the supreme legislative authority of Swaziland vests in the King as head of state and shall be exercised in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution’ confirms the King as an absolute monarch; but in reality the King’s word is law.

The King chooses the prime minister, the cabinet and top judges. It is unlikely that he personally spends much time on this, but he does ensure that those who are chosen accept his right to rule. There is no secret that those he appoints recognise this. For example, in 2012 during a long-running and bitter schoolteachers’ strike the King commanded it should end and all teachers who had been dismissed during it be reinstated. This was against the wishes of the cabinet.

However, there was a delay in implementing the King’s command and it was thought the cabinet was defying his order. The prime minister Barnabas Dlamini was anxious to set the record straight. At the time, the Times Sunday reported him saying government belonged to His Majesty and it took instructions from him to implement them to the letter, without questioning them.  

He told the newspaper, ‘Government listens when His Majesty speaks and we will always implement the wishes of the King and the Queen mother.’

The PM said Cabinet’s position on the matter was that it respected His Majesty’s position on all matters he spoke about.

He said Cabinet just like the nation, heard what the King said and his wishes would be implemented.

The prime minister has given here the perfect description of an absolute monarchy: ‘government belonged to His Majesty and it took instructions from him to implement them to the letter, without questioning them’. 

The King considers himself to be above the Constitution. This was clearly demonstrated in  October 2012 when the House of Assembly passed a vote of no confidence in the Government with 42 members in favour, six against and two abstentions. This total was more than the three-fifths of all members of the House required for S68 (5) of the Constitution to kick in. 

This clearly states that where a resolution of no confidence is passed on the cabinet by three-fifths of all members of the House the King ‘shall dissolve Cabinet’. The King did not and instead instructed the House of assembly to vote again and support the government which it meekly did.

The King also appointed the PM in 2008 in contravention of S67 (1) of the Constitution that states, ‘the King shall appoint the Prime Minister from among members of the House’, but Barnabas Dlamini was not a member of the House and had not been elected to any office. The King simply decided to ignore the Constitution and put his own man in the job.

The judiciary in Swaziland are not independent from the King. In 2016 the International Commission of Jurists said that the King’s absolute monarchy, ‘ultimately is incompatible with a society based on the rule of law’. It said in a report called Justice Locked Out: Swaziland’s Rule of Law Crisis, Swaziland’s Constitution must be amended to bring it in line ‘with regional and universal international law and standards, in particular on the separation of powers and respect for judicial independence’.

The report was published after an international mission investigated Swaziland following the attempted arrest and the impeachment of former Chief Justice Michael Ramodibedi and the arrest of the Minister of Justice Sibusiso Shongwe, two High Court judges Mpendulo Simelane and Jacobus Annandale and High Court Registrar Fikile Nhlabatsi in April 2015. 

The report stated the judicial crisis was ‘part of a worrying trend of repeated interference by the Executive and of the Judiciary’s inability to defend its independence, exacerbated by apparent strife within the ruling authorities of Swaziland.  

‘Swaziland’s Constitution, while providing for judicial independence in principle, does not contain the necessary safeguards to guarantee it. Overall, the legislative and regulatory framework falls short of international law and standards, including African regional standards.’

So there you have it; the three branches of government are all controlled by the King, there is no need for a separation of powers because they have no power.

Richard Rooney

See also

JURISTS: DEEP FLAWS IN LEGAL SYSTEM

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2015/05/jurists-deep-flaws-in-justice-system.html

SWAZI JUDICIAL CRISIS: KING’S WORD IS LAW

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2015/05/judicial-crisis-kings-word-is-law.html

GOVT NO-CONFIDENCE VOTE REVERSED

https://swazimedia.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/govt-no-confidence-vote-reversed.html

KING PROVES CONSTITUTION IS WORTHLESS

https://swazimedia.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/king-proves-constitution-is-worthless.html

SCHOOL FEES AGAINST CONSTITUTION

The short-lived era of free primary school education in Swaziland has officially come to an end. The move contravenes the kingdom’s constitution.

The Swazi Government has approved a circular allowing the Ministry of Education and Training to charge additional educational fees over and above the Free Primary Education (FPE) grant and Orphaned and Vulnerable Children (OVC) grant from government.

The Times of Swaziland, the only independent daily newspaper in the kingdom rules by King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch, reported on Monday (28 August 2017), ‘The signing and endorsing of the circulars brings to an end the impasse that seems to have existed between the ministry and school administrators.’

