The Swaziland textile workers strike that was marred by police brutality has been suspended as employers agreed to meet union demands.
Workers will get a 10 percent wage increase across the board, 15 days paid holiday, one week paid bonus, double pay on Sundays, triple pay on public holidays and one and a half times normal pay for overtime during the week.
The Swazi Government has also agreed to engage with the workers over housing and travel allowances.
The Times of Swaziland yesterday (2 April 2008) quoted Swaziland Manufacturing and Allied Workers Union (SMAWU) Secretary General Sipho Manana saying until the negotiations with government were completed the strike would remain suspended. The strike was not over, he added.
The Swazi Observer (2 April 2008) reported that to ensure the back to work deal, Swaziland’s Minister of Enterprise and Employment, Lufto Dlamini, had to travel to Taiwan to talk to the owners of the Swazi textile companies.
The legal strike of textile workers had caused international attention when police brutally assaulted workers. On separate occasions Swazi Prime Minister Themba Dlamini and members of parliament condemned the police action.
It also drew public attention to the poor working conditions endured by workers in textile factories in Swaziland. All are owned by foreign companies, mostly those based in Taiwan.
The working conditions were likened to ‘slave labour’ by one newspaper columnist. Vusi Sibisi writing in the Times of Swaziland (2 April 2008) said that Swaziland had become beholden to foreign investors who wanted cheap labour. He blamed this on Swaziland’s ruling class.
Sibisi recalled the time just after Swaziland gained independence from Britain in 1968 when ‘anyone wanting to do business in [Swaziland] had to inform the ruling class about the range of salaries they would be offering to their Swazi workers.
‘No, it had nothing to do with the ruling elite’s benevolent disposition and/or enforcing the principle of minimum wages in order to protect and ensure that Swazis were not underpaid.
‘To the contrary, it had to do with ensuring that foreign investors did not spoil Swazis by paying them humane and reasonable wages because the ruling class believed that if handsomely salaried, Swazis would be spoilt to the extent of losing respect for the leadership and stop being subservient.
‘In some ways, I am informed, the ruling class would thereupon decide the wages the investors should give to their Swazi workers and perhaps be good corporate citizens by remitting to themselves the balance between what the investors had initially budgeted to pay and what the leadership finally decided should be paid.
‘After all they, the leadership, carried a heavy burden, as it were, of having to nanny a nation that is completely vulnerable and entirely dependent on them as squatters in their fiefdom, a service for which they believed they should be rewarded by whomsoever.’
See also
SWAZI POLICE ‘KILL BABY WITH TEARGAS’
Thursday, 3 April 2008
Wednesday, 2 April 2008
'OBSCENE' INCOME OF SWAZI KING
Swaziland’s only independent comment magazine may be on a collision course with King Mswati III after publishing details of his ‘obscene’ income.
The editor of the Nation magazine says there is a real danger the magazine could face closure for publishing the article.
The Nation published an article this month (April 2008) stating that the king is illegally getting an ‘obscene’ E220m (about 31.5 million US Dollars) this year from public funds. This is a 159 per cent increase on last year and roughly five per cent of Swaziland’s national budget. The Royal Family combined get a total of E500m.
In Swaziland about 70 percent of the population of nearly one million people live in dire poverty on an income of less than one US Dollar a day. About 600,000 people rely on international food aid to fend off starvation. (To read more details of the Nation article click here).
Writing in his own magazine, the Nation editor Bheki Makhubu says, ‘there is a real danger that we, at this magazine, could get into serious trouble with the authorities for highlighting this development’.
Makhubu is right to be worried. In March 2007 the Times of Swaziland group of newspapers was threatened with closure after it published a comment piece sourced from abroad that criticised the king. The newspaper group made an abject apology and has not criticised the king since.
Makhubu writes that it is well known in Swaziland that the media must not put the king in a ‘negative light’.
Makhubu’s fear of retribution is very real indeed, so in case trouble does start and the facts of the case get a little confused when the mud starts flying, I think it would be useful to reproduce here in some detail his reasons for publishing the article.
Makhubu wrote,
‘As editor of this magazine I decided we should go ahead and publish. There are a few reasons for this. The first is that the issues discussed in our cover story are not confidential. They are there for the public record, as published by Majozi Sithole [the Finance Minister] in the Government Estimates for this year.
‘Anyone curious only has to go to the Ministry of Finance or any other agency and get a personal copy of where the numbers are printed.
‘Therefore, we are not doing anything underhand, as we may be accused, in publishing.
‘The second reason is that this information is what the public has a right to know about. When Sithole disburses money after reading the budget, he is dealing with public funds, whose spending every Swazi of whatever persuasion should be informed of.
‘The only thing that has happened here is that parliamentarians elected by the people chose not to discuss the matter. They are fully entitled to do so and, I strongly believe, Sithole expected to field questions and address the matter for the public record.
‘The third reason is that we wanted to highlight the illegality of this whole transaction. The problem with this country is that our leaders have found it very easy to work outside the law.
‘There are laws that govern how the monarchy is given money. These laws were assented to by the king himself because, at the time one supposes, he appreciated that people cannot operate as if they live in a jungle.’
Makhubu went on, ‘The fourth and most important reason we chose to publish, is that we do not believe we are scandalizing anyone, least of all King Mswati.’
He continued, ‘Why am I making apologies for publishing a story? It is because, despite the constitution and everything else, there is a real danger that we, at this magazine, could get into serious trouble with the authorities for highlighting this development, despite that it is in the public domain.
‘That some idiot might rush to the king and twist our motive for publishing with a view to getting us closed down and out of jobs is well known to every Swazi.
‘Despite all the risk, however, we chose to publish because we believe that it is the right thing to do. It is a function of the media to act as we have. That the amount of money is downright obscene and given out illegally cannot be escaped by anyone.’
These are brave words. As I write this blog post, the magazine has only just hit the newsstands. We must now wait to see what happens next.
See also
SWAZI KING’S FUNDING ‘ILLEGAL’
CLOSURE THREAT TO 'TIMES'
The editor of the Nation magazine says there is a real danger the magazine could face closure for publishing the article.
The Nation published an article this month (April 2008) stating that the king is illegally getting an ‘obscene’ E220m (about 31.5 million US Dollars) this year from public funds. This is a 159 per cent increase on last year and roughly five per cent of Swaziland’s national budget. The Royal Family combined get a total of E500m.
In Swaziland about 70 percent of the population of nearly one million people live in dire poverty on an income of less than one US Dollar a day. About 600,000 people rely on international food aid to fend off starvation. (To read more details of the Nation article click here).
Writing in his own magazine, the Nation editor Bheki Makhubu says, ‘there is a real danger that we, at this magazine, could get into serious trouble with the authorities for highlighting this development’.
Makhubu is right to be worried. In March 2007 the Times of Swaziland group of newspapers was threatened with closure after it published a comment piece sourced from abroad that criticised the king. The newspaper group made an abject apology and has not criticised the king since.
Makhubu writes that it is well known in Swaziland that the media must not put the king in a ‘negative light’.
Makhubu’s fear of retribution is very real indeed, so in case trouble does start and the facts of the case get a little confused when the mud starts flying, I think it would be useful to reproduce here in some detail his reasons for publishing the article.
Makhubu wrote,
‘As editor of this magazine I decided we should go ahead and publish. There are a few reasons for this. The first is that the issues discussed in our cover story are not confidential. They are there for the public record, as published by Majozi Sithole [the Finance Minister] in the Government Estimates for this year.
‘Anyone curious only has to go to the Ministry of Finance or any other agency and get a personal copy of where the numbers are printed.
‘Therefore, we are not doing anything underhand, as we may be accused, in publishing.
‘The second reason is that this information is what the public has a right to know about. When Sithole disburses money after reading the budget, he is dealing with public funds, whose spending every Swazi of whatever persuasion should be informed of.
‘The only thing that has happened here is that parliamentarians elected by the people chose not to discuss the matter. They are fully entitled to do so and, I strongly believe, Sithole expected to field questions and address the matter for the public record.
‘The third reason is that we wanted to highlight the illegality of this whole transaction. The problem with this country is that our leaders have found it very easy to work outside the law.
‘There are laws that govern how the monarchy is given money. These laws were assented to by the king himself because, at the time one supposes, he appreciated that people cannot operate as if they live in a jungle.’
Makhubu went on, ‘The fourth and most important reason we chose to publish, is that we do not believe we are scandalizing anyone, least of all King Mswati.’
He continued, ‘Why am I making apologies for publishing a story? It is because, despite the constitution and everything else, there is a real danger that we, at this magazine, could get into serious trouble with the authorities for highlighting this development, despite that it is in the public domain.
‘That some idiot might rush to the king and twist our motive for publishing with a view to getting us closed down and out of jobs is well known to every Swazi.
‘Despite all the risk, however, we chose to publish because we believe that it is the right thing to do. It is a function of the media to act as we have. That the amount of money is downright obscene and given out illegally cannot be escaped by anyone.’
These are brave words. As I write this blog post, the magazine has only just hit the newsstands. We must now wait to see what happens next.
See also
SWAZI KING’S FUNDING ‘ILLEGAL’
CLOSURE THREAT TO 'TIMES'
SWAZI KING’S FUNDING ‘ILLEGAL’
Swaziland’s Nation magazine (April 2008) has revealed that Swazi King Mswati III is receiving public funds illegally.
The publication of such information is so controversial in the non-democratic kingdom of Swaziland that its revelation could lead to the banning of the Nation.
The publication of such information is so controversial in the non-democratic kingdom of Swaziland that its revelation could lead to the banning of the Nation.
The Nation editor Bheki Makhubu wrote in his own magazine, ‘There is a clarion call in the media industry, made loud and clear in the last few years, that we journalists should not publish anything that might be construed as putting King Mswati III in a negative light.
‘The clarity of this call has manifested itself in front page apologies in some of the media as the journalism profession continues to function under extremely difficult conditions.’
Despite the danger the Nation went ahead and published the article. There is a very real danger that such action could have serious repercussions for the magazine and press freedom generally in Swaziland.
I know that many readers of this blog (possibly even the majority of readers) do not live in Swaziland and have no way of reading the controversial article. Therefore, for you people, here (without comment from me) are some extracts from the article.
(Readers of this blog who are in Swaziland go out and buy your own copy of the Nation).
King takes five percent of the budget!
King Mswati III and the royal family will take a huge chunk of the national budget when government allocates money to the various state organs this month. The government has given the monarchy a monumental 159 percent increase in its allocation from last year. Sadly, this has been done illegally, as is becoming the norm with government not to follow the law. King Mswati’s budget is controlled through the Emoluments and Civil List Act. It has been completely ignored.
‘In a country where 69 percent of the population lives below the poverty line, where the economy has remained stagnant for the last five years, King Mswati III and the royal family will take a whopping 5.3 percent of the national budget’s E9.5 billion this year.
‘This is according to the Budget Estimates, released to parliament and the public by Majozi Sithole, the Minister of Finance, when he delivered the Budget Speech at the end of February.
‘This means to keep the monarchy alive and well government has allocated about E500 million of the national budget under the King’s Emoluments and Civil List subvention to the Swazi National Treasury and the rehabilitation and upgrading of royal residences and roads.
‘The highlight of the budget this financial year is that the monarchy has been given an increase of 159 percent up from E85 million in the 2007/08 budget to E220 million in the current budget 2008/09. This translates to an increase of a staggering E135 million.
‘King Mswati III, who has drawn a lot of international criticism for his lavish spending in the face of so much poverty among his people, lives under the pressure of his siblings, the princes and princesses – sons and daughters of King Sobhuza II – who draw allowances from the monarchy’s budget. They enjoy annual allowance of E20,000.
‘Between the 2006/07 and 2007/08 fiscal years, the budget for Royal Emoluments and Civil List increased by only E6 million – from E79 million to E85 million.
‘The E135 million increase allocated this year is higher than the overall amount allocated for disaster management, which received only E100 million.
‘According to the Royal Emoluments and Civil List Act of 1992 contentiously amended in 1998 a yearly sum of E15 million shall be paid for the king’s emoluments and civil list.’
……
‘A closer look at this year’s financial adjustment reveals that in effecting the increase, Sithole violated the Royal Emoluments and Civil List Act as amended in 1998. This essentially means this year’s huge increase is actually illegal.'
……
‘In 1992, the then Minister of Finance, Themba Masuku, brought a bill to parliament in which he sought to increase the annual pay for the King’s emoluments and civil list from the E4.712 million to E9 million.
‘Parliament rejected the bill because he had tabled it illegally.’
…..
‘Masuku never returned to parliament with the report. Instead, he waited for the dissolution of parliament in May 1998. In the absence of a parliament pending elections at the time, Masuku seized upon the opportunity to present a bill while the king ruled in council.
‘It was during the period that Cabinet dusted the rejected bill, made a few touch ups measured in millions of Emalangeni and brought it to the King for assent.
‘In keeping with the ancient idiom “when the cat is away, the mice play” Cabinet in the absence of parliament increased the King’s Emoluments and Civil List to E15 million, instead of the E9 million as Masuku had originally requested in the rejected bill. The act of dishonesty and bad faith by the then Cabinet was assented to by the king.’
……
‘In his [2008] budget [Minister of Finance] Sithole announced that by December last year over 600,000 people had received food aid.
….
‘The Ministry of Agriculture and Co-operatives, which should be pulling all efforts together to maximise food production in the kingdom, has been allocated a recurrent budget of E248 million and E76 million capital budget.
‘In this year’s budget, Majozi has revealed that there is also provision of E113.3 million for the Swazi National Treasury, over and above the E220 million already given. The Chief Officer in the King’s Office is in charge of the Swazi National Treasury budget.
‘The Swazi National Treasury will get E19 million more than the budget allocated for elderly grants this year. Government has allocated E94 million for payment of elderly grants. The money will take care of about 50,000 of the country’s old and feeble citizens.
‘The increase of the social grants budget for the elderly will see them receiving only a paltry E500 quarterly.
‘Under capital expenditure, E105 million has been set aside for the rehabilitation of royal residences. The budget is under the Ministry of Public Works and Transport and it has been converted to a transfer. Again, this is outside the E220 million allocated for the monarchy.
‘The funds cover the rehabilitation of royal residences not under the schedule in terms of the Royal Emoluments and Civil List Act.
‘It is E5 million higher than the funds allocated for orphaned and vulnerable children (OVC). Government records show that the number of orphaned and vulnerable children has been steadily increasing.
……
‘In all, the almost E500 million budget for the royal household is higher than the budget for recurrent expenditure for police and army. The two institutions respectively received an allocation of E427 million and E475 million.’
