POLICE THREAT TO ANTI-CHIEF PROTEST

Swaziland’s Police National Commissioner Isaac Magagula has warned residents they will not be allowed to stage a protest march to one of King Mswati’s many palaces.

Residents of KoNtshingila in the Shiselweni region have a long-running grievance against the king and traditional authorities because they have not had a substantive chief in their area for 27 years.

Chief Gelane Zwane, who was Senate President until parliament was dissolved in September, has been acting chief for that time, according to local media.

Protests against Zwane have been ongoing for many weeks and police have attacked protesters with teargas and gunshots to stop them from venting their dissatisfaction.

Residents want Zwane to step down and a substantive chief appointed in her place.

Last month (September 2013), Zwane obtained a High Court order to stop residents ‘harassing’ her.

Eight of the residents have been charged with sedition for engaging in unlawful protests and demonstrations.

Residents of KoNtshingila met on Saturday (12 October 2013) and decided to march to Ludzidzini Royal Residence to stage a sit-in, should their grievances not be resolved.

At a media conference, Police Chief Magagula called the residents ‘a mob’ and said police would not allow the march to go ahead. He said ‘traditional protocols’ had not been followed.

In Swaziland, King Mswati III rules as sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch. He appoints chiefs to act on his behalf within their own chiefdoms. Residents often referred to as ‘subjects’ are expected to obey without question the instructions of the chiefs.

SWAZILAND BOTTOM FOR PARTICIPATION

Swaziland ranks 47 out of 52 African nations for ‘Participation & Human Rights’ in the Ibrahim Index of African Governance (IIAG) published on Monday (14 October 2013).

And, in the sub-category ‘Participation’ it ranks 50 out of 52.

On a scale of 100, ‘Participation’ in Swaziland, which is ruled by King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch, gets a score of 11.9. Meanwhile on ‘National Security’ it scores 90.

The 2013 IIAG provides full details of Swaziland’s performance across four categories of governance: Safety & Rule of Law, Participation & Human Rights, Sustainable Economic Opportunity and Human Development.

Despite improvements since 2000, Swaziland’s governance score remains below the continental average for Africa as well as the regional average for Southern Africa. Swaziland gets 50.8 out of a 100.

The IIAG provides a framework for stakeholders to assess the delivery of public goods and services, and policy outcomes, in every African nation.

Governance is defined by the Mo Ibrahim Foundation as ‘the provision of the political, social and economic public goods and services that a citizen has the right to expect from his or her state, and that a state has the responsibility to deliver to its citizens’.

See also

SWAZILAND IN GOVERNANCE DENIAL

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2007/10/swaziland-in-governance-denial.html

UNISWA TO TEACH KING'S VISION FROM GOD

The state-funded University of Swaziland (UNISWA), which has King Mswati III as its Chancellor, is to incorporate ‘Monarchical Democracy’ into its academic programmes.

The university’s Vice Chancellor Prof Cisco Magagula made this announcement at the UNISWA graduation ceremony.

‘Monarchical Democracy’ is the new name given by the king to the tinkhundla system of government in Swaziland. Under this system King Mswati rules as an absolute monarch, political parties are banned from taking part in elections, and people are not allowed to elect any members of the kingdom’s Senate House.

Under ‘Monarchical Democracy’, the king appoints the Prime Minister, the government and judges.

In September 2013, King Mswati announced that he had received a vision (widely assumed to have been from God) in which he was told to introduce the new ‘Monarchical Democracy’ system of governance into Swaziland. Media in Swaziland which are always subservient to the king reported the announcement as if it heralded a new vision in democracy. Only, later, when interviewed by the international news agency Reuters, did the king admit ‘Monarchical Democracy’ was only a new name for tinkhundla, coined to make it easier for non-Swazi people to understand.

The tinkhudla system is widely recognised outside Swaziland as a non-democratic system of government.

At the UNISWA graduation ceremony on Saturday (12 October 2013), Prof Magagula said, ‘The university would also like to thank His Majesty and Chancellor for defining the Tinkhundla System of governance [‘Monarchical Democracy’]. As an institution of higher learning mandated to teach, undertake research, and generate new knowledge, we will ensure that this defining of the Tinkhundla System of governance is incorporated into our academic programmes.’

Prof Magagula did not disclose how the university intended to change its academic programmes in order to incorporate ‘Monarchical Democracy’.