Principal Secretary (PS) in the Ministry of Education  Pat Muir advised all primary schools, with effect from January 2017 to forward applications for charging additional fees over and above the stipulated free primary education, the newspaper reported.

The directive goes against S29 of the Swaziland Constitution.

The Swazi Government pays E580 per child but this is supported by the European Union. 

School principals complained that the money given to them was inadequate. Local media reported that some schools had declared bankruptcy.

The news of the scrapping of free schooling came in March 2017 when Dr Phineas Magagula, Minister of Education, told a budget debate in parliament that top-up fees had been authorised. No additional money would be given by the Government.

Up until December 2016, the EU had spent a total amount of E110 million (US$8 million) to fund the Free Primary Education Programme in Swaziland. In 2015, it reportedly sponsored 34,012 learners in 591 schools. The EU plans to continue paying for the school fees until the end of 2018.

The EU started funding FPE for first grade pupils in the whole country in 2011.

The decision to charge fees contravenes S29 of the Swaziland Constitution which states, ‘Every Swazi child shall within three years of the commencement of this Constitution [2005] have the right to free education in public schools at least up to the end of primary school, beginning with the first grade.’ 

In February 2017, nearly E2.7 billion (US$216 million) was allocated in the national budget for the kingdom’s security forces that comprise the Umbutfo Swaziland Defence Force (USDF), Royal Swaziland Police Service (RSPS) and His Majesty’s Correctional Services (HMCS). 

Security will take up 12.4 percent of Swaziland’s total budget of E21.7 bn ($US1.66 bn), up 11 percent from last year.

Education was allocated E3.5 billion.

Following the latest announcement, Zwelithini Mndzebele, Secretary of the Swaziland National Association of Teachers (SNAT), criticised the move. The Times of Swaziland reported on Tuesday (29 August 2017) he said there was no need for top-up fees at primary school level given that this was a human right enshrined in the Constitution of the land.

‘Government has the obligation to offer Free Primary Education with no option of top-ups as that affects parents,’ he said.

He called on government to increase the FPE grant instead of seeking an ‘easy way out’. He further said this was the same case with secondary or high schools.

He noted that there was a commission set to view the issue of top-up fees in schools and it had offered recommendations. The educator said it would be best if government revisited those recommendations.

The task team, in its recommendations, had noted that top-up fees in schools were the reason many Swazi pupils attended schools in South Africa. The task team compiled the report on the issue of top-up fees in fulfilment of the dictates of legal notice No. 125 of 2014. This, according to concerns raised by head teachers and school committees, depreciated the quality of education as the funds were insufficient to run schools, the Times reported.

See also

KING’S ROLE IN SCHOOLS CHAOS IGNORED

https://swazimedia.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/kings-role-in-schools-chaos-ignored.html

SWAZILAND: MASSIVE ‘SECURITY’ SPENDING

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2017/03/swaziland-massive-security-spending.html

SWAZI KING WRONG ON CONSTITUTION

King Mswati III, Swaziland’s absolute monarch, mislead when he told a television reporter that the constitution in his kingdom was the will of the people.

In fact at the time the 2005 constitution was being drafted, the International Bar Association, a group invited by King Mswati to make comments, called it ‘flawed’ and ‘a fraud’.

King Mswati said in an interview with the South Africa Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) uploaded to the Internet on Monday (14 August 2017), ‘When we created the constitution, this constitution which went around the people of this country, every Swazi participated... was invited to come make a submission in terms of how you want to see your constitution of this country, even when the constitution was drafted before it was actually adopted.  It also was to give back to the nation, to read, and everyone was able to be given a chance to make submissions and to comment... this was a process that took some years, so we finally have a product of after nine years of consultation.’

He also said Swaziland was a democratic nation ‘in the sense that it is people driven. It is not a one person state. It is the people saying this is how we want to be governed.’

The King and his supporters have maintained for years that the Swazi Constitution is legitimate and the will of the people. However, the International Bar Association , a group of experienced lawyers, was called in by King Mswati III in 2003 to comment on the first draft of the constitution. It called the process ‘flawed’ and reported that one critic went so far as to call it a ‘fraud’.  The resulting report called Striving for Democratic Governance was stark in its criticism of both the process of ‘consultation’ on the constitution and the wording of the document itself.

One of the IBA’s main conclusions was that the ‘position and powers’ of some ‘stakeholders’ in Swaziland ‘including the Monarchy’ are in effect ‘actually placed above the Constitution and its principles’.