King Mswati III and the royal family will take a huge chunk of the national budget when government allocates money to the various state organs this month. The government has given the monarchy a monumental 159 percent increase in its allocation from last year. Sadly, this has been done illegally, as is becoming the norm with government not to follow the law. King Mswati’s budget is controlled through the Emoluments and Civil List Act. It has been completely ignored.
‘In a country where 69 percent of the population lives below the poverty line, where the economy has remained stagnant for the last five years, King Mswati III and the royal family will take a whopping 5.3 percent of the national budget’s E9.5 billion this year.
‘This is according to the Budget Estimates, released to parliament and the public by Majozi Sithole, the Minister of Finance, when he delivered the Budget Speech at the end of February.
‘This means to keep the monarchy alive and well government has allocated about E500 million of the national budget under the King’s Emoluments and Civil List subvention to the Swazi National Treasury and the rehabilitation and upgrading of royal residences and roads.
‘The highlight of the budget this financial year is that the monarchy has been given an increase of 159 percent up from E85 million in the 2007/08 budget to E220 million in the current budget 2008/09. This translates to an increase of a staggering E135 million.
‘King Mswati III, who has drawn a lot of international criticism for his lavish spending in the face of so much poverty among his people, lives under the pressure of his siblings, the princes and princesses – sons and daughters of King Sobhuza II – who draw allowances from the monarchy’s budget. They enjoy annual allowance of E20,000.
‘Between the 2006/07 and 2007/08 fiscal years, the budget for Royal Emoluments and Civil List increased by only E6 million – from E79 million to E85 million.
‘The E135 million increase allocated this year is higher than the overall amount allocated for disaster management, which received only E100 million.
‘According to the Royal Emoluments and Civil List Act of 1992 contentiously amended in 1998 a yearly sum of E15 million shall be paid for the king’s emoluments and civil list.’
……
‘A closer look at this year’s financial adjustment reveals that in effecting the increase, Sithole violated the Royal Emoluments and Civil List Act as amended in 1998. This essentially means this year’s huge increase is actually illegal.'
……
‘In 1992, the then Minister of Finance, Themba Masuku, brought a bill to parliament in which he sought to increase the annual pay for the King’s emoluments and civil list from the E4.712 million to E9 million.
‘Parliament rejected the bill because he had tabled it illegally.’
…..
‘Masuku never returned to parliament with the report. Instead, he waited for the dissolution of parliament in May 1998. In the absence of a parliament pending elections at the time, Masuku seized upon the opportunity to present a bill while the king ruled in council.
‘It was during the period that Cabinet dusted the rejected bill, made a few touch ups measured in millions of Emalangeni and brought it to the King for assent.
‘In keeping with the ancient idiom “when the cat is away, the mice play” Cabinet in the absence of parliament increased the King’s Emoluments and Civil List to E15 million, instead of the E9 million as Masuku had originally requested in the rejected bill. The act of dishonesty and bad faith by the then Cabinet was assented to by the king.’
……
‘In his [2008] budget [Minister of Finance] Sithole announced that by December last year over 600,000 people had received food aid.
….
‘The Ministry of Agriculture and Co-operatives, which should be pulling all efforts together to maximise food production in the kingdom, has been allocated a recurrent budget of E248 million and E76 million capital budget.
‘In this year’s budget, Majozi has revealed that there is also provision of E113.3 million for the Swazi National Treasury, over and above the E220 million already given. The Chief Officer in the King’s Office is in charge of the Swazi National Treasury budget.
‘The Swazi National Treasury will get E19 million more than the budget allocated for elderly grants this year. Government has allocated E94 million for payment of elderly grants. The money will take care of about 50,000 of the country’s old and feeble citizens.
‘The increase of the social grants budget for the elderly will see them receiving only a paltry E500 quarterly.
‘Under capital expenditure, E105 million has been set aside for the rehabilitation of royal residences. The budget is under the Ministry of Public Works and Transport and it has been converted to a transfer. Again, this is outside the E220 million allocated for the monarchy.
‘The funds cover the rehabilitation of royal residences not under the schedule in terms of the Royal Emoluments and Civil List Act.
‘It is E5 million higher than the funds allocated for orphaned and vulnerable children (OVC). Government records show that the number of orphaned and vulnerable children has been steadily increasing.
……
‘In all, the almost E500 million budget for the royal household is higher than the budget for recurrent expenditure for police and army. The two institutions respectively received an allocation of E427 million and E475 million.’
Tuesday, 1 April 2008
SWAZI AIDS DOCO HITS AMERICA
Here’s news about another documentary about Swaziland that Swazis probably will never get the chance to see.
This one is a lot less controversial than Without The King, but it still paints a bleak picture of life in Swaziland.
The documentary called ‘Today the Hawk Takes One Chick’ has been described by the Boston Globe newspaper as balancing ‘despair and a gutted sense of hope’.
The documentary, which is being shown in Boston, Massachusetts, US, this week, looks at how HIV AIDS has devastated Swaziland and focuses on a group of grandmothers or ‘gogos’ who ‘have picked up the slack of their society’s near-total breakdown’.
In a review of the documentary published in the Globe Ty Burr calls the documentary ‘heartbreaking but in none of the obvious ways; rather than disease per se, the subject is the vast and wrenching social consequences of epidemic’.
The documentary visits Maria Shongwe: Seven of her nine grown children have died from complications of HIV, and one more is near death. In their absence, she’s the sole caretaker for her 10 grandchildren.
‘The film implies this is the norm across the continent: an entire generation vanished, with the surrounding generations left to pick up the pieces. Swaziland, and by extension Africa, is a ghost land,’ according to the Globe.
The review goes on, ‘There's no narration or soundtrack music; none are needed. Women like Maria, Albertina Skhosana, and a heroic nurse named Thandiwe Mathunjwa are seen fighting a daily battle to keep children fed and disease checked as best as possible.
‘Few illusions are left. After two decades of epidemic, everyone knows how the disease is spread, and the older women are the first to lecture their wards on the dangers of sexual promiscuity and the need for condoms. Their warnings fall on partially deaf ears: One of Maria’s older granddaughters has just had her second baby (the father's nowhere to be seen) and chalks up her own mother’s death to “evil spirits.” The recklessness of youth continues to have lethal consequences.’
The documentary was filmed in rural homesteads, ‘one of the film’s points being that the inhabitants of urban areas have returned to their ancestral lands to die as AIDS has burned through the population. You notice the eerie absence of grown men, the absence of people. During a visit to a children's hostel, we learn that 85 percent of the kids have lost both parents,’ the review states.
‘The film balances despair and a gutted sense of hope. Constant blood tests and an educated populace are clearly understood to be the only ways to combat the spread of ignorance and disease; at the same time, the gogos will not be around forever.
‘“We are leading to a different world,” says one, “where children will be doing whatever they feel. They will be wild.” Confirms the nurse, “If they don't take care of themselves, Swaziland will cease to exist.”’
See also
SWAZILAND ‘REVOLUTION' DOCO ON DVD
This one is a lot less controversial than Without The King, but it still paints a bleak picture of life in Swaziland.
The documentary called ‘Today the Hawk Takes One Chick’ has been described by the Boston Globe newspaper as balancing ‘despair and a gutted sense of hope’.
The documentary, which is being shown in Boston, Massachusetts, US, this week, looks at how HIV AIDS has devastated Swaziland and focuses on a group of grandmothers or ‘gogos’ who ‘have picked up the slack of their society’s near-total breakdown’.
In a review of the documentary published in the Globe Ty Burr calls the documentary ‘heartbreaking but in none of the obvious ways; rather than disease per se, the subject is the vast and wrenching social consequences of epidemic’.
The documentary visits Maria Shongwe: Seven of her nine grown children have died from complications of HIV, and one more is near death. In their absence, she’s the sole caretaker for her 10 grandchildren.
‘The film implies this is the norm across the continent: an entire generation vanished, with the surrounding generations left to pick up the pieces. Swaziland, and by extension Africa, is a ghost land,’ according to the Globe.
The review goes on, ‘There's no narration or soundtrack music; none are needed. Women like Maria, Albertina Skhosana, and a heroic nurse named Thandiwe Mathunjwa are seen fighting a daily battle to keep children fed and disease checked as best as possible.
‘Few illusions are left. After two decades of epidemic, everyone knows how the disease is spread, and the older women are the first to lecture their wards on the dangers of sexual promiscuity and the need for condoms. Their warnings fall on partially deaf ears: One of Maria’s older granddaughters has just had her second baby (the father's nowhere to be seen) and chalks up her own mother’s death to “evil spirits.” The recklessness of youth continues to have lethal consequences.’
The documentary was filmed in rural homesteads, ‘one of the film’s points being that the inhabitants of urban areas have returned to their ancestral lands to die as AIDS has burned through the population. You notice the eerie absence of grown men, the absence of people. During a visit to a children's hostel, we learn that 85 percent of the kids have lost both parents,’ the review states.
‘The film balances despair and a gutted sense of hope. Constant blood tests and an educated populace are clearly understood to be the only ways to combat the spread of ignorance and disease; at the same time, the gogos will not be around forever.
‘“We are leading to a different world,” says one, “where children will be doing whatever they feel. They will be wild.” Confirms the nurse, “If they don't take care of themselves, Swaziland will cease to exist.”’
See also
SWAZILAND ‘REVOLUTION' DOCO ON DVD
Monday, 31 March 2008
SWAZI CONSTITUTION DOES NOT WORK
Doubts have been raised about whether Swaziland’s 33 oppressive media laws are still in force.
There is a thought that the Swazi Constitution that came into effect in 2006 wipes them all away.
The discussion started after I wrote that watching the documentary Without The King which claims it ‘captures the birth of a nation’s revolution’ is an act of sedition under the Sedition and Subversive Activities Act, 1938. I later wrote that there were 33 legal restrictions on the media presently in operation in Swaziland.
This may not be so, according to a correspondent from the Swaziland Coalition of Concerned Civic Organisations (SCCCO) who has a finer legal mind than mine. He says the Constitution can overrule all the laws that went before it.
He writes,
‘In judicial interpretation there is a doctrine of implied repeal. Where two laws contradict one and other the later one repeals the earlier one to the extent of contradiction or inconsistency. Also s 2 (1) of the Constitution contains this doctrine.
‘Now the argument becomes whether the position of the king is so special that it would be inconceivable that the Constitutional provisions on freedom of expression would include sedition. The monarchy does not get any special mentions in the limitations in the Bill of Rights. However, it would take a particularly courageous judge to interpret the Constitution so’.
He goes on to suggest that we need a test case on whether or not viewing Without The King would be a seditious act. Maybe he’s right because although I don’t think the police are going to come knocking on my door if I sit at home watching the documentary, I am not so sure that if I showed it to a public gathering, they wouldn’t close us down and arrest us. Or knowing the Swazi police beat the daylights out of us.
The legal nicety about the Constituion ‘repealing’ the repressive acts doesn’t hold water in Swaziland. The US State Department noted in its report of Human Rights in Swaziland published in March 2008, that in Swaziland,
‘Government agents continued to commit or condone serious abuses [of human rights]. Human rights problems included: inability of citizens to change their government; unlawful killings by security forces; police use of torture, beatings, and excessive force; police impunity; arbitrary arrests and lengthy pretrial detention; infringement on citizens’ privacy rights; limits on freedom of speech and of the press; restrictions on freedom of assembly and association; prohibitions on political activity and harassment of political activists; restrictions on freedom of movement; discrimination and violence against women; poor enforcement of women's rights; child abuse; trafficking in persons; societal discrimination against mixed race and white citizens; antiunion discrimination and child labor.’
None of the above suggests Swaziland has a ruling elite that respects the Constitution.
If we look at media in particular, we can see that under section 24 of the Constitution, ‘a person has a right of freedom of expression and opinion.’
It goes on to state that a person enjoys ‘freedom of expression, which includes the freedom of the press and other media, that is to say freedom to hold opinions without interference; freedom to receive ideas and information without interference; freedom to communicate ideas and information without interference (whether the communication be to the public generally or to any person or class of persons); and freedom of interference with the correspondence of that person.’
Section 24 of the Constitution is not working. You only need to look at how media in Swaziland continues to be harassed to see this. In March 2007, for example, (a full year after the Constituion came into effect) the Times of Swaziland newspaper group was threatened with closure because it published an article (sourced from abroad) that criticised King Mswati III.
I have been collecting examples of the way the freedom of expression in Constituion is being ignored. I think the list proves conclusively that there is no guarantee of freedom of expression in Swaziland.
Here’s my list (if you have any other examples, please share them with me).
May 2006
King Mswati III banned newspapers from writing about his wives without his permission, even while covering official events, after the Times Sunday interviewed one of his wives (with her consent) while she was sick in hospital. This was the second time in 12 months that the Swazi king gagged the media from reporting about royalty. It should be noted that this ban was not reported within Swaziland. This banning by the king simply continued a trend that had been operating since before the new constitution, for example, in 2005, the king ordered the media to stop writing about his lavish spending after newspapers published that he had purchased US$500,000 worth of luxurious vehicles for his 13 wives.
October 2006
Parliament ordered the Times of Swaziland to apologise for an opinion expressed in the newspaper that referred to a select committee that investigated the operations of the Swaziland Broadcasting and Information Service as a ‘kangaroo court’. In an editorial the Times declined to apologize.
November 2006
The Public Services and Information Minister S’gayoyo Magongo instructed Swazi TV to reinstate an employee the station wished to dismiss (Swazi TV complied with the instruction). In Parliament the minister said Section 75 of the constitution empowered him to do this as it charges ministers with responsibility ‘for the policy and general direction and control’ over their departments.
December 2006
The Times of Swaziland came under attack a by a committee that was putting together a case to demand the return from neighbouring South Africa of land that Swaziland claimed belonged to it. At a press conference members of the committee including the chair Prince Khuzulwandle, a member of the Royal Family, criticised the newspaper for collecting views on the issue from members of the public. The response the newspaper received was hostile to the demand for restoration prompting the committee to question why the newspaper asked ordinary people instead of people who were knowledgeable on the subject.
The Times’ response (in an editorial in the newspaper) was to reassert its readers’ constitutional rights to freedom of speech.
February 2007
The king’s chief executive officer Bheki Dlamini barred journalists at a press conference from asking the king questions relating to the recently-formed Swaziland Police Union, whose formation had shaken the Swazi establishment.
June 2007
The Minister for Health and Social Welfare, Njabulo Mabuza, banned health workers from talking to the media in response to a number of stories highlighting the impact of a critical drug shortage.
Workers were forbidden to have any type of communication, including interviews and casual or 'indiscreet' conversations, whether at clubs, hotels, bars or private parties. Journalists were also barred from Mbabane Government Hospital, the country's key medical facility, whose problems have been highlighted in the press. These problems were considered by the press to be typical of the wider crisis afflicting the healthcare system. In fact, it turned out that the ban had been in position for some years previously but was only being enforced now following a series of news reports in newspapers about deaths in government hospitals.
