Only half the people eligible to vote in Swaziland election did so

Only half of the people eligible to vote at the national election in Swaziland / eSwatini in 2018 did so, official figures reveal.

A year after the election the full results of each individual constituency (known as tinkhundla) have not been publicly released. However, global figures on voting have been released by the Elections and Boundaries Commission (EBC).

Swaziland is ruled by King Mswati III as an absolute monarch. Political parties are banned from taking part in elections and the people are only allowed to select 59 of 69 seats in the House of Assembly. No members of the 30-strong Swazi Senate are elected by the people.

The statistics released show that 330,791 voted in the final round of elections (known as the secondary election). The EBC said that 650,000 people were eligible to vote. This meant only 50.8 percent of those eligible to vote did so.

The population of Swaziland is about 1.2 million.

The EBC stated that of the 650,000 people eligible, 546,784 people registered to vote. This meant that 215,993 people (nearly four in ten) who registered to vote did not do so in the secondary election.

The turnout in the election is important as voting is the only way people in Swaziland have of demonstrate their support (or lack of it) for the political system. In 1973, King Sobhuza II tore up the constitution, banned political parties and began to rule by decree. Although a new constitution came into effect in 2006, little has changed and King Sobhuza’s son King Mswati III continues to rule as an absolute monarch. Political opposition is banned in Swaziland and those who campaign for democracy are charged under the Suppression of Terrorism Act.

The secondary election was marred by accusations of bribery, vote-rigging and other malpractice. There were also outbreaks of violence. Police fired gunshots, stun grenades and rubber bullets as voters at Sigwe protested against completed ballot papers being taken away from a polling centre. In Ndzingeni polling stations voters were dispersed using teargas during counting as voters threatened to enter the polling station where counting was taking place. APA news agency reported outbursts of violence started as early as noon time on election day and intensified in the evening when the counting of votes was about to resume.

Following the election the King appointed Ambrose Dlamini as Prime Minister and a cabinet of ministers in contravention of the Swaziland Constitution. He also appointed six members of his Royal Family to the House of Assembly and eight more to the Senate.

In a report on the election, the United Nations Human Rights Committee stated the ‘legitimacy and credibility’ of the election was ‘significantly hampered’ because political parties were banned. The King had ‘excessive powers’ in the appointment of the Government, Parliament and the judiciary, it stated.

It added, ‘The legitimacy and credibility of the elections was significantly hampered by the design of the electoral mechanisms as a culture of political pluralism is lacking. There is no freedom of genuine and pluralistic political debate, political parties are unable to register, contest elections, field candidates or otherwise participate in the formation of a Government.’

See also

Violence, corruption, vote-buying reported in Swaziland election. Journalists barred from entering counting centres

https://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2018/09/violence-corruption-vote-buying.html

 

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

Swaziland ‘not free’ as King keeps grip on power, Freedom House reports

King Mswati III, the absolute monarch of Swaziland /eSwatini, continues to hold a tight grip on power and all aspects of life in the kingdom, a review of human rights has concluded.

Freedom House scored Swaziland 16 out of a possible 100 points in its Freedom in the World 2019 report. It concluded that Swaziland was ‘not free’.

Freedom House stated, ‘The king exercises ultimate authority over all branches of the national government and effectively controls local governance through his influence over traditional chiefs. Political dissent and civic and labor activism are subject to harsh punishment under sedition and other laws. Additional human rights problems include impunity for security forces and discrimination against women and LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) people.’

National elections took place in Swaziland in 2018. Freedom House scored Swaziland zero out of a possible 12 points for its ‘electoral process’. It stated, ‘The king, who remains the chief executive authority, is empowered to appoint and dismiss the prime minister and members of the cabinet. The prime minister is ostensibly the head of government, but has little power in practice. Ambrose Dlamini was appointed prime minister in October 2018, although he was not a member of Parliament at the time of his appointment, as required by the constitution.

‘Traditional chiefs govern their respective localities and typically report directly to the king. While some chiefs inherit their positions according to custom, others are appointed through royal interventions, as allowed by the constitution.