The IBA studied what was going on during the drafting process, which was controlled by the Constitutional Review Commission (CRC).

The CRC did not allow the judiciary or NGOs to contribute to the drafting process and ensured that individual Swazi people were interviewed in the presence of their chiefs. As a result the ‘overwhelming’ majority wanted the King to keep all his powers and wanted the position of traditional advisers to the King to be strengthened. They also wanted Swazi customs to have supremacy over any international rights obligations.

The IBA report states, ‘The terms of reference of the Commission did not allow expressly for group submissions, and as apparently they were not entertained, NGOs per se were effectively prevented from commenting. The IBA panel considers that, unfortunately, this in itself deprived the CRC of much valuable input.’

The IBA report goes on, ‘The CRC also faced a number of practical problems. There were disputes between local chiefs, collecting views during the rainy season in Swaziland was difficult, and several Commission members resigned.

‘The extent to which individual Swazis were consulted has also been questioned. The CRC did not keep records of the submissions it received and media coverage of submissions was apparently banned.

‘There is therefore no formal record of how Swazi citizens presented their views and of what in fact they said to the CRC.

‘Furthermore, information was elicited in a highly charged atmosphere. Individuals were reportedly asked, in the presence of chiefs, whether they wanted to retain the King and whether they preferred political parties.

‘The CRC report states that “there is a small minority which recommends that the powers of the monarchy must be limited” and continued that “an overwhelming majority of the nation recommends that political parties must be banned”.

‘The report concludes that “an overwhelming majority recommends that the system of Government based on the Tinkhundla must continue” and, as well as the ban on political parties being maintained, that the executive powers of the King should be maintained, the position of traditional advisers to the King strengthened, and Swazi customs have supremacy over any contrary international rights obligations.’

In November 2007 the Swaziland High Court ruled that documents pertaining to the drafting process could not be made available for public scrutiny, thereby allowing the ruling elite to maintain the fiction of full consultation.

Under the constitution the monarchy remains above the law and political parties are banned.

Many organisations have called for Swaziland’s constitution to be rewritten to make the kingdom more democratic.

In July 2008 the European Union declined an invitation to monitor the Swaziland national election later that year because, it said, it was clear the kingdom was not a democracy. Later, it suggested a wholesale review of the constitution was in order.

In November 2008 the Commonwealth Expert Team, which had monitored the election called for a review because the elections were not credible since political parties were banned in Swaziland. It said that the review ‘should be carried out through a process of full consultation with Swazi political organisations and civil society (possibly with the support of constitutional experts).’

After the most recent national election in 2013, the African Union (AU) mission that observed it called for fundamental changes in the kingdom to ensure people have freedom of speech and of assembly. The AU said the Swaziland Constitution guaranteed ‘fundamental rights and freedoms including the rights to freedom of association’, but in practice ‘rights with regard to political assembly and association are not fully enjoyed’. The AU said this was because political parties were not allowed to contest elections.

The AU urged Swaziland to review the Constitution, especially in the areas of ‘freedoms of conscience, expression, peaceful assembly, association and movement as well as international principles for free and fair elections and participation in electoral process’.

In 2015, following a visit to Swaziland, a Commonwealth mission renewed its call for the constitution to be reviewed so the kingdom could move toward democracy.

In its report on the 2013 elections, the Commonwealth observers recommended that measures be put in place to ensure separation of powers between the government, parliament and the courts so that Swaziland was in line with its international commitments.

They also called on the Swaziland Constitution to be ‘revisited’.

The report stated, ‘This should ideally be carried out through a fully inclusive, consultative process with all Swazi political organisations and civil society (needed, with the help of constitutional experts), to harmonise those provisions which are in conflict. The aim is to ensure that Swaziland’s commitment to political pluralism is unequivocal.’

It also recommended that a law be passed to allow for political parties to take part in elections, ‘so as to give full effect to the letter and spirit of Section 25 of the Constitution, and in accordance with Swaziland’s commitment to its regional and international commitments’.

See also

POLL OBSERVERS: REWRITE CONSTITUTION

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2013/10/poll-observers-rewrite-constitution.html

SWAZILAND PM CONSTITUTION LIES

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2010/05/swaziland-pm-constitution-lies.html

 

SWAZIS DID NOT CHOOSE POLITICAL SYSTEM

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

NO LET UP IN CALL FOR DEMOCRACY

The Commonwealth is to continue to pressure Swaziland to democratise and allow political parties to contest elections in the kingdom.

