Over the past week the Swazi police, acting on search warrants from the courts, have raided the homes of members of the Peoples’ United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO), its youth wing, SWAYOCO, the Swaziland Coalition of Concerned Civic Organisations (SCCCO),the Swaziland Democracy Campaign (SDC), the Swaziland Federation of Trade Unions (SFTU), Swaziland Ex-Mineworkers Association (SEMA), the Foundation for Socio-Economic Justice (FSEJ), and the Swaziland National Union of Students (SNUS).
They were looking for bombs or bomb-making equipment. So far police have found none.
So it seems to follow that PUDEMO, SWAYOCO and all the others are not the bombers. If that’s the case shouldn’t Dlamini also accept that they aren’t terrorists either?
Of course he won’t accept this. It suits Dlamini, an internationally-recognised enemy of freedom and democracy, to lie to the Swazi people and the international community about the terrorist threat.
This allows him to raid the homes and offices of pro-democracy campaigners in Swaziland on the pretext that they are enemies of the people. They are not. They are, however, enemies of the undemocratic political regime in Swaziland headed by King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch, and Dlamini, the man the king appointed to do his dirty work.
There is no threat of terrorism in Swaziland, but there is a threat from Dlamini and his henchmen who will stop at nothing to retain power for themselves, even if this means taking away every last human right from the people of Swaziland.
This week Freedom House reportedon the lack of political and human rights in Swaziland. It said the Swazi Government has restricted freedoms of assembly and association, and permission to hold political gatherings has often been denied. Prodemocracy protesters are routinely dispersed and arrested by police.
‘The Suppression of Terrorism Act (STA) grants the government sweeping powers to declare an organization a “terrorist group,” and it has already been widely abused by authorities, according to Amnesty International. Police harassment and surveillance of civil society organizations has increased,’ it said.
Barnabas Dlamini can huff and puff all he likes about the terrorist threat, but anyone who takes just a moment to reflect on what is really going on in Swaziland can see who the real threat to democracy is.
Dlamini, an internally-recognised enemy of freedom and human rights, says those protesting for democracy in Swaziland, ruled by King Mswati III,sub-Sahara’s last absolute monarch, want to govern the kingdom. And this cannot be allowed to happen.
These people, he said, were nothing but terrorists, hell-bent on destabilising Swaziland.
He told a meeting of editors,‘We suspect they want to govern this country. If there are policies that they want to be changed then that would have been heard. Issues should not be addressed through bombings and a country cannot be changed by a minority.’
He went on to say that Swazis knew how they wanted to be governed and that their wishes would always be respected.
Nonsense and lies.
There is no democracy in Swaziland and Dlamini himself is unelected. He was put in his position by the king to do his dirty work.
By a coincidence of timing just as Dlamini was telling the same old lies, Freedom House issued its Freedom in the World 2010 report.
Here’s some of what it said about Swaziland.
‘Swaziland is not an electoral democracy. King Mswati III is an absolute monarch with ultimate authority over the cabinet, legislature, and judiciary. Of the House of Assembly's 65 members, 55 are elected by popular vote within the tinkhundla system, in which local chiefs vet all candidates. The king appoints the other 10 members. The king also appoints 20 members of the 30-seat Senate, with the remainder selected by the House of Assembly. Parliament members, all of whom serve five-year terms, are not allowed to initiate legislation. Traditional chiefs govern designated localities and typically report directly to the king.
‘Political parties are banned, but there are political associations, the two largest being PUDEMO and the Ngwane National Liberatory Congress (NNLC), although PUDEMO was declared a terrorist organization in 2008. It and other prodemocracy groups boycotted the November 2008 House of Assembly elections.’
It goes on, ‘The king can suspend constitutional rights to free expression at his discretion, and these rights are severely restricted in practice, especially with respect to speech on political issues or the royal family. Publishing criticism of the monarchy is banned, and self-censorship is widespread, as journalists are routinely subject to threats and attacks by the authorities. The attorney general and other officials have threatened journalists with arrest under the STA since its passage in 2008.’
Freedom House says, ‘The government has restricted freedoms of assembly and association, and permission to hold political gatherings has often been denied. Pro-democracy protesters are routinely dispersed and arrested by police.’
