Search This Blog

Showing posts sorted by date for query code of ethics. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query code of ethics. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Thursday, 28 June 2018

POLICE SPOKESPERSON CONDEMNS LGBTI

The chief police spokesperson in Swaziland / Eswatini Superintendent Khulani Mamba has said that LGBTI people will not be tolerated in the kingdom and should not be given a platform.

He said, ‘We say no to homosexuality, this country will not tolerate the LGBTI [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex] community,’ the Times of Swaziland reported on Wednesday (26 June 2018).

His comments came after the Swaziland Police gave permission for the first-ever LGBTI Pride event to take place in the kingdom on Saturday (30 June 2018).

Mamba made his comments from the pulpit in Ezulwini during annual prayer services on Sunday, the Times reported. It described Mamba as a ‘prophet’. It added he spoke in a personal capacity and not as a police superintendent.

Meanwhile, the Swazi Observer is standing by its report that contained hate speech, despite criticism. Over the past week it and its companion newspaper the Sunday Observer have published three prominent articles that called LGBTI people ‘a curse’ and ‘evil’ and likening them to child sex molesters and people who had sex with animals. 

The articles broke Article 13 of the Swaziland National Association of Journalists code of conduct which states, ‘Hate speech: ‘Journalists shall avoid by all means the publication of speech that might promote hatred, spite and conflict amongst the Swazi or any other nation.’

After the first article appeared on Thursday (21 June 2018) the Swaziland Human Rights Network UK condemned it saying, ‘the spirit and text of the article is homophobic and divisive and goes against the basics of journalistic ethics of accuracy and fair reporting. The article makes a false equivalence between the gay and lesbian community and paedophilia, bestiality and rape’.

In a statement published on its website it said, ‘The falsehoods raised in this article are not only homophobic but also indicative of a particularly desperate and divisive anti-gay and lesbian agenda by the Swazi Observer.’

Later, Goodwill Mathonsi the group’s coordinator wrote an email of complaint to the Observer editor Thulani Thwala saying it had broken four articles in the code of ethics, including hate speech.

Hate speech is a type of speech or writing which can do any of the following: deliberately offend, degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against someone based on their race, ethnicity, profession, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. It can be aimed at an individual; or racial, ethnic, religious or other group. Such speech generally seeks to condemn or dehumanize the individual or group; or express anger, hatred, violence or contempt toward them.

In his response, Thwala did not address the matter of hate speech. He wrote, ‘Rule number one of journalism to balance views was achieved. Since we live in a free country it is every person’s right to frown upon anything.’

He wrote, ‘I am certain you are aware that we cannot force people to see things the way we do no matter the circumstances. I cannot guarantee special treatment for any groupings.’

Swazi Media Commentary also sent an email of complaint to the editor of the Swazi Observer but received no reply.

The Observer does give special attention to one group: the monarchy. It is in effect owned by King Mswati III who rules Swaziland as sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch. In a report on press freedom in the kingdom the Media Institute of Southern Africa called the Observer a  ‘pure propaganda machine for the royal family’.

In January 2011 Alec Lushaba who today is editor of the Observer on Saturday wrote in the Weekend Observer about the newspaper’s values. He said, ‘We commit ourselves into respecting and observing the institution of the Monarchy by ensuring that all publications with regard to Their Majesties are factually, culturally and traditionally correct. The sensitivity of the institutions demands that all facts be checked or verified with the traditional structures and/or have been in direct consultation with Their Majesties.’

See also

‘OBSERVER’ STEPS UP LGBTI HATE CAMPAIGN
FIRST LGBTI PRIDE IN SWAZILAND
https://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2018/06/first-lgbti-pride-in-swaziland.html

Friday, 25 May 2018

JOURNALISTS SAY THEY ARE UNDER THREAT

Seven in ten journalists interviewed by UNESCO in Swaziland said they had faced attempts from politicians or advertisers to interfere with what they were writing.
 
Meanwhile, there is evidence that journalists in private media are not only compromised by politicians but also ‘brown envelope journalism’ where media practitioners are given money or other financial benefits to push or hide information or stories.