It is also urging a review of the kingdom’s constitution to ensure that the country meets international standards of democracy.

This was confirmed during a week-long visit by a Commonwealth mission to Swaziland.

The chair of the mission the special envoy Bakili Muluzi told media on Thursday (9 July 2015) that after the last Swazi national election in 2013, Commonwealth observers made a number of recommendations and he hoped to ensure that these recommendations were in force in time for the next election, due in 2018.

King Mswati III rules Swaziland as sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch. Political parties are banned by the kingdom’s constitution from taking part in elections. Groups that advocate for multi-party democracy are banned under the Suppression of Terrorism Act.

In its report on the 2013 elections, the Commonwealth observers recommended that measures be put in place to ensure separation of powers between the government, parliament and the courts so that Swaziland was in line with its international commitments.

They also called on the Swazi Constitution to be ‘revisited’.

The report stated, ‘This should ideally be carried out through a fully inclusive, consultative process with all Swazi political organisations and civil society (needed, with the help of constitutional experts), to harmonise those provisions which are in conflict. The aim is to ensure that Swaziland’s commitment to political pluralism is unequivocal.’

It also recommended that a law be passed to allow for political parties to take part in elections, ‘so as to give full effect to the letter and spirit of Section 25 of the Constitution, and in accordance with Swaziland’s commitment to its regional and international commitments’.

See also

POWER STAYS WITH KING – WORLD MEDIA

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2013/09/power-stays-with-king-worlds-media.html

COMMONWEALTH CALLS FOR DEMOCRACY

The Commonwealth has sent a special envoy to Swaziland in a bid to get the absolute monarch King Mswati III to democratise his kingdom.

The former Malawi president Bakili Muluzi is leading a team on a visit to Swaziland from 5 to 10 July 2015.

King Mswati rules Swaziland as sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch. Political parties are banned from taking part in elections and the King chooses the government and top judges. The Suppression of Terrorism Act is used to suppress any attempt to discuss the need for democratic change.

The Commonwealth is pushing for the unbanning of political parties in Swaziland. It made a recommendation for this to happen after the 2013 nation election, but it has been ignored.

According to media reports in Malawi, Muluzi said he would hold discussions with a wide array of stakeholders, including the King, the King’s government ministers and civil society.

Commonwealth observers called for the Swazi Constitution to be rewritten after they concluded the kingdom’s national election in September 2013 was not entirely credible.

They said members of parliament ‘continue to have severely limited powers’ and political parties are banned.

The Commonwealth observers said there was ‘considerable room for improving the democratic system’.

In a report they said the Constitution needed to be revisited with an open debate on what changes were necessary.

It added, ‘This should ideally be carried out through a fully inclusive, consultative process with all Swazi political organisations and civil society (if needed, with the help of constitutional experts.’

It said, ‘The aim is to ensure that Swaziland’s commitment to political pluralism is unequivocal.’

See also 

POLL OBSERVERS: REWRITE CONSTITUTION

http://swazimedia.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/poll-observers-rewrite-constitution.html

SWAZI CHIEF JUSTICE FIGHTS FOR HIS JOB

Swaziland’s suspended Chief Justice Michael Ramodibedi is fighting hard to prevent an inquiry into his alleged abuse of power taking place.

He is using every avenue available to him to frustrate the hearing by the Swazi Judicial Service Commission (JSC).

Observers of Swaziland will not have missed the irony that Ramodibedi is claiming his constitutional rights have been violated. Ramodibedi has presided over a legal system in Swaziland where King Mswati III rules as sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch and the kingdom’s constitution has been ignored on numerous occasions, often by Ramodibedi himself.

Most notable was the case of Bhekhi Makubu and Thulani Maseko, who are presently serving two year jail sentences for writing and publishing magazine articles critical of Ramodibedi in particular and the Swazi judicial system more generally.

A warrant was issued for Ramodibedi’s arrest on 17 April 2015 on charges including abuse of power. He was later suspended from office pending an inquiry into his behaviour. The start of the JSC inquiry has been postponed twice to give Ramodibedi time to prepare his defence.

In the meantime, Ramodibedi has unsuccessfully tried to get the High Court to overturn the arrest warrant. He is also trying to get members of the JSC inquiry disbarred from sitting in his case because he claims they are biased against him. He claims his constitutional rights are being violated and he will not be given ‘a fair hearing by an impartial Commission’. The Swaziland High Court is expected to hear the arguments on Monday (8 June 2015).