‘The 69-member House of Assembly, the lower chamber of the bicameral Parliament, features 59 members elected by popular vote within the tinkhundla system, which allows local chiefs to vet candidates and influence outcomes in practice; the king appoints the other 10 members. The king appoints 20 members of the 30-seat Senate, the upper chamber, with the remainder selected by the House of Assembly. All members of Parliament serve five-year terms. After the parliamentary elections in September 2018, the king appointed six members of the royal family to the House of Assembly, and eight to the Senate. The elections, which were tightly controlled and featured a slate of candidates almost entirely loyal to the king, did not offer voters a genuine choice.

‘In August, a senior official at the Elections and Boundaries Commission (EBC) reported that members of the House of Assembly were accepting bribes in exchange for their votes in Senate elections. At year’s end, no apparent consequences had followed.’

Freedom House scored Swaziland one point out of a possible 16 for ‘political pluralism and participation’ stating, ‘The king has tight control over the political system in law and in practice, leaving no room for the emergence of an organized opposition with the potential to enter government. The vast majority of candidates who contested the 2018 general elections were supporters of the king.’

Political parties are banned from taking part in elections. Freedom House stated, ‘Over the years, political parties seeking legal recognition have suffered court defeats, including a Supreme Court ruling in September 2018 rejecting a challenge by the Swazi Democratic Party (SWADEPA) to the ban on political parties competing in elections.’

Swaziland scored zero out of a possible 12 points for ‘functioning of government.’ The king appoints the Prime Minister and government ministers. Freedom House stated, ‘The king and his government determine policy and legislation; members of Parliament hold no real power and effectively act as a rubber stamp in approving the king’s legislative priorities. Parliament cannot initiate legislation and has little oversight or influence on budgetary matters. The king is also constitutionally empowered to veto any legislation. The absolute authority of the king was demonstrated by his decision to rename the country in April 2018 [from Swaziland to eSwatini] without any constitutional process or parliamentary approval.

Freedom House is not the only international organisation to highlight the lack of human rights in Swaziland. The United States in its annual report on the kingdom for 2017 (the most recent available) stated, ‘The most significant human rights issues included: arbitrary interference with privacy and home; restrictions on freedoms of speech, assembly, and association; denial of citizens’ ability to choose their government in free and fair elections; institutional lack of accountability in cases involving rape and violence against women; criminalization of same-sex sexual conduct, although rarely enforced; trafficking in persons; restrictions on worker rights; and child labor.

‘With few exceptions, the government did not prosecute or administratively punish officials who committed abuses. In general perpetrators acted with impunity.’

Amnesty International in a review of Swaziland for 2017 / 2018 stated, ‘Forced evictions continued to be carried out. The Public Order Act and the Suppression of Terrorism Act (STA) severely limited the rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly. A ban on opposition parties continued. Gender-related violence remained prevalent.’

It added, ‘King Mswati approved the Public Order Act on 8 August, which curtailed the rights to freedom of assembly and association, imposing far-reaching restrictions on organizers of public gatherings. The Act also failed to provide mechanisms to hold law enforcement officials accountable for using excessive force against protesters or public gatherings.’

Human Rights Watch in its report on events in Swaziland in 2016 stated Swaziland, ‘continued to repress political dissent and disregard human rights and rule of law principles in 2016. Political parties remained banned, as they have been since 1973; the independence of the judiciary is severely compromised, and repressive laws continued to be used to target critics of the government and the king despite the 2005 Swaziland Constitution guaranteeing basic rights.’

See also

Swazi law used against human rights

https://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2018/05/swazi-law-used-against-human-rights.html

Swaziland absolute king declares national election ‘success’ but full results not released

King Mswati III, the absolute king of Swaziland / eSwatini, has declared last September’s national election in his kingdom a ‘success’, even though the full results have never been published.

The King told the state opening of parliament on Friday (8 February 2019) there was ‘over 60 percent’ voter turnout. 

However, there is no way to confirm this because the Kingdom’s Elections and Boundaries Commission (EBC) has not published the full results, nearly five months after the poll.

After the House of Assembly election took place on 21 September 2018 the EBC promptly announced the winners at the 59 constituencies (known as tinkhundla) but no break-down giving the number of votes cast for each candidate has been released.

This is not new in Swaziland: the full results of the previous election held in 2013 have never been published.

In Swaziland, political parties are banned from taking part in elections and the people are only allowed to select 59 members of the House of Assembly; the King appoints a further 10. No members of the 30-strong Swazi Senate are elected by the people; the King appoints 20 members and the House of Assembly elects 10. Following the election King Mswati appointed six members of his Royal Family to the House of Assembly and eight members to the Senate.