October 2007
The Times of Swaziland tried to find out how much it cost taxpayers to send the Prime Minister A T Dlamini on a trip from Swaziland to the Bahamas. The newspaper was told it could not have the information because it was ‘classified’ information. The newspaper had also been trying without success to get government to disclose the names of companies which won tenders for government business.
November 2007
The Swazi House of Assembly set up a select committee to investigate the editor of the Times Sunday Mbongeni Mbingo following a comment piece the newspaper ran criticising the House Speaker for not allowing a debate to take place on possible amendments to the kingdom’s constitution. The select committee exonerated the editor stating his rights to freedom of expression under the Constitution.
However, what seemed like a victory for the free press was illusionary because the select committee decided it wanted Parliament to accredit journalists who covered the proceedings of parliament, in effect giving the government control over who could report and who could not. The committee also called for the reintroduction of the defunct Media Council Bill (that had originally been tabled in 1997), which, among other things, would require journalists to be qualified and registered with some central body.
See also
SWAZILAND’S OPPRESSIVE MEDIA LAWS
SWAZI KING DOCUMENTARY ‘SEDITIOUS’
There is a thought that the Swazi Constitution that came into effect in 2006 wipes them all away.
The discussion started after I wrote that watching the documentary Without The King which claims it ‘captures the birth of a nation’s revolution’ is an act of sedition under the Sedition and Subversive Activities Act, 1938. I later wrote that there were 33 legal restrictions on the media presently in operation in Swaziland.
This may not be so, according to a correspondent from the Swaziland Coalition of Concerned Civic Organisations (SCCCO) who has a finer legal mind than mine. He says the Constitution can overrule all the laws that went before it.
He writes,
‘In judicial interpretation there is a doctrine of implied repeal. Where two laws contradict one and other the later one repeals the earlier one to the extent of contradiction or inconsistency. Also s 2 (1) of the Constitution contains this doctrine.
‘Now the argument becomes whether the position of the king is so special that it would be inconceivable that the Constitutional provisions on freedom of expression would include sedition. The monarchy does not get any special mentions in the limitations in the Bill of Rights. However, it would take a particularly courageous judge to interpret the Constitution so’.
He goes on to suggest that we need a test case on whether or not viewing Without The King would be a seditious act. Maybe he’s right because although I don’t think the police are going to come knocking on my door if I sit at home watching the documentary, I am not so sure that if I showed it to a public gathering, they wouldn’t close us down and arrest us. Or knowing the Swazi police beat the daylights out of us.
The legal nicety about the Constituion ‘repealing’ the repressive acts doesn’t hold water in Swaziland. The US State Department noted in its report of Human Rights in Swaziland published in March 2008, that in Swaziland,
‘Government agents continued to commit or condone serious abuses [of human rights]. Human rights problems included: inability of citizens to change their government; unlawful killings by security forces; police use of torture, beatings, and excessive force; police impunity; arbitrary arrests and lengthy pretrial detention; infringement on citizens’ privacy rights; limits on freedom of speech and of the press; restrictions on freedom of assembly and association; prohibitions on political activity and harassment of political activists; restrictions on freedom of movement; discrimination and violence against women; poor enforcement of women's rights; child abuse; trafficking in persons; societal discrimination against mixed race and white citizens; antiunion discrimination and child labor.’
None of the above suggests Swaziland has a ruling elite that respects the Constitution.
If we look at media in particular, we can see that under section 24 of the Constitution, ‘a person has a right of freedom of expression and opinion.’
It goes on to state that a person enjoys ‘freedom of expression, which includes the freedom of the press and other media, that is to say freedom to hold opinions without interference; freedom to receive ideas and information without interference; freedom to communicate ideas and information without interference (whether the communication be to the public generally or to any person or class of persons); and freedom of interference with the correspondence of that person.’
Section 24 of the Constitution is not working. You only need to look at how media in Swaziland continues to be harassed to see this. In March 2007, for example, (a full year after the Constituion came into effect) the Times of Swaziland newspaper group was threatened with closure because it published an article (sourced from abroad) that criticised King Mswati III.
I have been collecting examples of the way the freedom of expression in Constituion is being ignored. I think the list proves conclusively that there is no guarantee of freedom of expression in Swaziland.
Here’s my list (if you have any other examples, please share them with me).
May 2006
King Mswati III banned newspapers from writing about his wives without his permission, even while covering official events, after the Times Sunday interviewed one of his wives (with her consent) while she was sick in hospital. This was the second time in 12 months that the Swazi king gagged the media from reporting about royalty. It should be noted that this ban was not reported within Swaziland. This banning by the king simply continued a trend that had been operating since before the new constitution, for example, in 2005, the king ordered the media to stop writing about his lavish spending after newspapers published that he had purchased US$500,000 worth of luxurious vehicles for his 13 wives.
October 2006
Parliament ordered the Times of Swaziland to apologise for an opinion expressed in the newspaper that referred to a select committee that investigated the operations of the Swaziland Broadcasting and Information Service as a ‘kangaroo court’. In an editorial the Times declined to apologize.
November 2006
The Public Services and Information Minister S’gayoyo Magongo instructed Swazi TV to reinstate an employee the station wished to dismiss (Swazi TV complied with the instruction). In Parliament the minister said Section 75 of the constitution empowered him to do this as it charges ministers with responsibility ‘for the policy and general direction and control’ over their departments.
December 2006
The Times of Swaziland came under attack a by a committee that was putting together a case to demand the return from neighbouring South Africa of land that Swaziland claimed belonged to it. At a press conference members of the committee including the chair Prince Khuzulwandle, a member of the Royal Family, criticised the newspaper for collecting views on the issue from members of the public. The response the newspaper received was hostile to the demand for restoration prompting the committee to question why the newspaper asked ordinary people instead of people who were knowledgeable on the subject.
The Times’ response (in an editorial in the newspaper) was to reassert its readers’ constitutional rights to freedom of speech.
February 2007
The king’s chief executive officer Bheki Dlamini barred journalists at a press conference from asking the king questions relating to the recently-formed Swaziland Police Union, whose formation had shaken the Swazi establishment.
June 2007
The Minister for Health and Social Welfare, Njabulo Mabuza, banned health workers from talking to the media in response to a number of stories highlighting the impact of a critical drug shortage.
Workers were forbidden to have any type of communication, including interviews and casual or 'indiscreet' conversations, whether at clubs, hotels, bars or private parties. Journalists were also barred from Mbabane Government Hospital, the country's key medical facility, whose problems have been highlighted in the press. These problems were considered by the press to be typical of the wider crisis afflicting the healthcare system. In fact, it turned out that the ban had been in position for some years previously but was only being enforced now following a series of news reports in newspapers about deaths in government hospitals.
October 2007
The Times of Swaziland tried to find out how much it cost taxpayers to send the Prime Minister A T Dlamini on a trip from Swaziland to the Bahamas. The newspaper was told it could not have the information because it was ‘classified’ information. The newspaper had also been trying without success to get government to disclose the names of companies which won tenders for government business.
November 2007
The Swazi House of Assembly set up a select committee to investigate the editor of the Times Sunday Mbongeni Mbingo following a comment piece the newspaper ran criticising the House Speaker for not allowing a debate to take place on possible amendments to the kingdom’s constitution. The select committee exonerated the editor stating his rights to freedom of expression under the Constitution.
However, what seemed like a victory for the free press was illusionary because the select committee decided it wanted Parliament to accredit journalists who covered the proceedings of parliament, in effect giving the government control over who could report and who could not. The committee also called for the reintroduction of the defunct Media Council Bill (that had originally been tabled in 1997), which, among other things, would require journalists to be qualified and registered with some central body.
See also
SWAZILAND’S OPPRESSIVE MEDIA LAWS
SWAZI KING DOCUMENTARY ‘SEDITIOUS’
Saturday, 29 March 2008
NO BRIBE, 'SO SWAZI POLICE KILL MAN'
An editor of one of Swaziland’s few independent newspapers has accused the Swazi police of killing a man after he refused to pay them a bribe.
The man was shot after officers stopped the kombi he was driving and he ran off to escape from police.
Martin Dlamini, managing editor of the Times of Swaziland, writing in his own newspaper yesterday (28 March 2008), said,
‘It would come as no surprise if the kombi driver was being forced to bribe his way out of trouble and after failing to get the money, the officer decided to silence the driver who would otherwise have exposed him. The driver is dead now, so nobody will ever know.’
The comment follows reports on Tuesday (25 March 2008) that the driver had tried to escape the police to avoid a maximum fine of E5,000 (about US 720 Dollars) for drink driving, under a new traffic law in Swaziland. Police shot him although he was unarmed.
This contrasts with a report in the Times Sunday (23 March 2008) that a government minister who was stopped by police for drink driving refused to take a breath test and eventually the police let him drive home (still drunk) without charging him.
Dlamini wrote, ‘No gun was pointed at him to force him to submit but instead he received offers to drive him home given the state he was in. He refused and was allowed to drink drive again. Senior police officers woke up in the early morning and drove to the police station to afford the minister the best treatment possible.’
The government minister is not the only one receiving special treatment by the police. The Police Commissioner Edgar Hillary was photographed by the Times Sunday (25 March 2008) driving his car while using his cell phone, although this is illegal under the new traffic law.
Newspapers reported on Thursday (27 March 2008) that a 22-year-old woman was allegedly raped by a police officer in the cell at a police station. She had been held in custody because she had not been able to pay a fine of E160 (about 20 US dollars).
On Friday (27 March 2008) the Swazi Observer reported that police allegedly forced a suspect to pick up human faeces left by another prisoner at Lobamba Police Station.
Dlamini wrote in the Times,
‘To call for action by the Police Commissioner Edgar Hillary would be flogging a dead horse. He would first have to pay his fine for driving while using a cell phone before calling any of his charges to order and as we all know, he is not new to breaking the law.
‘The conduct of the police and their crimes should be a matter of serious concern for the Prime Minister’s office and it must be dealt with urgently.’
This latest spate of police incidents comes nearly two weeks after it was announced that the army was to set up bases across the kingdom to (the government claims) help tackle rising crime in Swaziland.
This, Dlamini writes, fuels the ‘growing resentment towards the security forces’.
He writes, ‘That the army will soon be unleashed to invade our homes can only make things worse. Whoever initiated this idea had better call it off immediately. If this is to suggest police are now incapable of carrying out their duties, it can only confirm we are soon to become a military state.
‘Who is suddenly very afraid of the peace loving, respectful Swazi people for him/her to set the army to instil fear and control?’
The man was shot after officers stopped the kombi he was driving and he ran off to escape from police.
Martin Dlamini, managing editor of the Times of Swaziland, writing in his own newspaper yesterday (28 March 2008), said,
‘It would come as no surprise if the kombi driver was being forced to bribe his way out of trouble and after failing to get the money, the officer decided to silence the driver who would otherwise have exposed him. The driver is dead now, so nobody will ever know.’
The comment follows reports on Tuesday (25 March 2008) that the driver had tried to escape the police to avoid a maximum fine of E5,000 (about US 720 Dollars) for drink driving, under a new traffic law in Swaziland. Police shot him although he was unarmed.
This contrasts with a report in the Times Sunday (23 March 2008) that a government minister who was stopped by police for drink driving refused to take a breath test and eventually the police let him drive home (still drunk) without charging him.
Dlamini wrote, ‘No gun was pointed at him to force him to submit but instead he received offers to drive him home given the state he was in. He refused and was allowed to drink drive again. Senior police officers woke up in the early morning and drove to the police station to afford the minister the best treatment possible.’
The government minister is not the only one receiving special treatment by the police. The Police Commissioner Edgar Hillary was photographed by the Times Sunday (25 March 2008) driving his car while using his cell phone, although this is illegal under the new traffic law.
Newspapers reported on Thursday (27 March 2008) that a 22-year-old woman was allegedly raped by a police officer in the cell at a police station. She had been held in custody because she had not been able to pay a fine of E160 (about 20 US dollars).
On Friday (27 March 2008) the Swazi Observer reported that police allegedly forced a suspect to pick up human faeces left by another prisoner at Lobamba Police Station.
Dlamini wrote in the Times,
‘To call for action by the Police Commissioner Edgar Hillary would be flogging a dead horse. He would first have to pay his fine for driving while using a cell phone before calling any of his charges to order and as we all know, he is not new to breaking the law.
‘The conduct of the police and their crimes should be a matter of serious concern for the Prime Minister’s office and it must be dealt with urgently.’
This latest spate of police incidents comes nearly two weeks after it was announced that the army was to set up bases across the kingdom to (the government claims) help tackle rising crime in Swaziland.
This, Dlamini writes, fuels the ‘growing resentment towards the security forces’.
He writes, ‘That the army will soon be unleashed to invade our homes can only make things worse. Whoever initiated this idea had better call it off immediately. If this is to suggest police are now incapable of carrying out their duties, it can only confirm we are soon to become a military state.
‘Who is suddenly very afraid of the peace loving, respectful Swazi people for him/her to set the army to instil fear and control?’
SWAZI P.M. HITS AT BRUTAL POLICE
Swaziland’s Prime Minister has come out to condemn police who brutally attacked legally striking textile workers.
Both daily newspapers in Swaziland reported the PM’s comments yesterday (Friday 28 March 2008), which were made at a press conference.
The independently-owned Times of Swaziland reported,
‘Prime Minister Themba Dlamini has condemned the police brutality on the striking workers belonging to the textile industry.’
‘The premier, in his address during a press conference yesterday, said government was totally against the brutality exhibited by the police on the defenceless strikers about a fortnight ago.
‘He described the bashing and shooting of the textile workers with rubber bullets by some members of the police as very unfortunate.'
The Swazi Observer, a newspaper effectively owned by the Swazi Royal Family, also reported the Prime Minister, but stressed that the PM ‘was convinced that no sane officer could have acted in that manner without provocation’.
Both the Times and the Observer also reported the PM accusing ‘outsiders’ who were not striking textile workers of taking further their own interest.
Police had brutally attacked workers and innocent by-standers as they tried to break up the legal strike. It was reported that one pregnant and a baby were killed in separate incidents during the attacks.
See also
SWAZI POLICE ‘KILL BABY WITH TEARGAS’
Both daily newspapers in Swaziland reported the PM’s comments yesterday (Friday 28 March 2008), which were made at a press conference.
The independently-owned Times of Swaziland reported,
‘Prime Minister Themba Dlamini has condemned the police brutality on the striking workers belonging to the textile industry.’
‘The premier, in his address during a press conference yesterday, said government was totally against the brutality exhibited by the police on the defenceless strikers about a fortnight ago.
‘He described the bashing and shooting of the textile workers with rubber bullets by some members of the police as very unfortunate.'