Ramodibedi has been in the spotlight for a number of years over the way he runs the Swazi judiciary on behalf of King Mswati who appointed him to office in violation of the Constitution: the office Chief Justice has to be a Swazi national but Ramodibedi is from Lesotho.

Many allegations of abuse of power have been made from lawyers within Swaziland and also by the international human rights community. 

In May 2014, two Supreme Court judges reportedly threatened to resign if a warrant issued by Ramodibedi for the arrest of three High Court judges who were critical of him was served, Ramodibedi reportedly issued the warrants but the Swazi police did not make the arrests. 

The three judges were Mumcy Dlamini, Bheki Maphalala and Mbutfo Mamba.

Reportedly, arrest warrants were issued because the CJ felt the judges were ‘ignoring his orders and bringing the High Court into disrepute’.

It was reported at the time that should the warrants be effected and the judges arrested, the CJ planned to appoint interim judges himself.

This was not an isolated incident of abuse of power. In a report on Swaziland covering the year 2011, Human Rights Watch stated, ‘Serious deficiencies in Swaziland’s judicial system persist. In an ominous precedent for the independence of the judiciary, Chief Justice Michael Ramodibedi in August suspended Justice Thomas Masuku for insubordination and for insulting the king, among other charges.’

It added, ‘On August 11 [2011] Justice Masuku appeared before the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), whose six members are appointed by the king. On September 27 [2011] the king relieved Judge Masuku of his duties for “serious misbehavior.” Justice Masuku had in the past made several rulings in favor of human rights.’

In the case of Masuku, Ramodibedi acted as judge, prosecutor and witness in the case he himself brought.

David Matse, the Swaziland Minister for Justice, was fired from his job because he refused to sign the dismissal letter for Masuku. 

Human Rights Watch added, ‘Control over the daily allocation of cases for hearings, including urgent ones, has been placed solely in the hands of the chief justice, creating what is perceived by lawyers as an unacceptable bias in the administration of justice. In August [2011] the Law Society of Swaziland instituted a boycott of the courts to protest these developments and the failure of the authorities to hear its complaints regarding the running of the courts, including the chief justice’s allocation of cases. On September 21[2011], Law Society members delivered a petition to the minister of justice calling for action to address the decisions of the chief justice and the general administration of justice in the court system.’

In August 2011, Swazi police in bullet-proof vests and armed with shotguns and tear gas canisters invaded a meeting of lawyers in the Swaziland High Court, which had been called to discuss their on-going campaign to get Ramodibedi removed from office. Reports in the Swazi media said the Chief Justice himself ordered the police to break up the meeting.

In September 2011, the Centre For Human Rights, Swaziland, reported, ‘Swaziland lawyers embarked on the court boycott after the CJ issued a series of unlawful practice directives, to all courts of the land, directing them not to admit certain cases. In one directive, the CJ instructed the Registrar that cases would only be allocated to judges by the CJ himself, and no other officer. In another practice directive, issued in June 2011, the CJ instructed the Registrar and officers of all courts in the land that cases involving the king should not be admitted. These regrettable actions of the CJ were largely viewed as interference not only with the administration of the courts, but also as a denial of the fundamental right to access justice.’

In November 2011, the Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa (OSISA) reported, ‘Lawyers have been boycotting the courts for almost four months in protest at the maladministration of justice in the country by the incumbent Chief Justice, Michael Ramodibedi. But this week, they upped the pressure on the Chief Justice by staging a mass walk-out of the Supreme Court. This left all suspects and people with civil cases with no legal representation.

‘But astonishingly, the Chief Justice ordered that all cases be heard with or without the lawyers. This, as some have already observed, is the height of injustice. The Chief Justice is also on record as praising people who represented themselves saying that they actually argue “much better than the lawyers”.

‘Subsequent to the directive to proceed without the lawyers, Ramodibedi then went another step further - banning all lawyers from setting foot in the High Court. A heavily armed police contingent has been posted in and around the High Court premises and only government lawyers and people with cases have been allowed to enter. Banned from meeting at the High Court, the lawyers opted for a very innovative strategy, using their vehicles to “march” through the capital city in protest and bringing the city to a stand-still - much to the consternation of the police.’

See also

JURISTS: DEEP FLAWS IN JUSTICE SYSTEM

http://swazimedia.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/jurists-deep-flaws-in-justice-system.html

 

SWAZI JUDICIAL CRISIS: KING’S WORD IS LAW

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2015/05/judicial-crisis-kings-word-is-law.html