Practitioners in state-run media have no editorial independence and are considered civil servants and are expected to abide by government orders.

The findings are contained in Assessment of Media Development in Swaziland, the most comprehensive report ever published on journalism and development in Swaziland.

UNESCO reported that in a survey journalists were asked, ‘Have you ever been faced with attempts by external actors (whether political or commercial) to interfere in the editorial content of an article or programme that you re working on?’ A total of 65 percent of the journalists interviewed answered ‘Yes, more than once.’ Another 5 percent answered, ‘Yes.’ A further 15 percent had no answer to the question.

UNESCO reported the number of respondents who had no answer, ‘may suggest that some respondents might have been responding with caution out of fear of reprisal.’

It added, ‘These results suggest lack of editorial independence in both private and state media and two recent cases illustrate this. In 2014, the government interfered with the editorial independence of the privately-owned Times of Swaziland as well as the state broadcaster. The government ordered the former, Times of Swaziland, to retract a story about the spending of E208 million (US$20,800,000) by the authorities reportedly sourced from Principal Secretary in the Finance Ministry, Khabonina Mabuza, to the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) in Parliament. 

‘In another case, the management of the state broadcaster suspended  information officer, Thandiswa Ginindza, from air after she broadcast a live interview with the Chairman of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security and Member of Parliament, Jan Sithole, on the country’s disqualification from benefitting from the USA’s African Growth Opportunity Act (AGOA). A controversy surrounded the number of benchmarks that Swaziland required to meet before being reinstated as a beneficiary. But the main reason for her suspension was that MPs are banned from using the state broadcaster.’

UNESCO also reported that in an interview, Swaziland Coalition of Concerned Civil Organisations (SCCCO) Director, Lomcebo Dlamini, ‘observed that the editorial independence of the private media is not only compromised by political pressure but also by “brown envelope journalism” where media practitioners are given money or other benefits to push or hide information or stories.’

It quoted Vuyisile Hlatshwayo, National Director of Media Institute of Southern Africa, Swaziland chapter, who said even in the private media editorial independence was compromised by editors and media owners who had ‘a cosy relationship’ with the government and big corporations. ‘The private media owners and editors ingratiate themselves with big corporations that reciprocate with handing out freebies to the editors and journalists. Such tendencies not only compromise the editorial independence of the media but also contravene Article 3(1) of the Code of Ethics for Journalists which states that: “Journalists should not accept bribes or any form of inducement to influence the performance of his/her professional duties,”’ UNESCO reported.

It also reported that Swazi TV and radio ‘are effectively departments of the civil service and government mouthpieces acting more as a vehicle for development’.

It added, ‘broadcast journalists are considered civil servants first and journalists second. As they are employed as information officers, they are part of the civil service and are thus expected to abide by the Government General Orders.

‘As government information officers they are expected to censor disruptive or critical information likely to compromise national security and frustrate government’s realisation of socioeconomic development goals, which clearly contravenes the spirit of editorial independence. 

‘In addition, the ICT [Information, Communications and Technology] Ministry has invoked the Public Service Announcement (PSA) Guidelines to control the state broadcasters. These guidelines bar all Swazi citizens, irrespective of their status, from airing their opinions on the radio and television stations before their opinions have been cleared by their chiefs.’

See also

TV CENSORS PUBLIC SERVANTS’ MARCH
‘EDITOR FLEES AFTER DEATH THREAT’
GOVT ‘TIGHTENS GRIP ON CENSORSHIP’

JOURNALISTS ‘SCARED TO DO THEIR JOBS’
https://swazimedia.blogspot.co.uk/2018/01/journalists-scared-to-do-their-jobs.html

Wednesday, 25 October 2017

‘OBSERVER’ NAMES ANOTHER RAPE VICTIM

The Swazi Observer newspaper has once again named a rape victim in violation of her human rights and journalism ethical codes.

It also disclosed her HIV-positive status.