The Swazi Observer, a newspaper effectively owned by the Swazi Royal Family, also reported the Prime Minister, but stressed that the PM ‘was convinced that no sane officer could have acted in that manner without provocation’.
Both the Times and the Observer also reported the PM accusing ‘outsiders’ who were not striking textile workers of taking further their own interest.
Police had brutally attacked workers and innocent by-standers as they tried to break up the legal strike. It was reported that one pregnant and a baby were killed in separate incidents during the attacks.
See also
SWAZI POLICE ‘KILL BABY WITH TEARGAS’
Friday, 28 March 2008
SWAZI ELECTION – CODE OF CONDUCT
Media houses in Swaziland need to start preparing for the national election that is due to take place later this year (2008).
At the last election in 2003 Swazi media were criticised for not giving enough information to the people of the kingdom about what was going on. On the day of the election itself Radio Swaziland didn’t even report that an election was taking place.
The poor media coverage prompted the Commonwealth Expert Team, which monitored the election in Swaziland, to recommend that in future elections a Code of Conduct for media personnel covering elections should be drawn up. This, it felt, would ‘ensure high standard and balanced coverage’ in reporting.
But nothing much has happened since then. The Swaziland National Association of Journalists (SNAJ) has a code of conduct that provides a framework of reference to all practicing journalists in Swaziland, both full-time and freelance.
The code is meant to ensure that members adhere to the highest ethical standards, professional competence and good behaviour in carrying out their duties. Its overriding concern is that members of the media should conduct themselves with a high sense of responsibility without infringing the rights of individuals and society in general.
However, the SNAJ code is not followed by most journalists in Swaziland and it does not deal with the coverage of elections. In this respect Swaziland is falling behind other countries in Africa. Since the turn of the century a number of African states have produced guidelines for journalists and other media personnel when covering elections. Among these states are Sierra Leone and Somaliland.
Here, in the latest of an occasionally series of posts I am writing on the Swazi elections 2008, is an attempt to start people thinking about what a code of conduct on election coverage could look like in Swaziland, I want to propose a draft code of conduct for covering elections in Swaziland.
I do not want to reinvent the wheel so I have borrowed extensively from codes of Sierra Leone, Somaliland and also work done by ACE Electoral Knowledge Network.
Preamble
The preamble should make some definitive statements about what the role media have in the process of politics, such as these.
The media play an important role in monitoring the electoral process. By covering the election events and the political campaign, the media ensure that the public is aware of what is happening.
The media help the public to make a free and informed choice. They do this in three ways in particular:
• By communicating political messages from parties and candidates;
• By relaying important voter information from election administrators;
• By subjecting the whole election process to independent scrutiny and comment.
Individual journalists
Then we might look at the responsibilities of individual journalists.
Such as:
• The first duty of a journalist is to report accurately and without bias.
• A journalist shall report only in accordance with facts of which s/he knows the origin. A journalist shall not suppress essential information.
• A journalist shall observe professional secrecy regarding the source of information obtained in confidence.
• A journalist shall report in a balanced manner. If a candidate makes an allegation against another candidate, the journalist should seek comment from both sides wherever possible.
• A journalist shall do the utmost to correct any published information that is found to be harmfully inaccurate.
• As far as possible, a journalist shall report the views of candidates and political parties directly and in their own words, rather than as they are described by others.
• A journalist shall avoid using language or expressing sentiments that may further discrimination or violence on any grounds, including race, sex, sexual orientation, language, religion, political or other opinions, and national or social origins.
• When reporting the opinions of those who do advocate discrimination or violence, a journalist shall do the utmost to put such views in a clear context and to report the opinions of those against whom such sentiments are directed.
• A journalist shall not accept any inducement from a politician or candidate.
• A journalist shall not make any promise to a politician about the content of a news report.
• A journalist shall take care in reporting the findings of opinion polls. Any report should wherever possible include the following information:
• who commissioned and carried out the poll and when
• how many people were interviewed, where and how were they interviewed and what is the margin of error
• what was the exact wording of the questions.
• A journalist shall regard the following as grave professional offences:
• plagiarism
• malicious misrepresentation
• calumny, slander, libel or unfounded accusations
• acceptance of a bribe in any form in consideration of either publication or suppression.
Media houses
Media houses have a vital role in ensuring fairness in the dissemination of information. The people have the right to know what all the candidates are standing for and not just those that the media house owners might support.
• In all media, there shall be a clear separation between fact and comment. News reporting should reflect the facts as honestly perceived by journalists. Comment may reflect the editorial line of the publication.
• Publicly owned media shall not express an editorial opinion in favour of or against any candidate.
• Publicly owned media have a duty to be balanced and impartial in their election reporting and not to discriminate against any candidate in granting access to air time.
• If media houses accept paid political advertising, they shall do so on a non-discriminatory basis and at equal rates for all candidates.
• News, interviews, information or current affairs programmes or articles in the public media shall not be biased in favour of or against any candidate.
• The media shall provide equitable and regular coverage to all candidates.
• The media shall encourage and provide access to the voters to express their opinion and views.
• The media shall promote democratic values such as the rule of good law, accountability and good governance.
• Any candidate or party that makes a reasonable claim of having been defamed or otherwise injured by a broadcast or publication shall either be granted the opportunity to reply or be entitled to a correction or retraction by the broadcaster or publisher or by the person who made the allegedly defamatory statement. The reply or correction shall be broadcast or published as soon as possible.
• News coverage of press conferences and public statements concerning matters of political controversy (as opposed to functions of state) called or made by the head of government, government ministers, or members of parliament shall be subject to a right of reply or equal time rules. This obligation acquires even greater force when the person making the statement is also standing for office.
• Publicly owned media shall publish or broadcast voter education material.
• Voter education material shall be accurate and impartial and must effectively inform voters about the voting process, including how, when and where to vote, to register to vote and to verify proper registration; the secrecy of the ballot (and thus safety from retaliation); the importance of voting; the functions of the offices that are under contention; and similar matters.
• Voter education shall include programmes in minority languages and programmes targeted for groups that traditionally may have been excluded from the political process, such as women and people with disabilities.
• Media houses should monitor their own output to make sure that it conforms with the standards set out in this code of conduct.
Candidates
Codes of conduct in election coverage in other African states recognise that political parties contest elections. In Swaziland, which is not a democracy, political parties are banned. The kingdom has its own unique form of ‘democracy’ which only allows candidates to stand for election as individuals.
The purpose of my draft code of conduct for Swaziland is to deal with the elections that will take place in 2008. It is highly unlikely that there will be a change of heart among the kingdom’s ruling elite before the elections are held, so we must assume that candidates will not be aligned to any political party. Therefore, this code of conduct is addressed to individuals; although it would apply equally to political parties should they be allowed to exist.
• All candidates shall respect the freedom of the media.
• Candidates shall not harass or obstruct journalists who are engaged in their professional activities.
• Incumbent candidates shall not abuse their office to gain unfair advantage in access to the media. This provision applies to all media, but is of particular relevance when publicly funded media are under direct control by the government of the day.
• Candidates shall not offer bribes or inducements to journalists or media houses to encourage them to attend campaign events or to report favourably on the party or unfavourably on other parties or candidates.
• Candidates should not misrepresent the stated positions or any other factual information about other parties and candidates.
• Candidates should avoid using language that is inflammatory or defamatory, or that threatens or incites violence against any other person or group.
This has been a brief attempt to get people thinking about what a code of conduct might include. I know that it consists mainly of lists of things to do (and not to do). I hope in future posts to return to this draft code and put some flesh onto the bones.
See also
SWAZILAND ELECTIONS BACKGROUND
SWAZI MEDIA ELECTION COVERAGE
SWAZILAND ELECTION BOYCOTT
SWAZI ELECTION AND THE NEW P.M.
WILL ELECTION DESTABILISE SWAZILAND?
SWAZI RADIO AND THE ELECTIONS
SWAZI ELECTION ‘MAY NOT BE FAIR’
At the last election in 2003 Swazi media were criticised for not giving enough information to the people of the kingdom about what was going on. On the day of the election itself Radio Swaziland didn’t even report that an election was taking place.
The poor media coverage prompted the Commonwealth Expert Team, which monitored the election in Swaziland, to recommend that in future elections a Code of Conduct for media personnel covering elections should be drawn up. This, it felt, would ‘ensure high standard and balanced coverage’ in reporting.
But nothing much has happened since then. The Swaziland National Association of Journalists (SNAJ) has a code of conduct that provides a framework of reference to all practicing journalists in Swaziland, both full-time and freelance.
The code is meant to ensure that members adhere to the highest ethical standards, professional competence and good behaviour in carrying out their duties. Its overriding concern is that members of the media should conduct themselves with a high sense of responsibility without infringing the rights of individuals and society in general.
However, the SNAJ code is not followed by most journalists in Swaziland and it does not deal with the coverage of elections. In this respect Swaziland is falling behind other countries in Africa. Since the turn of the century a number of African states have produced guidelines for journalists and other media personnel when covering elections. Among these states are Sierra Leone and Somaliland.
Here, in the latest of an occasionally series of posts I am writing on the Swazi elections 2008, is an attempt to start people thinking about what a code of conduct on election coverage could look like in Swaziland, I want to propose a draft code of conduct for covering elections in Swaziland.
I do not want to reinvent the wheel so I have borrowed extensively from codes of Sierra Leone, Somaliland and also work done by ACE Electoral Knowledge Network.
Preamble
The preamble should make some definitive statements about what the role media have in the process of politics, such as these.
The media play an important role in monitoring the electoral process. By covering the election events and the political campaign, the media ensure that the public is aware of what is happening.
The media help the public to make a free and informed choice. They do this in three ways in particular:
• By communicating political messages from parties and candidates;
• By relaying important voter information from election administrators;
• By subjecting the whole election process to independent scrutiny and comment.
Individual journalists
Then we might look at the responsibilities of individual journalists.
Such as:
• The first duty of a journalist is to report accurately and without bias.
• A journalist shall report only in accordance with facts of which s/he knows the origin. A journalist shall not suppress essential information.
• A journalist shall observe professional secrecy regarding the source of information obtained in confidence.
• A journalist shall report in a balanced manner. If a candidate makes an allegation against another candidate, the journalist should seek comment from both sides wherever possible.
• A journalist shall do the utmost to correct any published information that is found to be harmfully inaccurate.
• As far as possible, a journalist shall report the views of candidates and political parties directly and in their own words, rather than as they are described by others.
• A journalist shall avoid using language or expressing sentiments that may further discrimination or violence on any grounds, including race, sex, sexual orientation, language, religion, political or other opinions, and national or social origins.
• When reporting the opinions of those who do advocate discrimination or violence, a journalist shall do the utmost to put such views in a clear context and to report the opinions of those against whom such sentiments are directed.
• A journalist shall not accept any inducement from a politician or candidate.
• A journalist shall not make any promise to a politician about the content of a news report.
• A journalist shall take care in reporting the findings of opinion polls. Any report should wherever possible include the following information:
• who commissioned and carried out the poll and when
• how many people were interviewed, where and how were they interviewed and what is the margin of error
• what was the exact wording of the questions.
• A journalist shall regard the following as grave professional offences:
• plagiarism
• malicious misrepresentation
• calumny, slander, libel or unfounded accusations
• acceptance of a bribe in any form in consideration of either publication or suppression.
Media houses
Media houses have a vital role in ensuring fairness in the dissemination of information. The people have the right to know what all the candidates are standing for and not just those that the media house owners might support.
• In all media, there shall be a clear separation between fact and comment. News reporting should reflect the facts as honestly perceived by journalists. Comment may reflect the editorial line of the publication.
• Publicly owned media shall not express an editorial opinion in favour of or against any candidate.
• Publicly owned media have a duty to be balanced and impartial in their election reporting and not to discriminate against any candidate in granting access to air time.
• If media houses accept paid political advertising, they shall do so on a non-discriminatory basis and at equal rates for all candidates.
• News, interviews, information or current affairs programmes or articles in the public media shall not be biased in favour of or against any candidate.
• The media shall provide equitable and regular coverage to all candidates.
• The media shall encourage and provide access to the voters to express their opinion and views.
• The media shall promote democratic values such as the rule of good law, accountability and good governance.
• Any candidate or party that makes a reasonable claim of having been defamed or otherwise injured by a broadcast or publication shall either be granted the opportunity to reply or be entitled to a correction or retraction by the broadcaster or publisher or by the person who made the allegedly defamatory statement. The reply or correction shall be broadcast or published as soon as possible.
• News coverage of press conferences and public statements concerning matters of political controversy (as opposed to functions of state) called or made by the head of government, government ministers, or members of parliament shall be subject to a right of reply or equal time rules. This obligation acquires even greater force when the person making the statement is also standing for office.
• Publicly owned media shall publish or broadcast voter education material.
• Voter education material shall be accurate and impartial and must effectively inform voters about the voting process, including how, when and where to vote, to register to vote and to verify proper registration; the secrecy of the ballot (and thus safety from retaliation); the importance of voting; the functions of the offices that are under contention; and similar matters.
• Voter education shall include programmes in minority languages and programmes targeted for groups that traditionally may have been excluded from the political process, such as women and people with disabilities.
• Media houses should monitor their own output to make sure that it conforms with the standards set out in this code of conduct.
Candidates
Codes of conduct in election coverage in other African states recognise that political parties contest elections. In Swaziland, which is not a democracy, political parties are banned. The kingdom has its own unique form of ‘democracy’ which only allows candidates to stand for election as individuals.
The purpose of my draft code of conduct for Swaziland is to deal with the elections that will take place in 2008. It is highly unlikely that there will be a change of heart among the kingdom’s ruling elite before the elections are held, so we must assume that candidates will not be aligned to any political party. Therefore, this code of conduct is addressed to individuals; although it would apply equally to political parties should they be allowed to exist.
• All candidates shall respect the freedom of the media.
• Candidates shall not harass or obstruct journalists who are engaged in their professional activities.
• Incumbent candidates shall not abuse their office to gain unfair advantage in access to the media. This provision applies to all media, but is of particular relevance when publicly funded media are under direct control by the government of the day.
• Candidates shall not offer bribes or inducements to journalists or media houses to encourage them to attend campaign events or to report favourably on the party or unfavourably on other parties or candidates.
• Candidates should not misrepresent the stated positions or any other factual information about other parties and candidates.
• Candidates should avoid using language that is inflammatory or defamatory, or that threatens or incites violence against any other person or group.
This has been a brief attempt to get people thinking about what a code of conduct might include. I know that it consists mainly of lists of things to do (and not to do). I hope in future posts to return to this draft code and put some flesh onto the bones.
See also
SWAZILAND ELECTIONS BACKGROUND
SWAZI MEDIA ELECTION COVERAGE
SWAZILAND ELECTION BOYCOTT
SWAZI ELECTION AND THE NEW P.M.