This is the just-released report from Freedom House on freedom in Swaziland it ranks the kingdom, ruled by King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch, as ‘not free’. It scores Swaziland seven on political rights (the lowest ranking).
Political Rights Score: 7 *
Civil Liberties Score: 5 *
Status: Not Free
Overview
The authorities in Swaziland continued to crack down on democracy advocates and curb critical media outlets in 2009, often by invoking the 2008 Suppression of Terrorism Act. However, in September a court acquitted and released Mario Masuku, leader of the People's United Democratic Movement, who had been arrested on terrorism and sedition charges in 2008.
Swaziland regained its independence from Britain in 1968, and an elected Parliament was added to the traditional monarchy. In 1973, King Sobhuza II repealed the 1968 constitution, ended the multiparty system in favor of a tinkhundla (local council) system, and declared himself an absolute monarch. After Sobhuza's death in 1982, a protracted power struggle ended with the coronation of King Mswati III in 1986.
A new constitution implemented in 2006 removed the king's ability to rule by decree, but it reaffirmed his absolute authority over the cabinet, Parliament, and the judiciary. It also maintained the tinkhundla system – in which local chiefs control elections for 55 of the 65 seats in the House of Assembly, the lower house of Parliament – and did not overturn the ban on political parties. The charter provided for limited freedoms of speech, assembly, and association, as well as limited rights for women, but the king could suspend those rights at his discretion.
Also in 2006, security forces arrested members of the prodemocracy People's United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO) following bomb attacks the previous year. Sixteen PUDEMO members, including Secretary General Bonginkosi Dlamini, were charged with treason, attempted murder, and malicious damage to government property. The suspects were later freed on bail.
During 2008 there were over 10 bomb attacks on government targets, although none killed any officials or civilians. In September, a bomb blast at a bridge near the king's palace in Lozitha killed one of the bombers, a member of PUDEMO. The government later banned PUDEMO, along with four other groups, under the newly enacted Suppression of Terrorism Act (STA). PUDEMO leader Mario Masuku was arrested on charges of terrorism and sedition, but a court acquitted him in September 2009, citing lack of evidence. Security forces later violently dispersed about 50 activists and journalists gathered outside the Matsapha correctional facility to await Masuku's release.
Swaziland has the world's highest rate of HIV infection; estimates range from 26 to 33.4 percent of the sexually active population. In 2009, only about 32,000 Swazis were receiving antiretroviral drug treatment, out of an estimated 62,000 who require it. Swaziland also has the highest rate of tuberculosis infection. That disease, aggravated by HIV/AIDS, remains the country's leading cause of death.
Political Rights and Civil Liberties
Swaziland is not an electoral democracy. King Mswati III is an absolute monarch with ultimate authority over the cabinet, legislature, and judiciary. Of the House of Assembly's 65 members, 55 are elected by popular vote within the tinkhundla system, in which local chiefs vet all candidates. The king appoints the other 10 members. The king also appoints 20 members of the 30-seat Senate, with the remainder selected by the House of Assembly. Parliament members, all of whom serve five-year terms, are not allowed to initiate legislation. Traditional chiefs govern designated localities and typically report directly to the king.
Political parties are banned, but there are political associations, the two largest being PUDEMO and the Ngwane National Liberatory Congress (NNLC), although PUDEMO was declared a terrorist organization in 2008. It and other prodemocracy groups boycotted the November 2008 House of Assembly elections.
Corruption is a major problem. The monarchy spends lavishly despite the largely impoverished population, and members of Parliament engage in fraud and graft. The government's Anti-Corruption Unit was not authorized to seize assets or enforce penalties on both bribe payers and bribe takers until 2006, nearly a decade after it was created. Swaziland was ranked 79 out of 180 countries surveyed in Transparency International's 2009 Corruption Perceptions Index.
The king can suspend constitutional rights to free expression at his discretion, and these rights are severely restricted in practice, especially with respect to speech on political issues or the royal family. Publishing criticism of the monarchy is banned, and self-censorship is widespread, as journalists are routinely subject to threats and attacks by the authorities. The attorney general and other officials have threatened journalists with arrest under the STA since its passage in 2008. Several defamation lawsuits were filed in 2009, though some were dismissed by the courts. South African media are available, and both the Swazi Observer and independent Times of Swaziland occasionally criticize the government. The country's only independent radio station broadcasts religious programming; four radio stations that received operating licenses in 2008 had them revoked in 2009. The government does not restrict access to the internet, but few Swazis can afford access.