The Sunday Observer (22 October 2017) reported on a woman it called ‘mentally unstable’. It named her and published two photographs of her as well as a picture of where she lived and of her aunt. It also published a photograph of her youngest daughter. This had her face blanked out but she would be easily recognisable to people in her community.

The newspaper said the woman had been repeatedly raped by men in her community and was now HIV-positive.

By publishing the name of the women, the Observer broke Article 15 of the Swaziland National Association of Journalists (SNAJ) code of ethics on Survivors of Sexual Assault which states, ‘Journalists shall avoid identifying survivors of sexual assault or any information that may lead to the identification of the survivor.’

Journalists across the world generally agree that it violates the rights of rape victims to publish their names without their consent.

This is not the first time the Swazi Observer has named alleged rape victims. In February 2015, it published the names of eight alleged rape victims without their consent.

The Observer published the names as part of a report on the start of a trial of an alleged serial rapist. In its report the Observer listed the women’s names and details of their attacks in what it called ‘a sneak preview’ of the case. It gave their names and details of how each attack took place. The newspaper named one woman and revealed she was a virgin.

In all of the attacks violence including a knife was used. In all cases the alleged rapist did not use a condom.

When the publication of the report caused an outcry the Observer gave a half-hearted apology, saying it had made a ‘boo-boo’. 

In its apology, the Observer said, ‘Indeed, the only decent thing we could do after mixing up the rules is to draw our own sword and hang ourselves.’

The editor nor any other journalist involved in the story was disciplined and the women involved received no compensation. Now, the offence has been repeated it remains to be seen what action will be taken.

The Swazi Observer newspapers are in effect owned by King Mswati III who rules Swaziland as sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch. Its journalistic credentials have been called into question many times. In a review of press freedom in Swaziland, the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) called the Observer, a ‘pure propaganda machine for the royal family’.

The Observer regularly breaks Article 1 of the SNAJ code Article 1which deals with people’s right to information. The article says, ‘The duty of every journalist is to write and report, adhere to and faithfully defend the truth. A journalist should make adequate inquiries, do cross-checking of facts in order to provide the public with unbiased, accurate, balanced and comprehensive information.’

The newspaper is on public record to say that its ‘collective stand as a newspaper is that the integrity of Swaziland as a democratic State and His Majesty King Mswati III as the legitimate leader of the Swazi nation, must never be compromised in any way.’ 

It also publishes false reports about Asians in Swaziland that are capable of string up racial hatred. In October 2016, it claimed that 600,000 people in Swaziland are of Asian origin (14 October 2016). A website called countrymeters that constantly updates statistics recorded Swaziland’s total population at that time as 1,312,881. 

That would mean that about 45 percent of the entire Swazi population were of Asian origin. In fact, every reputable source shows that about 97 percent of Swazi people are African. The sources include the CIA factbook and indexmundi.

The Observer reported on 14 October 2016 that a parliamentary committee set up to investigate Asians in the kingdom was told Asian people had occupied, ‘every available space in the urban areas’. The newspaper did not name the source of this statement. 


The Observer reported as if fact that 90 percent of shops in the kingdom are owned by Asian people (14 October 2016). It said, in Manzini, the main commercial city in Swaziland, ‘almost the entire city is reportedly in the hands of the Indians’ (14 October 2016). 

Other reports it made without giving readers evidence included: Asian people are rushing to acquire Swazi Nation Land to open up small businesses (15 October 2016);  wealthy Asian businessmen are evicting Swazis in massive scales in the areas of Manzini (17 October 2016); Asians are associating themselves with the Swazi Royal Family because it would secure their investments (17 October 2016). 

The constant trashing of Asian people runs against Swazi journalists’ own code of ethics. It amounts to hate speech. The Swaziland National Association of Journalists in Article 13 of its code states, ‘Hate speech. (Journalists shall avoid by all means the publication of speech that might promote hatred, spite and conflict amongst the Swazi or any other nation.)’ 