WILL ELECTION DESTABILISE SWAZILAND?
SWAZI RADIO AND THE ELECTIONS
SWAZI ELECTION ‘MAY NOT BE FAIR’
SWAZI ANTI-MEDIA LAWS – FULL LIST
My comments that media in Swaziland are restricted by repressive laws got a swift response yesterday. I said that media commentators reckoned there were more than 30 such laws, but I doubted if there were really that many.
No sooner had I posted my blog with a request to see the list if it really existed than a reply came pinging back from the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) – Swaziland Chapter. It turns out that MISA is the group that counted up all the restrictive laws. It did it for a book it published in 2003 called naturally enough ‘Restrictive Media Laws in Swaziland’.
There are in fact 33 on the list, but some look a bit strange to me. How, for example, does the Dairy Act 1968 or the Citrus Act 1967 restrict the media?
MISA has promised to send me a copy of the book so I can find out for myself.
Meanwhile, here is the full list:
1. 1973 King’s Proclamation
2. Proclamation No.1 of 1981
3. Public Order Act 1963
4. Proscribed Publications Act 1968
5. Official Secrets Act
6. Sedition and Subversive Act 1968
7. Protected Places and Areas Act 1966
8. Obscene Publications Act 1927
9. Cinematography Act 1968
10. Swaziland Post and Telecommunications Act
11. Books and Newspapers Act 1963
12. Swaziland Television Authority Act 1983
13. Parliamentary Privileges Act
14. Internal Security Bill
15. Public Accounts Committee Order 1974
16. Patents, Design and Trade Marks Act
17. Magistrates Court Act 1938
18. High Court Act 1954
19. Judicial Services Commission Act
20. Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act 1939
21. Electoral Act
22. Standing Orders of Senate Relating to Public Business
23. Emergency Powers Act 1968
24. Prevention of Corruption Order 1993
25. Control of Supplies Order 1973 (later referred to as an Act??)
26. Statistics Act 1967
27. Regulation of Advertisements Act 1953
28. Aviation Act 1968
29. Cotton Act 1967
30. Dairy Act 1968
31. Citrus Act 1967
32. Identification Order 1998
33. Public Health Act 1969
See also
SWAZILAND’S OPPRESSIVE MEDIA LAWS
No sooner had I posted my blog with a request to see the list if it really existed than a reply came pinging back from the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) – Swaziland Chapter. It turns out that MISA is the group that counted up all the restrictive laws. It did it for a book it published in 2003 called naturally enough ‘Restrictive Media Laws in Swaziland’.
There are in fact 33 on the list, but some look a bit strange to me. How, for example, does the Dairy Act 1968 or the Citrus Act 1967 restrict the media?
MISA has promised to send me a copy of the book so I can find out for myself.
Meanwhile, here is the full list:
1. 1973 King’s Proclamation
2. Proclamation No.1 of 1981
3. Public Order Act 1963
4. Proscribed Publications Act 1968
5. Official Secrets Act
6. Sedition and Subversive Act 1968
7. Protected Places and Areas Act 1966
8. Obscene Publications Act 1927
9. Cinematography Act 1968
10. Swaziland Post and Telecommunications Act
11. Books and Newspapers Act 1963
12. Swaziland Television Authority Act 1983
13. Parliamentary Privileges Act
14. Internal Security Bill
15. Public Accounts Committee Order 1974
16. Patents, Design and Trade Marks Act
17. Magistrates Court Act 1938
18. High Court Act 1954
19. Judicial Services Commission Act
20. Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act 1939
21. Electoral Act
22. Standing Orders of Senate Relating to Public Business
23. Emergency Powers Act 1968
24. Prevention of Corruption Order 1993
25. Control of Supplies Order 1973 (later referred to as an Act??)
26. Statistics Act 1967
27. Regulation of Advertisements Act 1953
28. Aviation Act 1968
29. Cotton Act 1967
30. Dairy Act 1968
31. Citrus Act 1967
32. Identification Order 1998
33. Public Health Act 1969
See also
SWAZILAND’S OPPRESSIVE MEDIA LAWS
Thursday, 27 March 2008
SWAZILAND’S OPPRESSIVE MEDIA LAWS
I raised a few eyebrows yesterday (26 March 2008) when I suggested that being in possession of a copy of the Without The King documentary was an act of sedition under Swaziland’s oppressive laws.
I think the people who were surprised and even a little bit shocked were those who had never stopped to examine the legal situation Swaziland.
Some people in the international community have been misled by the Swazi Constitution that came into effect in 2006. When you look at what it has to say about freedom of the press, freedom of expression and freedom of association, it reads like a model constitution.
The problem is the Constitution is a confidence trick because the laws that existed before it was published have not been repealed, nor does there seem to be any move in the near future to do so. The ruling elite in Swaziland like it just fine that they can restrict people in what they say, who they say it to, and where they say it.
Some media commentators have said there are about 30 laws in Swaziland that restrict the media. I’m not so sure there really are that many (if someone knows them all please send me a list) but here courtesy of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation and Article 19 are the main ones.
The Official Secrets Act, 1968 prohibits any person who possesses or has been entrusted, ‘by any person holding office under the Government’, with any code, password, sketch, plan, model, article, note, document or information, from communicating it to any unauthorized person, retaining it, failing to take proper care of it or using it ‘in any manner or for any purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of Swaziland’.
The Sedition and Subversive Activities Act, 1938 makes a speech or publication seditious if it is intended to bring the King, his heirs, successors, or government into contempt or encourage hatred of them. The Act defines ‘publication’ to include ‘all written or printed matter and everything, whether or not of a nature similar to written or printed matter, containing any visible representation or by its form, shape, or in any manner capable of suggesting words or ideas, and every copy and reproduction of any publication’. Also seditious are publications or speeches that intend to encourage hatred or contempt of, or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Swaziland, to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different classes of the population of Swaziland.
The Cape Libel Act, 1882 makes it an offence punishable by two years’ imprisonment or a fine, or both, to ‘publish a defamatory libel’: that is to injure the reputation of a person and expose him or her to hatred, ridicule and contempt.
The Ndlovukati Act, 1968 protects the person of the Ndlovukati (Queen Mother). ‘A person who does or attempts to do, or makes preparation, or conspires with any other person, to do, an act with the intention of bringing into hatred or contempt, or of inciting disaffection or ill will or hostility against, the person of Ndlovukati, shall be guilty of an offence.’
The Obscene Publications Act, 1927 prohibits the importation, making, manufacture, production, sale, distribution, or public exposure of indecent or obscene material. No exemption is granted to material of an artistic, literary or scientific nature. The penalties are a fine, or a prison sentence of up to six months, or both. The Act does not define what it means by the terms ‘indecent’ and ‘obscene’. (Presumably this is meant to refer primarily to pornographic material.)
The Magistrate’s Courts Act, 1939 grants magistrates the power to hold trials in camera or to exclude females, minors and the public generally ‘in the interest of good order or public morals’. The Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act of the same year extends this power of the magistrate to the preparatory examination phase of a case. The Act adds a further reason which may justify in camera proceedings. A magistrate may decide it is in the interests of “the administration of justice”.
The Proscribed Publications Act, 1968 empowers the Minister for Public Service and Information to ban publications ‘if the publication is prejudicial or potentially prejudicial to the interests of defence, public safety, public order, public morality or public health.’
The Books and Newspaper Act, 1963 prohibits anyone from printing or publishing a newspaper in Swaziland unless the editor of the newspaper is resident within Swaziland and without a registration certificate issued by the Registrar of Books and Newspapers. Where a newspaper has more than one editor, the chief editor has to be resident in Swaziland. The effect of this is that newspapers have to be locally controlled and registered in order to be disseminated in Swaziland.
The Cinematograph Act, 1920 controls the making and public dissemination of films, and of pictures and placards relating to the films. It is prohibited for anyone to make a film showing African gatherings or African life without the prior permission of the Minister for Public Service and Information. The Act further prohibits films to be made of certain Swazi cultural occasions and celebrations namely the Incwala Day, the King’s Birthday, the Umhlanga (Reed Dance) and the Somhlolo (Independence Day) without the Minister’s written consent. The Minister has an unlimited discretion to grant or to refuse consent.
A particularly draconian aspect of the legislation is that section 6 empowers the Minister to declare any picture to be objectionable (within his complete discretion) if he believes that the picture represents scenes holding up to ridicule or contempt any member of the King’s naval, military or air forces;
- scenes tending to ‘disparage public characters’; scenes calculated to ‘affect the religious convictions or feelings of any section of the public’;
- scenes ‘suggestive’ of immorality or indecency;
- executions, murders and ‘other revolting scenes’;
- scenes of ‘debauchery, drunkenness, brawling, or of any other habit of life not in accordance with good morals and decency’ scenes depicting ‘successful’ crime or violence; and
- scenes which are ‘in any way prejudicial to the peace, order or good government of Swaziland’.
Protection of sources
There are no laws, which specifically refer to the protection of the confidentiality of journalistic sources. The principle of the right of a journalist to protect their sources, which is a crucial element of media freedom and of freedom of expression and information generally, is certainly not respected in Swaziland.
Freedom of Information
Swaziland has no freedom of information legislation. The Official Secrets Act and other restrictive practices restrict the media in their efforts to obtain information and report freely on the activities of government. Access to information from the government and officials depends on goodwill and contacts rather than on any clearly established rules. A Freedom of Information Act is urgently needed in Swaziland.
See also
SWAZILAND ‘REVOLUTION DOCO ON DVD
SWAZI KING DOCUMENTARY ‘SEDITIOUS’
I think the people who were surprised and even a little bit shocked were those who had never stopped to examine the legal situation Swaziland.
Some people in the international community have been misled by the Swazi Constitution that came into effect in 2006. When you look at what it has to say about freedom of the press, freedom of expression and freedom of association, it reads like a model constitution.
The problem is the Constitution is a confidence trick because the laws that existed before it was published have not been repealed, nor does there seem to be any move in the near future to do so. The ruling elite in Swaziland like it just fine that they can restrict people in what they say, who they say it to, and where they say it.
Some media commentators have said there are about 30 laws in Swaziland that restrict the media. I’m not so sure there really are that many (if someone knows them all please send me a list) but here courtesy of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation and Article 19 are the main ones.
The Official Secrets Act, 1968 prohibits any person who possesses or has been entrusted, ‘by any person holding office under the Government’, with any code, password, sketch, plan, model, article, note, document or information, from communicating it to any unauthorized person, retaining it, failing to take proper care of it or using it ‘in any manner or for any purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of Swaziland’.
The Sedition and Subversive Activities Act, 1938 makes a speech or publication seditious if it is intended to bring the King, his heirs, successors, or government into contempt or encourage hatred of them. The Act defines ‘publication’ to include ‘all written or printed matter and everything, whether or not of a nature similar to written or printed matter, containing any visible representation or by its form, shape, or in any manner capable of suggesting words or ideas, and every copy and reproduction of any publication’. Also seditious are publications or speeches that intend to encourage hatred or contempt of, or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Swaziland, to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different classes of the population of Swaziland.
The Cape Libel Act, 1882 makes it an offence punishable by two years’ imprisonment or a fine, or both, to ‘publish a defamatory libel’: that is to injure the reputation of a person and expose him or her to hatred, ridicule and contempt.
The Ndlovukati Act, 1968 protects the person of the Ndlovukati (Queen Mother). ‘A person who does or attempts to do, or makes preparation, or conspires with any other person, to do, an act with the intention of bringing into hatred or contempt, or of inciting disaffection or ill will or hostility against, the person of Ndlovukati, shall be guilty of an offence.’
The Obscene Publications Act, 1927 prohibits the importation, making, manufacture, production, sale, distribution, or public exposure of indecent or obscene material. No exemption is granted to material of an artistic, literary or scientific nature. The penalties are a fine, or a prison sentence of up to six months, or both. The Act does not define what it means by the terms ‘indecent’ and ‘obscene’. (Presumably this is meant to refer primarily to pornographic material.)
The Magistrate’s Courts Act, 1939 grants magistrates the power to hold trials in camera or to exclude females, minors and the public generally ‘in the interest of good order or public morals’. The Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act of the same year extends this power of the magistrate to the preparatory examination phase of a case. The Act adds a further reason which may justify in camera proceedings. A magistrate may decide it is in the interests of “the administration of justice”.
The Proscribed Publications Act, 1968 empowers the Minister for Public Service and Information to ban publications ‘if the publication is prejudicial or potentially prejudicial to the interests of defence, public safety, public order, public morality or public health.’
The Books and Newspaper Act, 1963 prohibits anyone from printing or publishing a newspaper in Swaziland unless the editor of the newspaper is resident within Swaziland and without a registration certificate issued by the Registrar of Books and Newspapers. Where a newspaper has more than one editor, the chief editor has to be resident in Swaziland. The effect of this is that newspapers have to be locally controlled and registered in order to be disseminated in Swaziland.
The Cinematograph Act, 1920 controls the making and public dissemination of films, and of pictures and placards relating to the films. It is prohibited for anyone to make a film showing African gatherings or African life without the prior permission of the Minister for Public Service and Information. The Act further prohibits films to be made of certain Swazi cultural occasions and celebrations namely the Incwala Day, the King’s Birthday, the Umhlanga (Reed Dance) and the Somhlolo (Independence Day) without the Minister’s written consent. The Minister has an unlimited discretion to grant or to refuse consent.
A particularly draconian aspect of the legislation is that section 6 empowers the Minister to declare any picture to be objectionable (within his complete discretion) if he believes that the picture represents scenes holding up to ridicule or contempt any member of the King’s naval, military or air forces;
- scenes tending to ‘disparage public characters’; scenes calculated to ‘affect the religious convictions or feelings of any section of the public’;
- scenes ‘suggestive’ of immorality or indecency;
- executions, murders and ‘other revolting scenes’;
- scenes of ‘debauchery, drunkenness, brawling, or of any other habit of life not in accordance with good morals and decency’ scenes depicting ‘successful’ crime or violence; and
- scenes which are ‘in any way prejudicial to the peace, order or good government of Swaziland’.
Protection of sources
There are no laws, which specifically refer to the protection of the confidentiality of journalistic sources. The principle of the right of a journalist to protect their sources, which is a crucial element of media freedom and of freedom of expression and information generally, is certainly not respected in Swaziland.
Freedom of Information
Swaziland has no freedom of information legislation. The Official Secrets Act and other restrictive practices restrict the media in their efforts to obtain information and report freely on the activities of government. Access to information from the government and officials depends on goodwill and contacts rather than on any clearly established rules. A Freedom of Information Act is urgently needed in Swaziland.