He also appointed a Prime Minister in contravention of the Swazi Constitution.

The EBC has not released the results of the House of Assembly election, although they are known. The two national newspapers in Swaziland published some results from individual tinkhundla as they were announced on the night of the election. 

The EBC has the capacity to publish the results. After the first round of the election (known as the Primary Election) on 24 August 2018, the EBC uploaded on its website all the results. An analysis of that data discovered a total of 156,973 people voted for members of the House of Assembly at the Primary Election; 28.83 percent of those who had registered.

In June 2018 after revising the figure the EBC announced that 544,310 people had registered to vote. It said earlier that 600,000 people in the kingdom were eligible to register. This meant, according to EBC figures, that 90.7 percent of eligible people had done so. The EBC figure was questioned after allegations were made of election law breaking. No copy of the national electoral roll was made public.

The size of the turnout in the Primary Election is important as voting is the only way people in Swaziland have to demonstrate their support (or lack of it) for the political system. In 1973, King Sobhuza II tore up the constitution, banned political parties and began to rule by decree. Although a new constitution came into effect in 2006, little has changed and King Sobhuza’s son King Mswati III continues to rule as an absolute monarch. Political opposition is banned in Swaziland and those who campaign for democracy are often charged under the Suppression of Terrorism Act.

The voting figures for the Primary Election suggested a lack of support for the political process. The results of the primary Election have since been removed from the EBC website.

The final round of the election (known as the Secondary Election) was marred by violence and accusations of bribery, vote-rigging and other malpractice.

 

Following the election the United Nations Human Rights Committee (HRC) reported the ‘legitimacy and credibility’ of the election was ‘significantly hampered’ because political parties were banned. It said the King had ‘excessive powers’ in the appointment of the Government, Parliament and the judiciary.

In its report the HRC said, ‘The legitimacy and credibility of the elections was significantly hampered by the design of the electoral mechanisms as a culture of political pluralism is lacking. There is no freedom of genuine and pluralistic political debate, political parties are unable to register, contest elections, field candidates or otherwise participate in the formation of a Government.’

In its election report the African Union (AU) called on Swaziland to end the ban on political parties. AU mission head James Michel, the former Seychelles president, said, ‘The mission encourages the eSwatini authorities to consider reviewing the 1973 decree on the ban on political parties and allow them to freely participate in the election.’ 

The Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) Election Observation Mission in its report said the election had been successful, ‘in line with the Constitution of the Kingdom of Eswatini, and the guiding Legal Framework’. Unlike the AU, it did not have a mandate to consider whether Swaziland was a democracy.

The Eswatini Elections Support Network which operates under the auspices of the Coordinating Assembly of NGOs (CANGO) made no comment about the election being ‘free and fair’.

Richard Rooney

See also

Swaziland election observer groups say vote was ‘peaceful’ but fall short of ‘free and fair’

https://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2018/09/swaziland-election-observer-groups-say.html

 

Violence, corruption, vote-buying reported in Swaziland election. Journalists barred from entering counting centres

https://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2018/09/violence-corruption-vote-buying.html

 

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

Organised Certainty, Why elections in Swaziland are not democratic

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

Legitimacy and credibility of Swaziland election hampered by political parties ban, UN group reports

The ‘legitimacy and credibility’ of the recent national election in Swaziland / Eswatini was ‘significantly hampered’ because political parties are banned in the kingdom ruled by absolute monarch King Mswati III, according to a United Nations group.

The King has ‘excessive powers’ in the appointment of the Government, Parliament and the judiciary, the UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) said in a report just published.

It follows a visit to Swaziland on 6 to 8 November 2018 to review a number of human rights issues outlined in the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

The HRC reported, ‘According to the Constitution of Eswatini (Swaziland), the system of Government is based on the Tinkhundla, in which individual merit is a basis for election and appointment into public office. In practice, this translates in a system where the King has excessive powers appointment over the Government, Parliament and the judiciary, incompatible with article 25 of the ICCPR.’

Elections for the House of Assembly took place on 21 September 2018. Political parties were banned from taking part. The people were only allowed to elect 59 members of the House, a further 10 were appointed by the King. None of the 30 members of the Swazi Senate were elected by the people; 10 were elected by the House of assembly and 20 appointed by the King.