Richard Rooney

See also

PRESSURE ON ‘OBSERVER’ OVER RAPE
‘SWAZI OBSERVER’ NAMES ‘RAPE VICTIMS’
‘OBSERVER’ SHRUGS OFF ITS RAPE OUTRAGE
SWAZI KING’S PAPER ATTACKS ASIANS
 
UNREST AT SWAZI KING’S NEWSPAPER
KING KEEPS GRIP ON ‘SWAZI OBSERVER’
FALSE CLAIM OF OBAMA SUPPORT FOR KING
KING’S PAPER CALLS DEMOCRATS ‘HITLER’
AGOA PROPAGANDA FROM KING’S PAPER
KING’S PAPER AND ITS AIRPORT FANTASY
KING FORCES NEWSPAPER APOLOGY
https://swazimedia.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/king-forces-newspaper-apology.html

Saturday, 8 July 2017

A DECADE OF NEWS AND VIEWS



On Friday 7 July 2017 with no fanfare whatsoever the Swazi Media Commentary website that brings information and commentary in support of human rights in Swaziland reached its tenth anniversary.

We thank everyone who has supported the website over the years by supplying articles or information. We intend to continue the work.

Rather than write a self-aggrandising piece extolling the virtues of the website, we instead turn to the archives. Here is an article written by Peter Kenworthy and published in Pambazuka News on 2 February 2011. The words are his alone.

Swazi Media Commentary: Telling the truth about Swaziland

Pambazuka News


Richard Rooney’s online Swazi Media Commentary is a rare example of objective, progressive news and journalism in a country burdened with biased reporting and censorship, writes Peter Kenworthy.

To read accurate daily analyses of the situation in Swaziland, you must turn not to its self-censored official newspapers or a foreign media that has no daily presence in Swaziland, but to a blog written by Richard Rooney, a 54-year-old journalist and former associate professor at the University of Swaziland (UNISWA). ‘The Swazi media aren’t very good and there isn’t really a foreign press in Swaziland,’ Rooney says of the standard of reporting on Swaziland. Rooney’s blog, Swazi Media Commentary, in contrast, is both very outspoken, comprehensive and widely read. It usually carries articles every day on a wide range of subjects in relation to the Swazi media, democratisation and human rights which ‘help to build a loyal readership’, as Rooney puts it.

STARTING SWAZI MEDIA COMMENTARY

The site was started in 2007 as a way of informing his UNISWA students about Swazi media research, of which there was little to be found elsewhere. The website averages over 500 page views a day, although this doesn’t count readers of his articles that are reposted on other websites and debate forums, including his own mirror of the site, Swaziland Commentary. It is read in many countries in all the continents of the world, most of the readers coming from within Swaziland itself and many in South Africa, the US and the UK.

Initially, the site was to be primarily about the Swazi media, which is why it is called Swazi Media Commentary. ‘It was never intended as a “human rights” blog,’ says Rooney. ‘I taught journalism and mass communication at UNISWA and discovered that there was very little academic material on the media in Swaziland, so I set about researching and writing it myself. I thought to set up a website with short articles written by myself that would give examples from the Swazi media of topics that I and colleagues were teaching in class.’

Rooney had planned to discontinue the blog after he left UNISWA in 2008, but was asked to continue it by his many readers. ‘I continue to write it because people continue to read it. I get a lot of private feedback about posts and also emails with requests for information from all kinds of people, including journalists who are going to visit Swaziland; from professional people doing academic research on Swaziland; university students inside and outside Swaziland; school students inside and outside Swaziland and human rights activists.’

‘ROONEY IS PIVOTAL’

The people within the Swazi democratic movement whom I have contacted praised Rooney’s journalism. Swaziland Solidarity Network spokesperson Lucky Lukhele said that Swazi Media Commentary ‘has been very critical of the censorship in the news, both self-censorship and that which is imposed by the state. Swazi Media Commentary also tries its level best to search for and publish news that Swazi newspapers cannot publish due to censorship.’

Maxwell Dlamini, president of Swaziland National Union of Students, says that Swazi Media Commentary has ‘become the voice for the voiceless oppressed people of Swaziland,’ and that he is ‘so much grateful to have such a progressive and opening platform.’