See also
SWAZILAND ‘REVOLUTION DOCO ON DVD
SWAZI KING DOCUMENTARY ‘SEDITIOUS’
DEREK 'IS AN ANGEL SENT BY GOD'
After my comments about Derek Van Dam, the US weatherman turned missionary in Swaziland I received this email from a fan (of Derek’s not mine).
Hello there,
I just read everything that you wrote about Derek Van Dam. What do you have agianst Derek? You make him out to be this guy that knows nothing unless it has to do with the weather.
Have you ever met Derek? Derek is one of the most sweetest, caring and loving guy that I know. He truely cares about the kids over there in Africa.
It took a lot for Derek to pack up and move half way around the world. He is over there away from his family and friends. He is great at what he does and that just happens to be the weather.
He is an angel sent from God.
If you just give him a chance and get to know the real Derek you will see what we all see. that is a wonderful guy!! Derek has a big heart and you have to admit that his heart is in the right place.
That trip has changed his life big time and you guys are lucky to be getting him in Africa. What I would have given to have him back here in Michigan again.
All I am saying is before you judge someone, give them a chance and get to know them first!!!
Jennifer
Essexville, MI US
See also
DEREK COMES TO AFRICA
DEREK GOES TO AFRICA 1
DEREK GOES TO AFRICA 2
DEREK GOES TO AFRICA 3
DEREK GOES TO AFRICA 4
Hello there,
I just read everything that you wrote about Derek Van Dam. What do you have agianst Derek? You make him out to be this guy that knows nothing unless it has to do with the weather.
Have you ever met Derek? Derek is one of the most sweetest, caring and loving guy that I know. He truely cares about the kids over there in Africa.
It took a lot for Derek to pack up and move half way around the world. He is over there away from his family and friends. He is great at what he does and that just happens to be the weather.
He is an angel sent from God.
If you just give him a chance and get to know the real Derek you will see what we all see. that is a wonderful guy!! Derek has a big heart and you have to admit that his heart is in the right place.
That trip has changed his life big time and you guys are lucky to be getting him in Africa. What I would have given to have him back here in Michigan again.
All I am saying is before you judge someone, give them a chance and get to know them first!!!
Jennifer
Essexville, MI US
See also
DEREK COMES TO AFRICA
DEREK GOES TO AFRICA 1
DEREK GOES TO AFRICA 2
DEREK GOES TO AFRICA 3
DEREK GOES TO AFRICA 4
Wednesday, 26 March 2008
SWAZILAND ‘REVOLUTION’ DOCO ON DVD
The award-winning, but highly controversial, documentary that claims Swaziland is close to a state of revolution has finally reached Swaziland.
DVDs of the documentary called Without The King are now circulating within Swaziland. It is impossible to buy the DVD legally in Swaziland - possessing one would be an act of sedition - but imports have been passed around the kingdom over the past days.
According to the documentary’s own publicity it ‘captures the birth of a nation’s revolution’. I’m not convinced that anything in the DVD really justifies that statement, but there are scenes where ordinary people in Swaziland talk about their dissatisfaction with the ruling elite – including King Mswati III.
It is impossible to hear such views in public in Swaziland where most media are government controlled and the so-called ‘independent’ newspapers are scared to criticise the king.
Remember, in 2007 the Times of Swaziland group of newspapers was threatened with closure after the Times Sunday published mild criticism of the king and the way he was thought to put off foreign investors with his lavish lifestyle. The newspapers were forced to apologise humbly or be closed.
Without the King – the title doesn’t come from a wish to see the king deposed, rather it is a line from the king’s eldest daughter Princess Sikhanyiso who says ‘Without the king [Swaziland] has no culture’- contrasts the lifestyle of the Swazi Royal Family with ordinary people in the kingdom. In Swaziland about 70 per cent of the population live on less than one US dollar (E7) per day.
Without The King visits Moneni Township to witness near-starving people eating intestines they have scavenged from a rubbish tip. Their water supply is no larger than a puddle.
In another part of the documentary political activists speak about their desire to change Swaziland.
One activist says, ‘Nations are like babies; they don’t just stand up and walk. But now it is clear to everybody, we can’t take this any longer. By tomorrow, we can mobilize thousands; people can get to the streets. We have that power; we have that capacity to do that.
He goes on, ‘We cannot go to South Africa and ask for guns, we cannot go to America and ask for guns, but we can creep at night with our knives and kill them …. A knife is about 20 rand, today we can do it. It’s only time and proper organizing.’
The documentary shows a second political activist saying, ‘The government belongs to the king that is why now the buck rests with him. If his people are failing to deliver the basics, the ones he appointed, not the people, definitely, they’re going to point fingers at him.
‘If we are going to have a constitution that is driven down the throat of the people, without their mandate, that is dictatorship.’
He goes on, ‘For instance, yesterday I was prepared to die for the struggle. But today I don’t want to die for the struggle. I want to kill for the struggle.’
There are more scenes of criticism in the documentary that make the ones above seem mild. Without The King is so critical of the monarchy that I am sure anyone in possession of the DVD in Swaziland would be committing an act of sedition, which carries a prison sentence of up to two years.
Without The King won the special Jury Prize at Hot Docs film festival in Toronto, Canada, last year (2007). It has been shown all over the world, but it is thought that now is the first time it has been seen in Swaziland.
See also
SWAZI KING DOCUMENTARY ‘SEDITIOUS’
SWAZI DOCO ON TOUR
SWAZILAND WITHOUT THE KING
UNREALITY OF SWAZI MEDIA FREEDOM
DVDs of the documentary called Without The King are now circulating within Swaziland. It is impossible to buy the DVD legally in Swaziland - possessing one would be an act of sedition - but imports have been passed around the kingdom over the past days.
According to the documentary’s own publicity it ‘captures the birth of a nation’s revolution’. I’m not convinced that anything in the DVD really justifies that statement, but there are scenes where ordinary people in Swaziland talk about their dissatisfaction with the ruling elite – including King Mswati III.
It is impossible to hear such views in public in Swaziland where most media are government controlled and the so-called ‘independent’ newspapers are scared to criticise the king.
Remember, in 2007 the Times of Swaziland group of newspapers was threatened with closure after the Times Sunday published mild criticism of the king and the way he was thought to put off foreign investors with his lavish lifestyle. The newspapers were forced to apologise humbly or be closed.
Without the King – the title doesn’t come from a wish to see the king deposed, rather it is a line from the king’s eldest daughter Princess Sikhanyiso who says ‘Without the king [Swaziland] has no culture’- contrasts the lifestyle of the Swazi Royal Family with ordinary people in the kingdom. In Swaziland about 70 per cent of the population live on less than one US dollar (E7) per day.
Without The King visits Moneni Township to witness near-starving people eating intestines they have scavenged from a rubbish tip. Their water supply is no larger than a puddle.
In another part of the documentary political activists speak about their desire to change Swaziland.
One activist says, ‘Nations are like babies; they don’t just stand up and walk. But now it is clear to everybody, we can’t take this any longer. By tomorrow, we can mobilize thousands; people can get to the streets. We have that power; we have that capacity to do that.
He goes on, ‘We cannot go to South Africa and ask for guns, we cannot go to America and ask for guns, but we can creep at night with our knives and kill them …. A knife is about 20 rand, today we can do it. It’s only time and proper organizing.’
The documentary shows a second political activist saying, ‘The government belongs to the king that is why now the buck rests with him. If his people are failing to deliver the basics, the ones he appointed, not the people, definitely, they’re going to point fingers at him.
‘If we are going to have a constitution that is driven down the throat of the people, without their mandate, that is dictatorship.’
He goes on, ‘For instance, yesterday I was prepared to die for the struggle. But today I don’t want to die for the struggle. I want to kill for the struggle.’
There are more scenes of criticism in the documentary that make the ones above seem mild. Without The King is so critical of the monarchy that I am sure anyone in possession of the DVD in Swaziland would be committing an act of sedition, which carries a prison sentence of up to two years.
Without The King won the special Jury Prize at Hot Docs film festival in Toronto, Canada, last year (2007). It has been shown all over the world, but it is thought that now is the first time it has been seen in Swaziland.
See also
SWAZI KING DOCUMENTARY ‘SEDITIOUS’
SWAZI DOCO ON TOUR
SWAZILAND WITHOUT THE KING
UNREALITY OF SWAZI MEDIA FREEDOM
SWAZI KING DOCUMENTARY 'SEDITIOUS’
Anyone who has in his or her possession a copy of the documentary Without the King is committing sedition. I can hear cries of incredulity rising all around me, but it is a fact. Even though the Swazi Constitution that came into effect in 2006 allows for freedom of expression, draconian laws in Swaziland have not been repealed.
Possibly the most draconian of all the laws in Swaziland is the Sedition and Subversive Activities Act, 1938. The main purpose of the Act is to provide for the suppression and punishment of sedition, that is criticism of the King and the Swaziland government.
Read these extracts from the Act (particularly Section 4) and tell me that I’m wrong.
Section 4 makes it an offence for any person to do anything or even to attempt to do anything with seditious intent. It is also an offence to conspire with anyone who wants to do anything with seditious intent. This includes the utterance of seditious words as well as the printing and dissemination of seditious publications. The importation of seditious publications is also an offence except if the importer had no reason to believe that the publication was seditious.
Section 3(1) defines a ‘seditious intention’ as an intention to:
- bring the King into hatred or contempt, or to excite disaffection against the King, his heirs, his successors and the government of Swaziland;
- excite the citizens and inhabitants of Swaziland to ‘procure the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any matter in Swaziland as by law established’;
- bring the Swaziland justice administration system into hatred, contempt or disaffection;
- raise discontent amongst the citizens and inhabitants of Swaziland; or
- promote ‘feelings of ill-will and hostility between different classes of the population of Swaziland’.
Any person found guilty of sedition may be fined and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment for a first offence and three years’ on a subsequent offence. Mere possession of a seditious publication may lead to a fine and imprisonment for one year for a first offence and for two years for a subsequent offence.
You can read more about repressive Swazi media laws in Media Law, a Comparative Overview of Media Laws and Practice in Botswana, Swaziland and Zambia, from the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, Johannesburg. To view it click here
See also
SWAZILAND 'REVOLUTION' DOCO ON DVD
Possibly the most draconian of all the laws in Swaziland is the Sedition and Subversive Activities Act, 1938. The main purpose of the Act is to provide for the suppression and punishment of sedition, that is criticism of the King and the Swaziland government.
Read these extracts from the Act (particularly Section 4) and tell me that I’m wrong.
Section 4 makes it an offence for any person to do anything or even to attempt to do anything with seditious intent. It is also an offence to conspire with anyone who wants to do anything with seditious intent. This includes the utterance of seditious words as well as the printing and dissemination of seditious publications. The importation of seditious publications is also an offence except if the importer had no reason to believe that the publication was seditious.
Section 3(1) defines a ‘seditious intention’ as an intention to:
- bring the King into hatred or contempt, or to excite disaffection against the King, his heirs, his successors and the government of Swaziland;
- excite the citizens and inhabitants of Swaziland to ‘procure the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any matter in Swaziland as by law established’;
- bring the Swaziland justice administration system into hatred, contempt or disaffection;
- raise discontent amongst the citizens and inhabitants of Swaziland; or
- promote ‘feelings of ill-will and hostility between different classes of the population of Swaziland’.
Any person found guilty of sedition may be fined and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment for a first offence and three years’ on a subsequent offence. Mere possession of a seditious publication may lead to a fine and imprisonment for one year for a first offence and for two years for a subsequent offence.
You can read more about repressive Swazi media laws in Media Law, a Comparative Overview of Media Laws and Practice in Botswana, Swaziland and Zambia, from the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, Johannesburg. To view it click here
See also
SWAZILAND 'REVOLUTION' DOCO ON DVD
Tuesday, 25 March 2008
SWAZILAND A ‘TICKING TIME BOMB’
Swaziland is a ‘ticking time bomb’ as the Swazi army prepares to set up military bases across the kingdom.
People will not stand for it and will push for democracy in the kingdom ruled by King Mswati III, according to the editor of one of Swaziland’s few independent newspapers who is predicting ‘evil people’ are going to turn the kingdom ‘into one that is ungovernable’.
Mbongeni Mbingo, editor of the Times Sunday, said the deployment of the army across Swaziland might provoke people to demand democracy.
Writing in his own newspaper on Sunday (23 March 2008) Mbingo said,
‘It is now clear that there are people who are out to destroy this country. These are evil people who have their evil dreams of turning this country into one that is ungovernable. And you wonder what it is they will achieve when the country is in the ruins!’
He added, ‘And it is not the people from PUDEMO [a banned political party] or other progressive formations we have to fear now, it is the people who worm themselves around the king and proclaim undying love for him. They are a danger to our peace and prosperity.
‘But they must be warned that their action will not serve anything but to destroy this country – and that time is nigh.’
On the previous Monday (17 Mach 2008), protesting bus drivers and conductors had blocked off the centre of Manzini -Swaziland’s second city. Police used brutal force against protestors.
Mbingo wrote,
‘The patience of the people, as witnessed on Monday with the protests at the Manzini bus rank when Manzini came to a standstill, is wearing thin, and now it will not take long before things really get out of hand.
‘The danger about this protest on Monday is that those people have realised they can take matters into their own hands and win. It must not be perceived that it was the bus conductors and drivers who are lawless people who did this, but these are people in our society who believe they have been pushed to the edge, and could not take it any longer.
‘It is a warning that sooner or later, this whole country will ground to a standstill.
‘But somehow, miraculously even, people don’t realise this, or are intentionally pushing the people to revolt, because they have their own selfish ends to meet.’
Mbingo went on, ‘The protests on Monday are a big warning to everyone that this generation of people is not going to allow things to be run as they were, and these people will no longer accept being treated as subjects, but they are people who have their rights that need to be protected – and respected.’
Mbingo went on to say there was no reason to deploy the army since there was no national emergency at present. If there were to be a state of emergency some time soon it would be caused by the army.
‘Unfortunately, this is a bad move that will backfire badly, because if anything the army on our streets does not do anything to scare any more, rather it pushes the people to realising that a full democracy is on the horizon,’ Mbingo said.
‘If government and the ruling elite don’t take action or indeed notice, the tide will turn in time and this country will seriously get into ruin.
‘It’s been an accident waiting to happen, but now I get the feeling it is only a matter of time.’
See also
SWAZILAND ‘TO BE MILITARY STATE’
SWAZI POLICE ‘KILL BABY WITH TEARGAS’
People will not stand for it and will push for democracy in the kingdom ruled by King Mswati III, according to the editor of one of Swaziland’s few independent newspapers who is predicting ‘evil people’ are going to turn the kingdom ‘into one that is ungovernable’.
Mbongeni Mbingo, editor of the Times Sunday, said the deployment of the army across Swaziland might provoke people to demand democracy.