Freedom of religion is respected in practice but not explicitly protected in the constitution. Academic freedom is limited by self-censorship. While Swazis criticize the government in private discussions, they are less free to criticize the monarchy itself.
The government has restricted freedoms of assembly and association, and permission to hold political gatherings has often been denied. Prodemocracy protesters are routinely dispersed and arrested by police. The STA grants the government sweeping powers to declare an organization a "terrorist group," and it has already been widely abused by authorities, according to Amnesty International. Police harassment and surveillance of civil society organizations has increased. In April 2009, a demonstration by church and labor groups calling for free education resulted in clashes between police and demonstrators.
Swaziland has active labor unions, and the Swaziland Federation of Trade Unions (SFTU), the largest labor organization, has led demands for democratization. However, government pressure – including the repeated arrest of SFTU leader Jan Sithole – has greatly limited union operations. Workers in all areas of the economy, including the public sector, can join unions, and 80 percent of the private workforce is unionized. Security forces violently dispersed large March 2008 strikes by public transport and textile workers in the country's worst labor unrest for decades. Some of the strikers vandalized Asian-owned shops; Swaziland's textile factories are owned by Taiwanese firms.
The dual judicial system includes courts based on Roman-Dutch law and traditional courts using customary law. The judiciary is independent in most civil cases, although the king has ultimate judicial powers, and the royal family and government often refuse to respect rulings with which they disagree. The Swazi High Court has made a number of notable antigovernment rulings in recent years, and this trend continued in 2009 with the acquittal of Mario Masuku.
According to the U.S. State Department, there were numerous incidents of police torture, beatings, and suspicious deaths in custody in 2009. Security forces generally operate with impunity. In the last four months of 2008, the army was deployed to man checkpoints throughout the country due to unrest, and new army camps were set up in parts of northern Swaziland that were believed to be sympathetic to PUDEMO. This military presence continued at a reduced level in 2009. Prisons are overcrowded, and inmates are subject to torture, beatings, rape, and a lack of sanitation. While the constitution prohibits torture, the ban is not enforceable in court. The spread of HIV/AIDS is a major problem in Swazi prisons.
The constitution grants women equal rights and legal status as adults. However, women's rights are still very restricted in practice. While both the legal code and customary law provide some protection against gender-based violence, it is common and often tolerated with impunity. In 2007, a survey found that one-third of Swazi women had been subjected to sexual violence and two-thirds had been beaten or abused.
*Countries are ranked on a scale of 1-7, with 1 representing the highest level of freedom and 7 representing the lowest level of freedom.
Freedom House, Freedom in the World 2010 - Swaziland, 24 June 2010, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4c23123821.html [accessed 25 June 2010]
The following is a statement from the Swaziland Solidarity Network concerning the announcement from Swaziland’s state radio that it will only broadcast announcements about forthcoming meetings if they have police approval.
The Swaziland National Association of Teachers (SNAT) recently fell victim to the Swazi government’s latest attack on press freedom. The Times of Swaziland newspaper reports that the state owned radio station, the Swaziland Broadcasting and Information Service (SBIS), recently refused to announce a statement issued by SNAT for a forth coming teachers’ meeting because it had not been approved by police.
Senior personnel at the radio station allege that they always required big organisations have their announcements to be accompanied by police approval, despite the fact that this requirement has never been enforced ever since the radio station was established. The reason given for this sudden twist in policy, according to the radio station’s management, is to ensure that it does not announce meetings that have not been approved by the police.
This requirement has never been formally communicated to the relevant organisations and smacks of government’s continued suppression of all entities linked in any way with pro-democracy movements in the country. Due to the fact that this new requirement does not formally exist on paper, it is unclear, for example whether it affects other “big organisations” such as churches and soccer clubs who do call mass meetings from time to time. As yet, however, none of these organisations have reported having been asked to provide proof that their meetings have been sanctioned by police before being announced.
The Swaziland Solidarity Network wishes to advise the Swazi government that unions must always be free to publicise their meetings without undue requirements needed. We call upon all unions and governments in the Southern African region to help the Swazi government understand that this type of thing is not done in a normal society.