Sikelela Dlamini, project coordinator of the Swaziland United Democratic Front, speaks of Rooney’s ‘insistence on objective journalism, achieved through systematic gathering of facts’. His concern is that Swazi journalists, on the other hand, ‘take shortcuts by gunning for quick stories which are not exhaustively investigated,’ and that ‘Rooney could yet play a pivotal role in the democratic movement's search for alternative media.’

A third source from within the movement, who asked not to be named, called Swazi Media Commentary ‘an invaluable source of independent and alternative information and a vital service in continuously keeping the largely hidden political problems of Swaziland on the international map,’ and said that Rooney had a ‘deep understanding of media ethics and press freedom that ordinary Swazi journalists do not normally feel able to practise.’

ROLE OF THE SWAZI MEDIA

One of the main reasons for the importance and relevance of Rooney’s Swazi Media Commentary is clearly the disposition of the Swazi mainstream media. The two widely read daily newspapers in Swaziland, the Swazi Observer, in effect owned by King Mswati, and the Times of Swaziland, exercise a large degree of self-censorship. The editor of the former has even vowed not to print anything unfavourable about the monarch. (The small magazine, The Nation, does live up to its self-proclaimed role as ‘watchdog’ by challenging the government, and the government has responded by taking the magazine editor to court in an attempt to close it down. The Nation, however, has nowhere near the readership of the mainstream papers).

Many of the articles in the Swazi newspapers also tend to have a sensationalist tinge, and when they do report on the democratic-, financial- and human rights-related crises that Swaziland is facing – as especially the Times does – they tend not to properly analyse why the country is in such a state. Maybe this is because they fear that the government, who in the case of the Times is a major source of advertisements and thus income, will remove this vital source of income, maybe because they have been threatened not to print stories unfavourable to the monarch or prime minister.

That this is the case flies in the face of general journalistic standards and the Swaziland National Association of Journalist’s code of conduct. Article 8 states that, ‘under no circumstances should news or a publication be suppressed unless it borders on issues of national security.’ Either ‘national security’ is defined very broadly in Swaziland, or its editors or journalists should try harder to observe these standards.

Rooney has himself commented on the lack of quality of the Swazi media on his blog, for example in 2007, where he wrote that he had ‘found during the three years I have lived in Swaziland that if I want to really know what’s going on in the kingdom, I should not bother with the Swazi media.’ This view of the media in Swaziland may not exactly have endeared him to Swazi newspaper editors or journalists, as I learnt when speaking to the editor of the Times of Swaziland in September. Nevertheless, Rooney says that they still sometimes use his material: ‘Both Swazi newspapers have followed up on my blogs in the past, without attribution mostly.’

The foreign press, for its part, doesn’t report very regularly on Swaziland, and most of its stories are written by freelancers, as there are no foreign bureaux in Swaziland. Rooney has therefore been approached, and has supplied information to, an array of foreign news outlets from around the world, including Africa Report, the BBC, France 24, PBS and ABC TV in the US, and Reuters.

HOW TO SOLVE SWAZILAND’S PROBLEMS?

So what should the media be reporting on and how should the international community react? A real problem is that the international community isn’t really interested in Swaziland, according to Rooney. ‘It has no real mineral wealth that industrialised nations need and it has no strategic ports or airstrips, so is of no military use.’ Foreign governments and the multilaterals do therefore not feel compelled to pressure the Swazi regime on its many wrongdoings or to demand democratisation – although strategic interest does not automatically result in political pressure, of course.

Swaziland’s democratic movement therefore seems to be in something of a catch 22 situation. It needs the international community to help it grow, but the international community will probably not help it before it gets its act together, so to speak. And for this it needs credible news and analysis about Swaziland. It is therefore perhaps a little sad that both the international community, and to a large degree people in Swaziland who have an internet connection (approximately 5 per cent of the population in 2008), must rely to a large degree on Rooney’s blog for in-depth, independent news and analysis on Swaziland. On the other hand, this should not take anything away from the importance and quality of Rooney’s efforts.