Following the election the King appointed a Prime Minister and Cabinet in contravention of the Swaziland Constitution. He also appointed six members of his Royal Family to the House of Assembly and eight to the Senate.

In its report the Human Rights Committee said, ‘The legitimacy and credibility of the elections was significantly hampered by the design of the electoral mechanisms as a culture of political pluralism is lacking. There is no freedom of genuine and pluralistic political debate, political parties are unable to register, contest elections, field candidates or otherwise participate in the formation of a Government. 

‘Political organisations have tried to challenge the Government to allow at least individual candidates to express their affiliation to political parties during the election campaigning period in order to promote steps towards political plurality. On 20 July 2018, the High Court of Eswatini dismissed an application brought by SWADEPA for an interim order allowing individual candidates to express their affiliation to political parties during the election campaign period.’

Swaziland ratified the ICCPR in 2004 and its initial report on progress was due by 2005, but by 2017 it had failed to report. After such a long delay the HRC reviewed of the kingdom in the absence of report. The November visit was an attempt to review progress since then.

See also

Swaziland quizzed on terror law

https://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2017/06/swaziland-quizzed-on-terror-law.html

U.S. Ambassador calls for repeal of decree that makes Swaziland an absolute monarchy

Lisa Peterson, the United States Ambassador to Swaziland (Eswatini), has renewed her call for political parties to be allowed to operate in kingdom.

She also called for the 1973 Decree that turned Swaziland from a parliamentary democracy into an absolute monarchy to be repealed. It banned political parties and put all powers in the hands of the King.

Peterson said this in an article she wrote that appeared in both of Swaziland’s national daily newspapers.

Peterson was reacting to the recent decision by the King to make appointments to the House off Assembly and the Swazi Senate, following September’s national elections. People can only choose 59 members of the House, the King appoints another 10. No members of the Swazi Senate are elected by the people, the King appoints 20 and the House elects 10.

Peterson said that the King failed to follow the 2005 Swaziland Constitution when he made the appointments. She said he did not appoint the required number of women. 

She also wrote, ‘Former Minister of Justice Edgar Hillary went to Geneva in 2017 and told the United Nations Human Rights Commission that the 1973 Decree had been repealed by the Constitution. If this can be said to the outside world, why can it not be explicitly stated to the Swati nation? And if the Decree has truly been repealed, why do officials act as if it is still in place?

‘The Constitution’s language on ‘individual merit as a basis for election or appointment to public office’ does not actually exclude the possibility of political parties.’

She said if political parties were allowed to exist they would help women to organise.

She wrote, ‘[P]arties are critical to enabling individuals to join forces around common issues and pool their resources – intellectual, financial and organizational – to advance policies and candidates they believe will best serve their communities. In this moment of severe financial adversity, emaSwati need such collective community advocacy more than ever. It is time to start a dialogue on this issue and plot a way forward.’

This was not the first time the US Ambassador had called for political parties to be allowed in Swaziland.

In February 2018 she told a meeting of editors that polling suggested people in Swaziland did not support political parties. She said, ‘For me that speaks to people not seeing what a political party can do for them. You need to build understanding and policy of advocacy at the grass root level so that you can get a number of people thinking in a similar manner.’

She said political entities that supported parties in Swaziland needed to work on the ground to change people’s minds about the value of political parties. ‘Each party or grouping needs to go about it in the way that works best,’ she said.

She added, ‘That plays a part in getting every average Swazi to understand why a political parties might be useful.’

Again in March 2018 she told a meeting on multiparty democracy, good governance and human rights at the Happy Valley Hotel, Ezulwini, many people in Swaziland did not support political parties, ‘in part because they lack experience with what parties can accomplish and how advocacy can succeed.’

She added, ‘In addition to the various efforts the parties have underway, they need to be paying particular attention to this part of the equation. Because if a person living in a small village does not understand how a party can help him approach local leaders on an issue such as youth unemployment, the answer to that poll question is going to continue to go against the multiparty option.  

‘You also should not fall into the trap of thinking that simply explaining to people why parties are important, or holding a march to rally public opinion, will move the needle more in your direction.