See also

KING’S NEW NAME FOR NON DEMOCRACY

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2013/09/kings-new-name-for-non-democracy.html

 

KING ADMITS NO CHANGE ON DEMOCRACY

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2013/09/king-admits-no-change-on-democracy.html

‘TIMES’ BLOWS COVER ON KING’S WEALTH

A Swazi newspaper has told its readers that King Mswati III’s net personal wealth is estimated at US$200 million (E2 billion), breaking protocol that the personal life of the monarch is never discussed.

The estimate first came from the Forbes magazine in 2007, repeated in 2009 and has been widely reported all over the world and used extensively by critics of the king who say he squanders money on himself while seven in ten of his 1.3 million subjects live in abject poverty on less than US$2 per day.

Now, the Times Sunday,an independent newspaper in the Swaziland where King Mswati rules as sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch, has reported an interview the king gave with the international news agency, Reuters.

The interview was published on 13 September 2013, but it is only now that the Times has reported on it.

In its report the Times Sunday says, ‘In 2009, Forbes magazine estimated his personal wealth at US$200 million (about E2 billion).

‘In response to this estimation, the king told Reuters that he had no idea where the figures came from.

‘“I was very surprised and wondered where I got all this amount of money,” said His Majesty the King.

‘“You just live according to what you can afford and according to your taste within the budget that has been allocated. It’s not in anyone’s interest to overspend.”’

The report from Reuters, published in the run-up to the national election in Swaziland in September, was largely critical of the king.

Reuters reported, but the Times Sunday did not repeat, ‘The king denied accusations of autocracy and was unapologetic about the lavish lifestyle enjoyed by him and his dozen or so wives, each of whom has a palace paid for by an administration that he himself appoints.’

It added, ‘On the streets of the capital, Swazis offer criticism of the king only in whispered tones, leaving the most strident voices to come from the relative safety of South Africa.

‘“This is a monarchy that says there is a constitution for the government and then says that we rule above it," Wandile Dludlu of the Swaziland United Democratic Front, a coalition of pro-democracy activists, told a seminar in Pretoria this week.

‘“We should not allow Mswati to play God over our lives.”’

Reuters also reported, ‘Despite his [the king’s] self-assurance, outside the concrete walls of Lozitha, guarded by soldiers and conveniently sitting next door to the Ministry of Defence, all is not well in the tiny sugar-producing kingdom of rocky hills and rolling plains.

‘Swaziland has the world's highest HIV/AIDS rate, with more than one in four adults infected, and the $4 billion economy is flat-lining, starved of investment and struggling to recover from a 2011 budget crunch that almost bankrupted the state.’

Reuters also quoted a report from the UK-based think tank Chatham House which said,‘Swaziland is on a non-sustainable trajectory, which the king and the government will ignore at their peril.’

Reuters reported, ‘The chief resident of Lozitha [the king] does not share the concerns.’

The publication by the Times Sunday of the Reuters’ report will bring back memories of 2007, when King Mswati threatened to close down the newspaper and its companion titles the Times of Swaziland and Swazi News after it reported a news agency report critical of the king.

Then, the Times Sunday reported Afrol News, from Norway, which said, ‘Swaziland is increasingly paralysed by poor governance, corruption and the private spending of authoritarian King Mswati III and his large royal family. The growing social crisis in the country and the lessening interest of donors to support King Mswati’s regime has also created escalating needs for social services beyond the scale of national budgets.’

King Mswati called the Times publisher to Lozitha Palace and threatened to close down the newspapers unless the people responsible for the publication of the article were sacked and an abject apology was published. The Times did as it was told.

On the Thursday (22 March 2007) following publication an ‘unreserved apology’ to the king was published on the front page of the Times of Swaziland (repeated in the following week’s Times Sunday).

The apology signed by both the publisher and managing editor of the Times Group said the article, ‘was disparaging to the person of His Majesty in its content, greatly embarrassed him and should not have passed editorial scrutiny.’

It went on, ‘Our newspapers take great care with matters regarding the monarch, being conscious always of the unbreakable link of the King with the Nation. What occurred is reprehensible and we will renew our vigilance in editorial matters with the utmost vigour.’

To make absolutely certain that there was no doubt of the newspaper group’s subservience to the king, it finished the apology, ‘Once again your Majesty, our sincere and humble apologies.’