The action – or inaction – of the international community in regard to Swaziland matters however, says Rooney. ‘I think organisations like the IMF [International Monetary Fund], EU [European Union], African Development Bank, should insist on political reform as a prerequisite for bank loans and aid,’ he says. ‘And overseas political parties, trade unions etc could help to build the capacity of individual members of the Swazi opposition groups, for instance PUDEMO [People's United Democratic Movement], so they can develop leadership skills and also develop practical political policies that can be put forward in opposition to the present leadership.’

An increased professionalism and direction is an important prerequisite to getting both a larger segment of the people of Swaziland and the international community on board, says Rooney. ‘The democratic movement tends to mainly focus on activism to get “democracy”, but it is less clear what they will do once they get it. For example, as far as I know, none of the groups has a coherent policy on getting Swaziland out of its economic mess. How will they eradicate poverty? What’s the plan for creating jobs? If they had a manifesto, as opposition political parties have in democracies, they might increase their credibility with Swazi people and also with people/groups/nations in the free world who could perhaps assist them to meet their ambitions. I don’t mean this as a criticism of individual people, but at the moment these groups come across as political amateurs – maybe big on rhetoric, but small on actual policies.’

Certainly, without proper information and direction, the ever-increasing and understandable anger that many Swazis feel because of their growing economic predicament will not necessarily be vented at a Swazi regime that is to a large degree responsible for it. ‘People will get fearful and angry,’ says Rooney, ‘but might not know how to direct that fear and anger.’

BRINGING ABOUT CHANGE

Rooney is aware that the task of bringing about real democracy in Swaziland is enormous, however: ‘“Real” democracy took hundreds of years to come about in Western Europe, the US etc, so we shouldn’t expect much for Swaziland – but we can move towards these things. Unbanning political parties in Swaziland would be a big step forward.’

The present financial crisis in Swaziland might help bring about a change that could lead to democratisation by removing the system of clientelism that keeps the king in power, especially as this crisis is to a large degree self-inflicted as it started well before the international financial crisis in 2008. ‘Change will start to come about when those in Swaziland who presently have a stake in the status quo lose that stake. That could easily happen in Swaziland, especially when there is increasing evidence that the king doesn’t have real loyalty – people around him are in it for what they can get for themselves. They couldn’t give a damn about the king – as long as they are getting their graft. Once the opportunity for graft goes, their loyalty will go too.’

‘It was financial crises that brought down many ex-Soviet states,’ Rooney reminds us as an analogy to the situation in Swaziland. ‘The middle class turned against the leaders and the leaders were out on their ears. As soon as the middle class can’t afford their luxuries they will revolt. Also, if the economy becomes a siege economy and goods are not available, they will revolt.’

Up until now the Swazi regime has relied on a combination of traditionalism, nationalism and brutal police and armed forces to stay in power. According to Rooney, however, the strength of the police and armed forces is bound to their supposed loyalty – a loyalty that can easily crumble. ‘I doubt that King Mswati’s army commanders have any real loyalty to him or the monarchy – they too are corrupt. Also, the capacity of the army is weak – just think of the 500 recruits who supposedly went crazy at the end of 2010 because they were possessed by demons.’ As for the legitimacy of parliament and Swaziland’s ministers, this is also rapidly dissipating. ‘The recent scandals involving e.g. ministers are hugely affecting the “legitimacy” because they show that everyone is in it for themselves.’

Reflecting on the problems and potential of information dissemination, Rooney argues that perhaps Swazis should also learn from other conflicts such as the presently unfolding revolution in Tunisia. ‘I think social networking might be a better way forward by keeping democracy activists and progressives informed on what is going on. I’m presently trying to do research on how social networking was involved in the recent Tunisia business to see if there are lessons to be learned for Swaziland,’ he says.

However the struggle for Swazi democratisation is brought forward, access to proper information, analysis and reflection is important – and blogs such as Rooney’s are therefore vital in that they not only deliver this but also inspire and help mobilise others. But none of this will bring about change without a strong and purposeful democratic movement within Swaziland itself.