‘People need to experience policy advocacy in order to appreciate the advantages of a coalition.  Otherwise, they will carry on doing things the way they always have, perhaps believing that no action can really make a difference.  

‘People have a tendency to want to stay with something they know, even if it’s not working well, because they fear that a change will bring something worse.  This is as true in the United States as it is here.  But if you show them how advocacy is done, if you highlight for them their civic potential, you will have made an incredible investment in the country’s future.  And through this investment, attitudes toward the multiparty question are sure to improve.’

She is not alone in advocating for political parties in Swaziland. In 2013 the EU which is a major donor of aid to Swaziland told King Mswati he must allow political parties to operate in his kingdom as it was important that international principles of democracy were upheld in Swaziland.

In October 2012, the United Kingdom also called for political parties to be un-banned in Swaziland.

See also

U.S. Ambassador supports parties

https://swazimedia.blogspot.co.uk/2018/02/us-ambassador-supports-parties.html 

Parties still banned from election

https://swazimedia.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/parties-still-banned-from-election.html

One in three want political parties

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2015/10/one-in-three-want-political-parties.html

Swazis want democracy - survey

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2013/12/swazis-want-democracy-survey.html

EU tells King: ‘free parties’

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2013/03/eu-tells-king-free-parties.html
 

UK calls for parties to be un-banned

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2012/10/uk-calls-for-parties-to-be-un-banned.html

Swaziland King says angels told him whom to appoint as new Prime Minister, but he won’t yet reveal the name

King Mswati III, the absolute monarch of Swaziland / Eswatini, told a meeting of the kingdom’s ‘People’s Parliament’ he had been visited by angels whom told him who he should appoint as the kingdom’s new Prime Minister.

 

In the past the King has said he received messages directly from God.

He told his story at the Ludzidzini Royal Residence on Wednesday (24 October 2018) during a meeting of Sibaya. The Sibaya is where the King summons his 1.1 million subjects to the royal cattle byre to discuss pressing issues.

When he called Sibaya people expected he would reveal who he had chosen to be Prime Minister, following the recent national elections. 

Instead of revealing his choice the King said he had prayed hard for guidance and had been visited by angels. The Times of Swaziland reported he said, ‘The angels did eventually come and told me who it was.’

The Times added, ‘He said it became apparent as he was continuously in prayer that the angels and ancestors (tingilozi nemadloti) would appear to him and show him the right man for the job.

‘He said the angels and ancestors would show him the man who was given the authority to run the country.’

The said he would not reveal the name until at least Saturday (27 October 2018) after the Sibaya had given its views on who should be the PM.

King Mswati and his supporters have in the past said the King has a direct line to God.

In 2013, African Eye News Service reported King Mswati’s elder brother, Prince Masitsela Dlamini, said that God had given the royal family authority to rule over other Swazi clans. ‘The Dlaminis are closer to God,’ said Dlamini.

In 2011, the King said God spoke to him through a TV remote control. It happened at the Lozitha Palace, near Mbabane. At the time the King told his subjects about his ‘miraculous experience’.

The Times of Swaziland reported in October 2011, ‘His Majesty saw a miracle yesterday when he was preparing a sermon [to preach to a group of evangelical Christians.] The King said a remote control lay at the centre of a coffee table but something mysteriously brought it down.

‘He said there was no person or wind that could have brought it down.  The King said he realised that God was with him.  It was Him who brought the remote control down.’

In September 2013, the King told his subjects he had received a vision during a thunderstorm and was told that the political system in Swaziland that puts the King at the head and bans political parties should from then on be called ‘Monarchical Democracy.’

On 21 October 2009, the Swazi Observer, a newspaper in effect owned by the King, told its readers King Mswati was ‘ordained by God to lead his people’. Musa Ndlangamandla, the Observer chief editor at the time, reported that Lutfo Dlamini, then Swaziland’s Minister of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation, wrote a poem to the King that included the line, ‘You are living proof that Kings and Monarchs are ordained by God to lead his people’.

Following this, the most senior ‘traditionalist’ leader in Swaziland Timothy Velabo Mtsetfwa was reported in the Observer saying ‘Royalty was a gift from God’. He said this while urging the Swazi nation ‘to respect the Royalty because it cares for the needy’. 