See also

CLOSURE THREAT AT ‘TIMES’

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2007/11/closure-threat-to-times.html

 

KING ADMITS NO CHANGE ON DEMOCRACY

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2013/09/king-admits-no-change-on-democracy.html

 

SWAZILAND KING KEEPS COINING IT IN

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/07/swaziland-king-keeps-coining-it-in.html

'KING TO REAPPOINT DLAMINI AS PM'

There is intense speculation in the newspapers in Swaziland that Barnabas Dlamini is to be reappointed Prime Minister by King Mswati III.

In Swaziland, the people are not allowed to choose who heads the government: that is the prerogative of King Mswati, who rules as sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch. Once the PM is in place, the king will then choose the rest of the government.

Political parties were not allowed to compete at the national election held on 20 September 2013. The Swazi people could only select candidates as individuals. In Swaziland the people only select 55 of the 65 members of the House of Assembly: King Mwsati appoints the other 10.

Last week he appointed Barnabas Dlamini to the House of Assembly, fuelling speculation in the newspapers that he would also be reappointed as Prime Minister in the coming days.

There are only two newspaper groups in Swaziland and both have accepted the appointment as inevitable, but with some reservations.

Alec Lushaba, editor of the Weekend Observer, a paper in effect owned by the king, wrote, ‘So the question is whether the country needs Dlamini as prime minister or not. The answer to that question is that we probably do not have a choice, even if we didn’t but he still meets all the qualities the appointing authority [King Mswati] expects from someone holding such an office.’

He added, ‘His [Dlamini] heavy handedness approach to dealing with dissent only helps to portray the country and the King as being averse to political change or dialogue, yet not finding a lasting political solution to the groups he has proscribed remains a scar to the country’s international standing.’

Phephisa Khoza, editor of the independent Swazi News, speculating on likely candidates for PM, wrote, ‘Truth be told as painful as it may be is that only one of them stands head and shoulders above all. And that is the former [outgoing] Prime Minister Sibusiso Barnabas Dlamini.’

Khoza added, ‘I have always said the PM is like a master chess player, which makes him very dangerous. His moves are always calculated and I must say there is no better candidate I see replacing him anytime soon. This is to say YES I agree with those who say he is the right man for the job. I know teachers and the majority of civil servants will disagree with me.’

History suggests that King Mswati will reappoint Dlamini as PM. In October 2012 the king refused to accept a vote of no confidence passed by the House of Assembly on Dlamini and the government, even though he was obliged by the constitution to do so.

See also

KING APPOINTS HIS FAMILY TO PARLIAMENT

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2013/10/king-appoints-his-family-to-parliament.html

SUBJECTS DEFY CHIEF’S MEETING BAN

A chief in Swaziland has gone to the High Court to stop his subjects holding a public meeting without his permission.

In Swaziland chiefs are directly appointed by King Mswati III to their local chiefdoms and they represent his power. King Mswati meanwhile rules as sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch.

Chief Zululelihle Maseko, of the KaLuhleko area, wants the Swazi High Court to stop six of his subjects from calling community meetings without his consent.

In papers to the court, Maseko states the meetings are unlawful and undermine his authority.

Maseko makes it clear in his papers that he was appointed by the king and if his subjects do not like this they should take it up with the king.

See also

BULLYING CHIEFS RULE IN SWAZILAND

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2013/06/bullying-chiefs-rule-in-swaziland.html

‘CORRUPTION’ AT KING’S AIRPORT

Accusations of corruption surrounding the Sikhuphe International Airport project in Swaziland have surfaced after state documents relating to contracts disappeared.  

Sikhuphe is the airport, dubbed by critics a vanity project for King Mswati III, which was due to open in June 2010, but has still not.

The Times of Swaziland, the only independent daily newspaper in Swaziland, where King Mswati rules as sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch, reported that documents relating to contracts at the airport disappeared from the office of the Legal Advisor to the Ministry of Economic Planning and Development. 

The Times called the documents ‘sensitive’ and the disappearance ‘corruption’.

It said, ‘It doesn’t take a particularly brilliant mind to figure out that an audit must be coming down soon and the documents were spirited away. That is the only explanation for confidential state documents being removed from an office without lawful authority, which is what the custodian of those documents, Phesheya Dlamini, claims. 