Writing in his own newspaper on Sunday (23 March 2008) Mbingo said,
‘It is now clear that there are people who are out to destroy this country. These are evil people who have their evil dreams of turning this country into one that is ungovernable. And you wonder what it is they will achieve when the country is in the ruins!’
He added, ‘And it is not the people from PUDEMO [a banned political party] or other progressive formations we have to fear now, it is the people who worm themselves around the king and proclaim undying love for him. They are a danger to our peace and prosperity.
‘But they must be warned that their action will not serve anything but to destroy this country – and that time is nigh.’
On the previous Monday (17 Mach 2008), protesting bus drivers and conductors had blocked off the centre of Manzini -Swaziland’s second city. Police used brutal force against protestors.
Mbingo wrote,
‘The patience of the people, as witnessed on Monday with the protests at the Manzini bus rank when Manzini came to a standstill, is wearing thin, and now it will not take long before things really get out of hand.
‘The danger about this protest on Monday is that those people have realised they can take matters into their own hands and win. It must not be perceived that it was the bus conductors and drivers who are lawless people who did this, but these are people in our society who believe they have been pushed to the edge, and could not take it any longer.
‘It is a warning that sooner or later, this whole country will ground to a standstill.
‘But somehow, miraculously even, people don’t realise this, or are intentionally pushing the people to revolt, because they have their own selfish ends to meet.’
Mbingo went on, ‘The protests on Monday are a big warning to everyone that this generation of people is not going to allow things to be run as they were, and these people will no longer accept being treated as subjects, but they are people who have their rights that need to be protected – and respected.’
Mbingo went on to say there was no reason to deploy the army since there was no national emergency at present. If there were to be a state of emergency some time soon it would be caused by the army.
‘Unfortunately, this is a bad move that will backfire badly, because if anything the army on our streets does not do anything to scare any more, rather it pushes the people to realising that a full democracy is on the horizon,’ Mbingo said.
‘If government and the ruling elite don’t take action or indeed notice, the tide will turn in time and this country will seriously get into ruin.
‘It’s been an accident waiting to happen, but now I get the feeling it is only a matter of time.’
See also
SWAZILAND ‘TO BE MILITARY STATE’
SWAZI POLICE ‘KILL BABY WITH TEARGAS’
Monday, 24 March 2008
SWAZI UNIONS AID ATTACKED WORKERS
A total of 40 workers were hospitalised after Swazi police attacked them during a legal strike.
And 11 of them are so seriously injured they have not been able to return to work.
These figures were revealed by trade unionists during a public handover of cash to help pay the medical bills of textile workers.
Four public sector unions donated E4,000 (about 500 US Dollars).
At the handover, which received coverage in Swazi newspapers and on Swazi TV, the Swaziland National Association of Teachers (SNAT) President Simon Makhanya criticised the police’s attack on the strikers, who were mostly women.
The Weekend Observer (22 March 2008) reported that Makhanya was disappointed at the police ‘who opted to silence the strikers with the nozzle of the gun, while they were engaged in a legal strike’.
The Weekend Observer reported Makhanya saying, ‘It is making us wary and jittery. We will also be going to the table to negotiate on behalf of our members soon. Does this mean that if we fail to agree and our members opt to engage in industrial action we will also be given the same medicine the textile strikers were forced to taste?’
Makhanya went on, ‘The textile strikers were simply demanding a living wage, which was within their rights as the cost of living in the country is extraordinarily high.’
He went on, ‘When they demand better salaries police are deployed to bash them up. Is this a ploy to silence the masses? If it is, sadly for them, it will never work.’
Makhanya said, ‘We are still astounded at the sudden passion police have developed for using their guns.’
Meanwhile, the textile workers union, the Swaziland Manufacturing and Allied Workers Union (SMAWU), is reporting the Swaziland Government to the International Labour Organisation. (The United Nations specialized agency which seeks the promotion of social justice and internationally recognized human and labour rights).
SMAWU President Alex Fakudze told the Weekend Observer (22 March 2008) that it was important for government to define the role of police because the police ended up telling the workers to return to work even though the textile strike was legal.
See also
SWAZI POLICE ‘KILL BABY WITH TEARGAS’
SWAZI POLICE SHOOT IN THE BACK
SWAZI POLICE ATTACK PREGNANT WOMAN
SWAZI POLICE RAMPAGE AGAIN
And 11 of them are so seriously injured they have not been able to return to work.
These figures were revealed by trade unionists during a public handover of cash to help pay the medical bills of textile workers.
Four public sector unions donated E4,000 (about 500 US Dollars).
At the handover, which received coverage in Swazi newspapers and on Swazi TV, the Swaziland National Association of Teachers (SNAT) President Simon Makhanya criticised the police’s attack on the strikers, who were mostly women.
The Weekend Observer (22 March 2008) reported that Makhanya was disappointed at the police ‘who opted to silence the strikers with the nozzle of the gun, while they were engaged in a legal strike’.
The Weekend Observer reported Makhanya saying, ‘It is making us wary and jittery. We will also be going to the table to negotiate on behalf of our members soon. Does this mean that if we fail to agree and our members opt to engage in industrial action we will also be given the same medicine the textile strikers were forced to taste?’
Makhanya went on, ‘The textile strikers were simply demanding a living wage, which was within their rights as the cost of living in the country is extraordinarily high.’
He went on, ‘When they demand better salaries police are deployed to bash them up. Is this a ploy to silence the masses? If it is, sadly for them, it will never work.’
Makhanya said, ‘We are still astounded at the sudden passion police have developed for using their guns.’
Meanwhile, the textile workers union, the Swaziland Manufacturing and Allied Workers Union (SMAWU), is reporting the Swaziland Government to the International Labour Organisation. (The United Nations specialized agency which seeks the promotion of social justice and internationally recognized human and labour rights).
SMAWU President Alex Fakudze told the Weekend Observer (22 March 2008) that it was important for government to define the role of police because the police ended up telling the workers to return to work even though the textile strike was legal.
See also
SWAZI POLICE ‘KILL BABY WITH TEARGAS’
SWAZI POLICE SHOOT IN THE BACK
SWAZI POLICE ATTACK PREGNANT WOMAN
SWAZI POLICE RAMPAGE AGAIN
Friday, 21 March 2008
PRINCE SUES ‘TIMES OF SWAZILAND’
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
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
Thursday, 20 March 2008
LET’S LOOK AT RURAL SWAZILAND
Swazi journalists should get out of their offices more.
Because when they do they are able to come up with vivid articles about what it is really like to live in Swaziland.
I was reminded of this last Saturday (15 March 2007) by an article in the Swazi News about life at a rural school in Nyakatfo.
The reporter seemed so genuinely shocked by the conditions at the Nazarene primary school the article read as if it was about another country – or even another planet.
‘The school is a sorry sight, it looks like a building you would to find in one of the war torn regions of Africa, yet it is in a country that claimed its independence 40 years ago,’ the report says.
The Swazi News also published photographs of the school, including classrooms without roofs and doors and a class where children are sitting on the cold floor because there is no furniture for them.
‘A new block of three classrooms, which is incomplete, is being used, but it is a health hazard. The floors have no concrete, there are no doors, no furniture, no windows and the pupils are still being exposed to the elements’, the Swazi News reports.
All this the newspaper describes as a ‘disgrace’.
The school principal blames it all on poverty because parents are not able to pay school fees.
The Swazi News is not so convinced. It contrasts the poverty of the school with the expenditure on furniture at the Ministry of Education in Mbabane.
Oddly, the headline to the article, LOOK AT THIS AND TELL US DO WE NEED 40/40 PARTY? is a clear reference to a decision to hold a joint celebration later this year to mark both the 40th birthday of King Mswati III and the 40th anniversary of Swaziland’s independence from colonial rule.
The celebrations are expected to run into the tens of millions of emalangengi (maybe 2-3 million US dollars), but nowhere in the article is this celebration mentioned. Nonetheless the newspaper has clearly planted a seed of doubt into the minds of readers that the money to be spent on the celebration could be better used elsewhere.
I was pleased to see this article in the Swazi News because too much space in the newspapers in Swaziland is given over to things that happen in urban areas, even though about 77 per cent of the Swaziland population of nearly one million people lives in rural areas.
Neither of the kingdom’s two daily newspapers, the Times of Swaziland and the Swazi Observer, make much effort to cover rural areas. The reasons for this are mainly that people in rural areas are mostly too poor to be attractive to advertisers in the papers and the cost of taking the newspapers to remote areas is not economically viable.
A result of this is that too often the newspapers ignore what is going on in the rural areas.
Even though both the daily newspapers pages each week of what they call ‘community news’ this often also ignores rural people. Monday's community news in the Times, (17 March 2008) for example, had three stories: two were about organizations giving donations and the third was a report about students from Northern Ireland in Europe who would be visiting Swaziland in July.
None of these stories really reflect what is going on in the rural areas. Swazi journalists must embrace the village because most of the important stories are taking place outside of the urban areas and are missed by journalists because they have a narrow definition of interest.
Swazi journalism should reflect the concerns and activities of the society it serves and it should mirror society as a whole. The vast majority of Swaziland’s people live in rural areas and because such a large proportion of the population live in rural areas they are likely to be where trends and events that will have major impact on urban areas later on. Rural areas are where environmental changes are first felt. Also, that is where there are social changes are happening, for example with such as land use, people having to abandon the rural areas for towns and such like.
Both the daily papers claim to be national papers. The Observer slogan is ‘We serve the nation.’ The Times calls itself the ‘national newspaper of Swaziland since 1897.’
One of the purposes of the news media is to tell people what is going on in their own country. Unfortunately, the Swazi newspapers tend to mostly tell us what is going on in the towns and because of this they cannot genuinely call themselves ‘national’.
See also
REACH THE GRASSROOTS
A VOICE FOR THE VOICELESS
Because when they do they are able to come up with vivid articles about what it is really like to live in Swaziland.
I was reminded of this last Saturday (15 March 2007) by an article in the Swazi News about life at a rural school in Nyakatfo.
The reporter seemed so genuinely shocked by the conditions at the Nazarene primary school the article read as if it was about another country – or even another planet.
‘The school is a sorry sight, it looks like a building you would to find in one of the war torn regions of Africa, yet it is in a country that claimed its independence 40 years ago,’ the report says.
The Swazi News also published photographs of the school, including classrooms without roofs and doors and a class where children are sitting on the cold floor because there is no furniture for them.
‘A new block of three classrooms, which is incomplete, is being used, but it is a health hazard. The floors have no concrete, there are no doors, no furniture, no windows and the pupils are still being exposed to the elements’, the Swazi News reports.
All this the newspaper describes as a ‘disgrace’.
The school principal blames it all on poverty because parents are not able to pay school fees.
The Swazi News is not so convinced. It contrasts the poverty of the school with the expenditure on furniture at the Ministry of Education in Mbabane.
Oddly, the headline to the article, LOOK AT THIS AND TELL US DO WE NEED 40/40 PARTY? is a clear reference to a decision to hold a joint celebration later this year to mark both the 40th birthday of King Mswati III and the 40th anniversary of Swaziland’s independence from colonial rule.
The celebrations are expected to run into the tens of millions of emalangengi (maybe 2-3 million US dollars), but nowhere in the article is this celebration mentioned. Nonetheless the newspaper has clearly planted a seed of doubt into the minds of readers that the money to be spent on the celebration could be better used elsewhere.
I was pleased to see this article in the Swazi News because too much space in the newspapers in Swaziland is given over to things that happen in urban areas, even though about 77 per cent of the Swaziland population of nearly one million people lives in rural areas.
Neither of the kingdom’s two daily newspapers, the Times of Swaziland and the Swazi Observer, make much effort to cover rural areas. The reasons for this are mainly that people in rural areas are mostly too poor to be attractive to advertisers in the papers and the cost of taking the newspapers to remote areas is not economically viable.
A result of this is that too often the newspapers ignore what is going on in the rural areas.
Even though both the daily newspapers pages each week of what they call ‘community news’ this often also ignores rural people. Monday's community news in the Times, (17 March 2008) for example, had three stories: two were about organizations giving donations and the third was a report about students from Northern Ireland in Europe who would be visiting Swaziland in July.
None of these stories really reflect what is going on in the rural areas. Swazi journalists must embrace the village because most of the important stories are taking place outside of the urban areas and are missed by journalists because they have a narrow definition of interest.
Swazi journalism should reflect the concerns and activities of the society it serves and it should mirror society as a whole. The vast majority of Swaziland’s people live in rural areas and because such a large proportion of the population live in rural areas they are likely to be where trends and events that will have major impact on urban areas later on. Rural areas are where environmental changes are first felt. Also, that is where there are social changes are happening, for example with such as land use, people having to abandon the rural areas for towns and such like.
Both the daily papers claim to be national papers. The Observer slogan is ‘We serve the nation.’ The Times calls itself the ‘national newspaper of Swaziland since 1897.’
One of the purposes of the news media is to tell people what is going on in their own country. Unfortunately, the Swazi newspapers tend to mostly tell us what is going on in the towns and because of this they cannot genuinely call themselves ‘national’.
See also
REACH THE GRASSROOTS
A VOICE FOR THE VOICELESS
Wednesday, 19 March 2008
SWAZILAND HUMAN RIGHTS REPORT
Congratulations to the Swazi Observer for giving so much attention to the latest report from the US government into human rights abuses in Swaziland.
According to the Observer (14 March 2008) the State Department report contained ‘no fireworks’. I assume by that the newspaper meant there was nothing we haven’t heard before because the report most certainly is a catalogue of human rights abuses in every part of life in Swaziland.
The report looked at the state of human rights in Swaziland in 2007.
The Observer highlighted abuses in the media, how trade union leaders are kept under surveillance and how women and homosexuals are marginalised. This is unusually candid for a newspaper that is in effect owned by the Swazi Royal Family.
The Observer was also disclosing the contents of the report before the Swazi Prime Minister Themba Dlamini had officially been given a copy. This denies the Prime Minister the chance to tell the kingdom that the authors of the report don’t know what they are talking about (the usual reaction from the Swazi Government to criticism from abroad).
Here are some of the highlights – or maybe I really mean lowlights – of the report. On the media, the report stated
There were reports of harassment of journalists during the year. On July 4 (2007), parliament found Sunday Times editor Mbongeni Mbingo guilty of lack of objectivity and knowledge of parliamentary procedure after he wrote an editorial that criticized Speaker of the House Prince Guduza.
Speaker Guduza had reportedly blocked a motion by a member of parliament (MP) that challenged an alleged secret move by the cabinet and the traditional body, the Swaziland National Council Standing Committee (SNNC), to amend a clause in the constitution. The editorial alleged Prince Guduza and the SNNC sought to lower the qualifications of the chief electoral officer to allow for the incumbent to remain in his current position.