Mtsetfwa also spoke about how multi-parties which are banned in Swaziland, ‘were a monster to which many countries had succumbed and fell’. He then went on to say, ‘in other countries, especially those under multi-party democracy, the leaders only think of themselves and their immediate families and forget about the needy people’. 

Following the latest election on 21 September 2018 the King appointed six members of his own family to the House of Assembly and eight to the Senate.

The King rules as an absolute monarch and chooses the PM and government. People are only allowed to select 59 members of the House of Assembly; the King appoints a further 10. No members of the Swazi Senate are elected, the House of Assembly elects 20 and the King appoints 10. 

See also

Swazi King’s private line to God

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/10/swazi-kings-private-line-to-god.html

Fears over King’s mental health

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2011/10/fears-over-kings-mental-health.html

Results of Swaziland election not published one month after poll questioning kingdom’s claim to democracy

The results of the House of Assembly election in Swaziland / Eswatini have still not been published one month after the vote took place.

It is further evidence that the kingdom ruled by King Mswati III as sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch is not a democracy.

The election took place on 21 September 2018. The kingdom’s Elections and Boundaries Commission (EBC) promptly announced the winners at the 59 constituencies (known as tinkhundla) but no break-down giving the number of votes cast for each candidate has been released.

This is not new in Swaziland: the full results of the previous election held in 2013 have never been published.

In Swaziland, political parties are banned from taking part in elections and the people are only allowed to select 59 members of the House of Assembly; the King appoints a further 10. No members of the 30-strong Swazi Senate are elected by the people; the King appoints 20 members and the House of Assembly elects 10. Following the election King Mswati appointed six members of his Royal Family to the House of Assembly and eight members to the Senate.

The EBC has not released the results of the House of Assembly election, although they are known. The two national newspapers in Swaziland published some results from individual tinkhundla as they were announced on the night of the election. 

The EBC has the capacity to publish the results. After the first round of the election (known as the Primary Election) on 24 August 2018, the EBC uploaded on its website all the results. At the time the Swazi Media Commentary (SMC) blogsite analysed the data and found a total of 156,973 people voted for members of the House of Assembly at the Primary Election; 28.83 percent of those who had registered.

In June 2018 after revising the figure the EBC announced that 544,310 people had registered to vote. It said earlier that 600,000 people in the kingdom were eligible to register. This meant, according to EBC figures, that 90.7 percent of eligible people had done so. The EBC figure was questioned after allegations were made of election law breaking. No copy of the national electoral roll was made public.

SMC reported that the size of the turnout in the Primary Election was important as voting was the only way people in Swaziland had of demonstrating their support (or lack of it) for the political system. In 1973, King Sobhuza II tore up the constitution, banned political parties and began to rule by decree. Although a new constitution came into effect in 2006, little has changed and King Sobhuza’s son King Mswati III continues to rule as an absolute monarch. Political opposition is banned in Swaziland and those who campaign for democracy are charged under the Suppression of Terrorism Act.

The voting figures for the Primary Election suggested a lack of support for the political process. The results of the primary Election have since been removed from the EBC website.

The final round of the election (known as the Secondary Election) was marred by accusations of bribery, vote-rigging and other malpractice. There were also outbreaks of violence. Police fired gunshots, stun grenades and rubber bullets as voters at Sigwe protested against completed ballot papers being taken away from a polling centre. In Ndzingeni polling stations voters were dispersed using teargas during counting as voters threatened to enter the polling station where counting was taking place. APA news agency reported outbursts of violence started as early as noontime on election day and intensified in the evening when the counting of votes was about to resume.

Some journalists and official independent election observers were barred from entering voting counting centres and told they must sign a declaration of secrecy form.

Following the election official complaints were made to the EBC about malpractice. Residents at Ntfonjeni said people were bussed in and allowed to vote after the election had closed. At Ndzingeni residents complained of vote-rigging.

 

See also

Swaziland Police Fire Gunshots, Set Off Grenades and Rubber Bullets as Voters Protest During Election

https://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2018/09/swaziland-police-fire-gunshots-set-off.html

Violence, corruption, vote-buying reported in Swaziland election. Journalists barred from entering counting centres

https://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2018/09/violence-corruption-vote-buying.html

 

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

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 King appoints eight of his family to Senate amid reports of widespread vote buying elsewhere

King Mswati III the absolute monarch of Swaziland / Eswatini has appointed eight members of his Royal Family to the kingdom’s Senate. This is in addition to the six he previously appointed to the House of Assembly.

