A brother of Swazi King Mswati III is suing the Times of Swaziland for alleged defamation.
Prince Guduza, who is also Speaker of the House of Assembly, wants the newspaper to pay him E2 million (about 285,000 US Dollars) for articles it published about his involvement with a company that allegedly illegally imported cigarettes worth E17 million into Swaziland.
The move is not entirely unexpected since in Swaziland people in powerful positions, including Parliamentarians, often sue the independent media in order to try to intimidate them into silence. Often, after the initial threat, no court case actually takes place. However, the threat of action is often enough to quieten troublesome journalists.
The Nation magazine, an independent monthly comment journal, is currently in court battling a lawsuit by a government official who is suing the magazine for alleged defamation. The official had recently won damages after the Nation failed to appear in court to defend the case. But the Nation later won an order for stay of execution and the case is yet to be argued in court.
In 2007, the Times had one lawsuit from the Minister of Education dismissed by the High Court on a technicality only to be sued by the Minister of Health and Social Welfare over an article about HIV AIDS.
In the same year, the Swazi Observer was sued by an MP over a report of an alleged assault.
What is common to all the defamation cases is the unrealistically high damages that are claimed.
In a media release on Tuesday (18 March 2008) the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) states that lawyers for Prince Guduza claim that publication of articles in the Times ‘set the tone for further articles and commentaries in the newspaper in which our client was accused of being a liar, unfit to be Speaker of Parliament, abusing his position as Speaker, abuse of power in general and being corrupt and engaging in a generally corrupt relationship with the police.’
For further information on a previous lawsuit against the Times click here
For further information on the Nation case, click here
See also
ONE LAW FOR THE SWAZI PRINCE
Showing posts with label ruling elite. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ruling elite. Show all posts
Friday, 21 March 2008
Friday, 7 March 2008
ONE LAW FOR THE SWAZI PRINCE
Swaziland’s newspapers have revealed that a member of the ruling elite has received special treatment from the police in a criminal case.
This has prompted one journalist to ask whether the police ‘are a tool for the ruling class’.
The story involves Prince Guduza, the Speaker of the Swazi Parliament’s House of Assembly, who co-owns a company at the centre of an E17 million (about 2.5 million US Dollars) cigarette smuggling case.
The case hasn’t come to court yet, but in typical fashion the Swazi media have revealed many details of the alleged crime. In many democratic countries this would not be allowed because it could prejudice the accused person’s chance of getting a fair trial.
But since Swaziland isn’t a democracy and there is no such thing as a jury trial one might argue that no one can be prejudiced by news reports.
Anyhow, in the spirit of fairness I won’t give the details of the case here. Suffice is to say that the newspapers reported that Guduza was the co-owner of the accused company. Guduza claims that he used to be a co-owner but he gave up his share of the business after police tipped him off that they were investigating the company for illegal activity.
The question journalists must ask now is why did the police tip him off? One journalist who thinks he has the answer (and I tend to agree with his analysis) is Vusi Sibisi.
In his As I See It column in the Times of Swaziland on Wednesday (5 March 2008), Sibisi writes,
The Royal Swaziland Police in their course of duty build a prima facie criminal case against a company suspected to be importing contraband or being involved in other illicit operations. In the course of their investigations, the police find out that one of two of the directors of the company is a prince.
Instead of effecting arrests or seeking the advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the police go and warn the prince to pull out of the company, whose alleged contraband is confiscated almost immediately after.
That briefly is the story of Tanya Investment Company and Prince Gudza, the Speaker in Parliament’s House of Assembly.
As I see it, had Prince Gudza been any other citizen it is doubtful if the police would have warned him before making arrests.
Which raises the question of whether the police have become a political tool for the ruling class.’
This has prompted one journalist to ask whether the police ‘are a tool for the ruling class’.
The story involves Prince Guduza, the Speaker of the Swazi Parliament’s House of Assembly, who co-owns a company at the centre of an E17 million (about 2.5 million US Dollars) cigarette smuggling case.
The case hasn’t come to court yet, but in typical fashion the Swazi media have revealed many details of the alleged crime. In many democratic countries this would not be allowed because it could prejudice the accused person’s chance of getting a fair trial.
But since Swaziland isn’t a democracy and there is no such thing as a jury trial one might argue that no one can be prejudiced by news reports.
Anyhow, in the spirit of fairness I won’t give the details of the case here. Suffice is to say that the newspapers reported that Guduza was the co-owner of the accused company. Guduza claims that he used to be a co-owner but he gave up his share of the business after police tipped him off that they were investigating the company for illegal activity.
The question journalists must ask now is why did the police tip him off? One journalist who thinks he has the answer (and I tend to agree with his analysis) is Vusi Sibisi.
In his As I See It column in the Times of Swaziland on Wednesday (5 March 2008), Sibisi writes,
The Royal Swaziland Police in their course of duty build a prima facie criminal case against a company suspected to be importing contraband or being involved in other illicit operations. In the course of their investigations, the police find out that one of two of the directors of the company is a prince.
Instead of effecting arrests or seeking the advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the police go and warn the prince to pull out of the company, whose alleged contraband is confiscated almost immediately after.
That briefly is the story of Tanya Investment Company and Prince Gudza, the Speaker in Parliament’s House of Assembly.
As I see it, had Prince Gudza been any other citizen it is doubtful if the police would have warned him before making arrests.
Which raises the question of whether the police have become a political tool for the ruling class.’
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)