There were reports of government restrictions on media content. On June 27, the Minister of Health and Social Welfare, Njabulo W. Mabuza, barred journalists from government hospitals and banned government hospital staff from talking to the media following an article in the Times of Swaziland that attributed the death of a four-year-old-girl with rabies to the hospital's inadequate supply of drugs.
There were reports of self-censorship during the year. A source in the Media Institute of Southern Africa stated that on a few occasions journalists received anonymous telephone calls advising them not to pursue a particular story, and that the journalists complied.
So thank you Observer, but I must point out that the newspaper missed out some important criticisms contained in the report.
It missed out the part about the lack of democracy in the kingdom and that emphasised the all powerful position held by King Mswati III.
The report stated,
‘The king retains ultimate executive and legislative authority, and parliament has limited authority. Legislation passed by parliament requires the king's assent to become law. Under the constitution, the king chooses the prime minister, the cabinet, two‑thirds of the Senate, many senior civil servants, the chief justice and other justices of the superior courts, members of commissions established by the constitution, and the heads of government offices.’
Here’s what the report said about ‘academic freedom’.
Restrictions on political gatherings and the practice of self‑censorship restricted academic freedom by limiting academic meetings, writings, and discussion on political topics. On April 4 (2007), a public debate organized by University of Swaziland (UNISWA) students to discuss the political crisis in Zimbabwe was cancelled at the last minute by university authorities claiming that they were not given adequate advance notice. The debate was held at a hotel paid for by the students.
To access the Observer coverage of the State Department report click
Here
Here
Here
Here
Here
To access the full State Department report click Here
See also
SWAZI LAWYERS DEFEND RIGHTS
According to the Observer (14 March 2008) the State Department report contained ‘no fireworks’. I assume by that the newspaper meant there was nothing we haven’t heard before because the report most certainly is a catalogue of human rights abuses in every part of life in Swaziland.
The report looked at the state of human rights in Swaziland in 2007.
The Observer highlighted abuses in the media, how trade union leaders are kept under surveillance and how women and homosexuals are marginalised. This is unusually candid for a newspaper that is in effect owned by the Swazi Royal Family.
The Observer was also disclosing the contents of the report before the Swazi Prime Minister Themba Dlamini had officially been given a copy. This denies the Prime Minister the chance to tell the kingdom that the authors of the report don’t know what they are talking about (the usual reaction from the Swazi Government to criticism from abroad).
Here are some of the highlights – or maybe I really mean lowlights – of the report. On the media, the report stated
There were reports of harassment of journalists during the year. On July 4 (2007), parliament found Sunday Times editor Mbongeni Mbingo guilty of lack of objectivity and knowledge of parliamentary procedure after he wrote an editorial that criticized Speaker of the House Prince Guduza.
Speaker Guduza had reportedly blocked a motion by a member of parliament (MP) that challenged an alleged secret move by the cabinet and the traditional body, the Swaziland National Council Standing Committee (SNNC), to amend a clause in the constitution. The editorial alleged Prince Guduza and the SNNC sought to lower the qualifications of the chief electoral officer to allow for the incumbent to remain in his current position.
There were reports of government restrictions on media content. On June 27, the Minister of Health and Social Welfare, Njabulo W. Mabuza, barred journalists from government hospitals and banned government hospital staff from talking to the media following an article in the Times of Swaziland that attributed the death of a four-year-old-girl with rabies to the hospital's inadequate supply of drugs.
There were reports of self-censorship during the year. A source in the Media Institute of Southern Africa stated that on a few occasions journalists received anonymous telephone calls advising them not to pursue a particular story, and that the journalists complied.
So thank you Observer, but I must point out that the newspaper missed out some important criticisms contained in the report.
It missed out the part about the lack of democracy in the kingdom and that emphasised the all powerful position held by King Mswati III.
The report stated,
‘The king retains ultimate executive and legislative authority, and parliament has limited authority. Legislation passed by parliament requires the king's assent to become law. Under the constitution, the king chooses the prime minister, the cabinet, two‑thirds of the Senate, many senior civil servants, the chief justice and other justices of the superior courts, members of commissions established by the constitution, and the heads of government offices.’
Here’s what the report said about ‘academic freedom’.
Restrictions on political gatherings and the practice of self‑censorship restricted academic freedom by limiting academic meetings, writings, and discussion on political topics. On April 4 (2007), a public debate organized by University of Swaziland (UNISWA) students to discuss the political crisis in Zimbabwe was cancelled at the last minute by university authorities claiming that they were not given adequate advance notice. The debate was held at a hotel paid for by the students.
To access the Observer coverage of the State Department report click
Here
Here
Here
Here
Here
To access the full State Department report click Here
See also
SWAZI LAWYERS DEFEND RIGHTS
Tuesday, 18 March 2008
SWAZI POLICE ‘KILL BABY WITH TEARGAS’
A baby may have been tear-gassed to death by Swazi police.
And a pregnant woman is reported to have died after being shot by police during legal protests by striking textile workers.
These are two of the confused reports coming out of Swaziland after another day of police brutality.
Newspapers report today (Tuesday 18 March 2008) that police shot at least six people as the centre of Manzini - Swaziland’s second city - was brought to a standstill. This was during a strike by kombi and bus drivers and conductors.
The Swazi Observer says there are ‘unconfirmed reports’ that a baby ‘had been killed after inhaling teargas’. The Observer says it has not been able to verify the report.
The Times of Swaziland reports that a pregnant textile worker who was allegedly shot and injured by police last Monday (10 March 2008) died of her injuries this past weekend. It is not confirmed if her death was a direct result of the shooting and the textile workers’ trade union has started an inquiry into the matter.
The Times calculates that police have shot 11 people over four days; this includes five textile workers who were shot during disturbances last Friday (14 March 2008).
The latest round of violence occurred when drivers and conductors stopped work in support of textile workers who started a strike two weeks ago on 3 March 2008 and have been victims of vicious police assaults since then.
The police assaults were so severe and prolonged that textile workers voted to suspend their strike because they feared for their safety if they continued.
The drivers and conductors’ strike became confused, according to a report in the Times. Although it is said to have started as solidarity action with the textile workers, it soon became a dispute about recently enacted transport laws.
The Times reported Manzini was in ‘chaos’ as the drivers and conductors took over the city centre and some of them looted shops.
Police attacked the strikers firing shots. Two men who were out shopping and had nothing to do with the dispute were shot by police. One, a 28-year-old man who was out buying cigarettes, was shot in the back. A 19-year-old man was shot in the leg, according to the Times.
In separate incidents, a man standing near a hotel was shot in the buttocks. A bus conductor was shot in the leg as he was running away, trying to escape teargas.
Sonnyboy Masende Zwane, a senator in the Swaziland House of Parliament, witnessed some of the violence. Later, according to the Times, he told the Senate,
‘What I saw there was shocking. Police were shooting at people and also assaulting them.
‘The unfortunate part is that even innocent bystanders were not spared. For instance, even shopkeepers found themselves being beaten such that some shopkeepers decided to close their businesses.’
Police violence is a way of life in Swaziland. In another part of the kingdom, the Times reported that police fired shots and used water canon against students of the University of Swaziland (UNISWA) who were protesting at their campus in Luyengo against plans to change their academic programmes.
See also
SWAZI POLICE SHOOT IN THE BACK
SWAZI POLICE ATTACK PREGNANT WOMAN
SWAZI POLICE RAMPAGE AGAIN
And a pregnant woman is reported to have died after being shot by police during legal protests by striking textile workers.
These are two of the confused reports coming out of Swaziland after another day of police brutality.
Newspapers report today (Tuesday 18 March 2008) that police shot at least six people as the centre of Manzini - Swaziland’s second city - was brought to a standstill. This was during a strike by kombi and bus drivers and conductors.
The Swazi Observer says there are ‘unconfirmed reports’ that a baby ‘had been killed after inhaling teargas’. The Observer says it has not been able to verify the report.
The Times of Swaziland reports that a pregnant textile worker who was allegedly shot and injured by police last Monday (10 March 2008) died of her injuries this past weekend. It is not confirmed if her death was a direct result of the shooting and the textile workers’ trade union has started an inquiry into the matter.
The Times calculates that police have shot 11 people over four days; this includes five textile workers who were shot during disturbances last Friday (14 March 2008).
The latest round of violence occurred when drivers and conductors stopped work in support of textile workers who started a strike two weeks ago on 3 March 2008 and have been victims of vicious police assaults since then.
The police assaults were so severe and prolonged that textile workers voted to suspend their strike because they feared for their safety if they continued.
The drivers and conductors’ strike became confused, according to a report in the Times. Although it is said to have started as solidarity action with the textile workers, it soon became a dispute about recently enacted transport laws.
The Times reported Manzini was in ‘chaos’ as the drivers and conductors took over the city centre and some of them looted shops.
Police attacked the strikers firing shots. Two men who were out shopping and had nothing to do with the dispute were shot by police. One, a 28-year-old man who was out buying cigarettes, was shot in the back. A 19-year-old man was shot in the leg, according to the Times.
In separate incidents, a man standing near a hotel was shot in the buttocks. A bus conductor was shot in the leg as he was running away, trying to escape teargas.
Sonnyboy Masende Zwane, a senator in the Swaziland House of Parliament, witnessed some of the violence. Later, according to the Times, he told the Senate,
‘What I saw there was shocking. Police were shooting at people and also assaulting them.
‘The unfortunate part is that even innocent bystanders were not spared. For instance, even shopkeepers found themselves being beaten such that some shopkeepers decided to close their businesses.’
Police violence is a way of life in Swaziland. In another part of the kingdom, the Times reported that police fired shots and used water canon against students of the University of Swaziland (UNISWA) who were protesting at their campus in Luyengo against plans to change their academic programmes.
See also
SWAZI POLICE SHOOT IN THE BACK
SWAZI POLICE ATTACK PREGNANT WOMAN
SWAZI POLICE RAMPAGE AGAIN
CENSORSHIP SWAZILAND STYLE
Swazi newspapers are getting praise for the open way they have been reporting the textile strike in Swaziland. Even though there are claims they are under pressure from police not to report the dispute.
But government-controlled SBIS radio has been accused of censoring news about the dispute, which has seen many cases of brutality by armed police against mostly women workers.
I have written before about the way that the newspapers have given vivid detail of the attacks. Even the Swazi Observer, which is in effect owned by the Swazi Royal Family and is a firm supporter of the status quo in the non-democratic kingdom of Swaziland, has given extensive coverage to the violence.
Now the Confederation of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) has added its praise. In a media statement released yesterday (17 March 2008) COSATU says,
‘The fact that the pro-government media is reporting all this is a positive development as they have been under pressure from the police to report nothing about the strike.
‘The Swaziland Manufacturing and Allied Workers Union President Alex Fakudze has told COSATU that the state-controlled broadcaster, the Swazi Broadcasting and Information Services, phoned him to say that they could not broadcast a statement he had given them because police had instructed them not to report anything about the strike.
‘The fact that some of the print media have defied similar threats is significant,’ COSATU says.
Getting information about what is going on in Swaziland can be very difficult. The broadcast media in the kingdom is mostly state controlled and therefore is under pressure to censor news that puts the government and its supporters in a bad light. The only ‘independent’ TV station Channel Swazi (Channel S) is owned by a loyal supporter of King Mwsati III and tends to follow an ultra conservative line in its news broadcasts.
Apart from one Christian radio station Voice of the Church that is not really interested in local news, all radio in Swaziland is state controlled.
That only leaves the two newspaper groups, one of which is effectively owned by the Swazi Royal Family, and one that is commercially (but not really politically) independent of government.
There is very little interest from the foreign media about what goes on in Swaziland so the only way we can find out what is going on is through the censored media.
This can cause problems because in any society where there is not a free flow of information, rumours spread like wildfire.
There was a good example of this in action yesterday (17 March 2008) on the Internet. A report has been circulating across the world (I picked up my copy from an email in Canada) saying that one person has died of injuries sustained in a police attack on textile workers and another is not expected to live. The report also talks of police gunfire being heard and ‘unconfirmed reports are of another two deaths including a child from teargas’.
As I write this, it is impossible to say whether this report is true or not. But one thing is sure - if we had a free and independent media in Swaziland we wouldn’t need to go to Canada to find out.
See also
SWAZI POLICE SHOOT IN THE BACK
SWAZI POLICE ATTACK PREGNANT WOMAN
SWAZI POLICE RAMPAGE AGAIN
But government-controlled SBIS radio has been accused of censoring news about the dispute, which has seen many cases of brutality by armed police against mostly women workers.
I have written before about the way that the newspapers have given vivid detail of the attacks. Even the Swazi Observer, which is in effect owned by the Swazi Royal Family and is a firm supporter of the status quo in the non-democratic kingdom of Swaziland, has given extensive coverage to the violence.
Now the Confederation of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) has added its praise. In a media statement released yesterday (17 March 2008) COSATU says,
‘The fact that the pro-government media is reporting all this is a positive development as they have been under pressure from the police to report nothing about the strike.
‘The Swaziland Manufacturing and Allied Workers Union President Alex Fakudze has told COSATU that the state-controlled broadcaster, the Swazi Broadcasting and Information Services, phoned him to say that they could not broadcast a statement he had given them because police had instructed them not to report anything about the strike.
‘The fact that some of the print media have defied similar threats is significant,’ COSATU says.
Getting information about what is going on in Swaziland can be very difficult. The broadcast media in the kingdom is mostly state controlled and therefore is under pressure to censor news that puts the government and its supporters in a bad light. The only ‘independent’ TV station Channel Swazi (Channel S) is owned by a loyal supporter of King Mwsati III and tends to follow an ultra conservative line in its news broadcasts.
Apart from one Christian radio station Voice of the Church that is not really interested in local news, all radio in Swaziland is state controlled.
That only leaves the two newspaper groups, one of which is effectively owned by the Swazi Royal Family, and one that is commercially (but not really politically) independent of government.
There is very little interest from the foreign media about what goes on in Swaziland so the only way we can find out what is going on is through the censored media.
This can cause problems because in any society where there is not a free flow of information, rumours spread like wildfire.
There was a good example of this in action yesterday (17 March 2008) on the Internet. A report has been circulating across the world (I picked up my copy from an email in Canada) saying that one person has died of injuries sustained in a police attack on textile workers and another is not expected to live. The report also talks of police gunfire being heard and ‘unconfirmed reports are of another two deaths including a child from teargas’.
As I write this, it is impossible to say whether this report is true or not. But one thing is sure - if we had a free and independent media in Swaziland we wouldn’t need to go to Canada to find out.
See also
SWAZI POLICE SHOOT IN THE BACK
SWAZI POLICE ATTACK PREGNANT WOMAN
SWAZI POLICE RAMPAGE AGAIN
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)