In an unexplained move, the King appointed Prince Hlangabeza to both the House and the Senate.

The announcement came on Thursday (18 October 2018) and follows national elections that are widely discredited outside of Swaziland as undemocratic. No member of the Swazi Senate are elected by the people; the King appoints 20 and members of the House of Assembly elect 10.

The King’s appointments underline the lack of democracy in Swaziland. Elections for the House of Assembly were held on 21 September 2018. Political parties are banned from taking part and people are only allowed to select 59 members; the King appoints a further 10.

Ten members of the Senate were elected by members of the House of Assembly on Tuesday amid reports of widespread bribery. The Times of Swaziland reported on Thursday that police were investigating after votes were said to have been sold for between E20,000 and E40,000. In Swaziland seven in ten of the estimated 1.1 million population have incomes less than the equivalent of US$2 (about E30) a day.

The Times said the bribery allegations came to light after one unsuccessful Senate candidate whom it did not name demanded her money back from members of the House of Assembly.

The Observer on Sunday newspaper, which is in effect owned by King Mswati, said in an editorial comment (14 October 2018), ‘It is now an open secret that the 10 seats available for Senate, to be chosen by the MPs, are now sold to the highest bidder.’

Vusi Kunene, a columnist for the Times of Swaziland, criticised Swaziland’s Elections and Boundaries Commission for not taking action. He wrote, ‘That it is no longer a secret that there is a lot of vote buying and the institution, which is supposed to guard against such, is silent, is worrying.’

The buying of Senate seats in Swaziland is common. In the run-up to the election Ncumbi Maziya, a Commissioner at the EBC, told a workshop for election candidates that members of parliament charged E60,000 for their vote.

The Swazi Observer newspaper reported in August 2018, ‘He said parliamentarians are the most corrupt people. He said he has since gathered that parliamentarians are swindling money from people who want to make it into Senate. 

It added, ‘Maziya said he learnt that people are made to fork out money amounting to E60,000 if they want to get a vote to be elected into Senate. “If you have no money you won’t make it into Senate,” Maziya stated.’

In a separate development, the Times of Swaziland reported on Friday two unnamed candidates for the Senate election had secretly been disqualified because they had failed police vetting. It reported, ‘their past was found wanting’. It gave no further details.

It added, ‘Vetting is the process of performing a background check on someone before offering them employment, conferring an award, or doing fact checking prior to making any decision.’

It said, ‘To save face, some of the MPs [Members of Parliament] continued to elect the candidates who had not passed the vetting stage, although it was clear from the counting of the votes that they did not stand a chance to win.’

It added, ‘Chief Police Information and Communications Officer (PICO)  Superintendent Phindile Vilakati, said as the police they could not divulge any information on the vetting of individuals.

‘“The process that is undertaken is highly confidential and therefore, for security reasons, one cannot state what happens,” said Vilakati.’

See also

Swaziland King appoints six of his own family to House of Assembly and more expected in Senate House

https://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2018/10/swaziland-king-appoints-six-of-his-own.html 

Swaziland Election Officer Reveals MPs Sell Their Votes When Electing Kingdom’s Senators

 https://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2018/09/swaziland-election-officer-reveals-mps.html 

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

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 House Speaker election in confusion as absolute King said to have preferred choice

Swaziland is getting ready to elect a Speaker to the House of Assembly amid rumours that King Mswati III, the kingdom’s absolute monarch, has a preferred choice. It seems history might be about to repeat itself.

If true, this raises a problem for the members of parliament who vote because they have to defer to the King. In Swaziland, (recently renamed Eswatini by the King on his 50^th birthday) the House of Assembly and the Senate exist only to do the King’s will.

Political parties are banned from taking part in elections. At the most recent poll on 21 September 2018 the people were only allowed to chose 59 members of the House of Assembly. The King has since appointed a further ten members, including six from his own Royal Family. None of the 30 members of the Swazi Senate are elected by the people. The King appoints 20 and the House of Assembly elects 10.

In theory the election of the Speaker of the House of Assembly is an open contest. Nominations for the post closed on Wednesday (10 October 2018). In practice, this does not always happened. After the previous election in 2013 Themba Msibi was elected unopposed after all other candidates stood down. He was not even on the list of candidates.