As Rooney reflects, ‘The more we keep talking about these things the better. In my blog I constantly refer to the PM [prime minister] as being illegally appointed and that King Mswati is the last absolute monarch in sub-Saharan Africa, i.e. himself illegitimate and undemocratic. I see my phrases used by other writers all over the web. All of this keeps telling people that they are not legitimate. The problem is that the knowledge that they are illegitimate is not enough. We need to mobilise activity around this and that is why political parties in Swaziland would be so important and equally why the rulers want to keep them banned.’

BROUGHT TO YOU BY PAMBAZUKA NEWS

* Peter Kenworthy is Africa Contact’s communication and project officer.
* Richard Rooney is a journalist with a PhD in communication and former associate professor at the University of Swaziland (2005–08). He has published articles on a variety of subjects, including media freedom in Swaziland and media ideology.
* You can receive a weekly newsletter containing several of the most interesting weekly articles from Rooney’s Swazi Media Commentary news by mailing Africa Contact at SAK-Swazinewsletter-subscribe@yahoogroups.co.uk.

Wednesday, 19 October 2016

SWAZI KING’S PAPER ATTACKS ASIANS

The Swazi Observer, a newspaper in effect owned by Swaziland’s absolute monarch King Mswati III, is running a campaign of misinformation against Asians in the kingdom. 

It has now claimed that 600,000 people in Swaziland are of Asian origin (14 October 2016). A website called countrymeters that constantly updates statistics recorded Swaziland’s total population on Wednesday (19 October 2016) as 1,312,881. 

That would mean that about 45 percent of the entire Swazi population were of Asian origin. In fact, every reputable source shows that 97 percent of Swazi people are African. The sources include the CIA factbook and indexmundi. 

The Observer reported on 14 October 2016 that a parliamentary committee set up to investigate Asians in the kingdom was told Asian people had occupied, ‘every available space in the urban areas’. 

The newspaper did not name the source of this statement. 

For more than a week, the Observer has been publishing stories denigrating Asian people. Most of them do not give facts to support accusations made and rarely are the accusers identified. 

In this way the Observer has reported as if fact that 90 percent of shops in the kingdom are owned by Asian people (14 October 2016). It said, in Manzini, the main commercial city in Swaziland, ‘almost the entire city is reportedly in the hands of the Indians’ (14 October 2016). 

An Asian landlord, who owns one-room flats in the outskirts of Siteki town, is alleged to have banned his tenants from bringing visitors to the flats (19 October 2016). 

Asian people are rushing to acquire Swazi Nation Land to open up small businesses (15 October 2016). 

Wealthy Asian businessmen are evicting Swazis in massive scales in the areas of Manzini (17 October 2016). 

Asians are associating themselves with the Swazi Royal Family because it would secure their investments (17 October 2016). 

On Monday (17 October 2016) the newspaper reported, ‘Efforts by Her Majesty the Indlovukazi [Queen Mother] to liberate women from the grinding poverty are allegedly being frustrated by the influx of Asians into the country.’ It said this was because Asian people were taking up business space ‘everywhere’. 

The constant trashing of Asian people runs against Swazi journalists’ own code of ethics. It amounts to hate speech. The Swaziland National Association of Journalists in Article 13 of its code states, ‘Hate speech. (Journalists shall avoid by all means the publication of speech that might promote hatred, spite and conflict amongst the Swazi or any other nation.)’ 

The National Union of Journalists (UK) goes further. In its guidelines on reporting race it states, ‘The NUJ believes the methods and lies of the racists should be publicly and vigorously exposed.

‘The NUJ believes that newspapers and magazines should not originate material which encourages discrimination on grounds of race or colour, as expressed in the NUJ's rule book and code of conduct.  

‘The NUJ believes that editors should ensure that coverage of race stories should be placed in a balanced context.’ 

See also
 
ASIANS EVICTED FROM HOME
ALL ASIANS BANNED FROM SWAZILAND
VERBAL ASSUALTS ON SWAZILAND’S ASIANS
RACISM IN SWAZILAND’S ‘TIMES SUNDAY’
‘UNDERCOVER COPS INFILTRATE MOSQUE’