He was the King’s preferred candidate. Once news of this spread all other candidates withdrew. It was reported at the time that the House of Assembly was ready to elect a Speaker but it was adjourned for three days to allow Msibi time to get his nomination papers entered.

The adjournment was forced by Clerk of Parliament Ndvuna Dlamini.

The adjournment caused confusion in the Swazi Parliament because the kingdom’s Constitution suggests the election of Speaker had to take place at the first sitting of Parliament following a national election.

Among those withdrawing was Prince Guduza, the Speaker of the previous Parliament. He was widely thought of as the first choice of Parliamentarians and until the King’s intervention, was expected to be elected. He withdrew hours before the election took place.

Former minister and dissident journalist Mfomfo Nkhambule and Mangcongco MP Patrick ‘Pha’ Motsa, the only other candidates, had previously withdrawn. 

King Mswati III had a week earlier appointed Msibi to the House of Assembly. Msibi did not stand as a candidate in the national election held on 20 September 2013. 

The intervention of King Mswati was not reported in local media, but the Times of Swaziland, the kingdom’s only independent daily newspaper, reported, ‘Complete gloom enveloped the House of Assembly when Themba Msibi was pronounced Speaker unopposed yesterday.’ 

In an editorial comment, the Times said, ‘Parliament’s credibility, status and integrity have been shaken by the preceding chaos over the election of the Speaker and the nation desperately needs the reassurance that we have actually chosen the best people for the job – and that they will do the best for the nation.’

Msibi became a controversial Speaker. In June 2016 MPs decided to close parliament in protest about what they saw as Msibi’s poor performance of his job. They asked King Mswati to intervene. To their surprise, the King instructed Prime Minister Barnabas Dlamini (a man appointed to his job by the King) to tell them to get back to work. They did.

The Swazi Observer, a newspaper in effect owned by the King, reported at the time, ‘“I [Dlamini] have been sent by the King to inform you that he has heard that there are issues affecting parliament. But he says parliamentarians must continue working, especially on government business and other matters relating to government regulations. Bayethe!’’ he shouted the royal cry signifying that the massage was directly from the King.’

The newspaper added, ‘The few MPs who were present responded with the royal Bayethe cry as well. Soon after delivering the message, the PM hit the exit door.’ 

The House was then adjourned because not enough MPs were present to form a quorum.

The Observer reported at the time, ‘Parliamentary business has been grounded for the past two months following a decision by the members of the House of Assembly to get rid of Msibi. The decision to remove Msibi from the position of Speaker was triggered by his refusal to allow members of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA) Swaziland Branch to elect a new executive committee to replace one that was chaired by Dvokodvweni MP Musa Sitezi Dlamini, whom some MPs considered a puppet for the Speaker. 

‘The manner in which Msibi handled the matter did not help the situation either, instead, it revealed his other side-being authoritative. 

‘Most of the MPs felt they could not stand his alleged boastful character. They also accused him of arrogance, selective treatment of members and flouting of parliamentary procedures.

‘Attempts by members of the House of Assembly to remove Msibi from his position have previously been unsuccessful. 

‘A recent attempt before this one was through a parliamentary process that involved investigating his alleged immoral and unethical activities, which led to his subsequent suspension. The suspension was to be enforced pending tabling of the investigation report.

‘Msibi ran to the country’s courts to seek legal redress. While challenging the decision by his colleagues and before the court process was concluded, Prime Minister Sibusiso Dlamini delivered a message from the King informing House members the squabbles should be put to a dead stop. 

‘Msibi was reportedly instructed to abandon the court process and those legislators investigating him also ordered to bring to a halt the whole investigation process. All parties concerned obliged.’

The Observer reported that the House was divided into two rival factions, ‘with a few mainly royal appointees on the side of Msibi and the other section largely composed of elected members directly representing the 55 constituencies.’

See also

‘KING’S MAN’ STANDS FOR SPEAKER JOB

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2013/10/kings-man-stands-for-speaker-job.html
 

CONFUSION AS SPEAKER NOT ELECTED

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2013/10/confusion-as-speaker-not-elected.html
 

DISSIDENT STANDS AS HOUSE SPEAKER

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2013/10/dissident-stands-as-house-speaker.html