‘This is a red flag that there is rot within the Sikhuphe project that requires an immediate investigation from the Anti-Corruption Commission. Billions have gone into this airport and it is still non-operational. What more proof do we need that events have gone very wrong there?’ 

The newspaper did not give the background to the Sikhuphe project, because it involves King Mswati and in Swaziland the media never criticise him. The king has been the leading force behind the airport which is being built in a wilderness in eastern Swaziland, about 80km from the kingdom’s capital, Mbabane

The Sikhuphe project started in 2003 and is part of the king’s attempt to show that his impoverished kingdom is close to attaining what he calls ‘first world status’. No needs analysis on the airport was ever undertaken and in the decade since no airline outside of Swaziland has signed contracts to use it when it eventually opens. Only Swazi Airlink, which is run in partnership with the government, has said it will use Sikhuphe.

In 2003, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) said building the airport was a waste of resources that could be better used on pro-poor development projects. About seven in ten of the king’s 1.3 million subjects live in abject poverty, earning less than US$2 per day.

Meanwhile, the king has a lavish lifestyle, including a personal fortune, once estimated by Forbes magazine to be US$200 million, 13 palaces, a private jet and fleets of top-of-the range Mercedes and BMW cars.

It is impossible to get an accurate estimate on how much the airport has cost so far. In June 2013 the South African Mail and Guardian newspaper put the bill at E2.6 billion (US$26 million), which the newspaper estimated was 20 percent of Swaziland’s annual national budget.

In 2010, the Swazi Observer, a newspaper in effect owned by the king, estimated the cost at US$1 billion (E10 billion), but gave no breakdown of how that figure was arrived at.

The Sikhuphe project has been the subject of much misinformation from the king, the government he hand picks, and civil aviation officials in Swaziland.

They regularly announce new deadlines for completion and opening of the airport, but these dates come and go and Sikhuphe remains unfinished. No explanations for the missed deadlines are usually given. When they are they often relate to claims that ‘bad weather’ hampered construction work.

The Swaziland Civil Aviation Authority (SWACAA) has projected 300,000 passengers will use the airport each year, raising E7 million (US$700,000) per year in service charges. Although SWACAA did not say so, this equates to only 822 passengers on average per day. Swaziland at present has an airport at Matsapha, close to the main cities of Mbabane and Manzini, but it only manages to attract about 70,000 passengers a year.

Critics of Sikhuphe have argued for years that there is no potential for the airport. Major airports already exist less than an hour’s flying time away in South Africa with connecting routes to Swaziland and there is no reason to suspect passengers would want to use the airport at Sikhuphe as an alternative.

The Times is not the only newspaper to allege corruption at Sikhuphe. In June 2013, the Mail and Guardian reported on two confidential technical reports by engineer Derrick Dlamini alleging that there were major structural defects in the airport’s concrete apron and ‘that it is unfit for use by large commercial aircraft’.

The newspaper also said that there might be ‘widespread fraud and other irregularities’ at the airport, but did not give details.

See also

DOUBTS OVER PROSPECTS FOR AIRPORT

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2012/06/doubts-over-prospects-for-airport.html
 

PROOF: KING’S AIRPORT POINTLESS

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2011/02/proof-kings-airport-pointless.html

KING APPOINTS HIS FAMILY TO PARLIAMENT

Swaziland’s ‘Monarchical Democracy’ is in full swing following last month’s election and King Mswati III is busy appointing members of his family and clan into positions in parliament. This week he appointed two princes, a princess and three members of his own Dlamini clan to the House of Assembly.

At the national election on 20 September the king’s subjects were only permitted to select 55 of the 65 members of the House of assembly. Political parties were banned from taking part and candidates had to stand as individuals.

Now, nearly three weeks after the election the full results of the vote have still not been published, despite promises from the Elections and Boundaries Commission (EBC) that they would be released last week.

Prodemocracy campaigners have said that only about 100,000 of the 600,000 people entitled to vote actually did so. This followed a campaign to boycott the election.

After the election is over King Mswati, who rules Swaziland as sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch, appoints 10 members of the House of Assembly and 20 members of the 30-strong Senate House. The other 10 senate members are elected by the House of Assembly. No senators are elected by the people.

The king also appoints a Prime Minister. Speculation in the newspapers in Swaziland, which all support the king’s autonomous rule, is that the present PM Barnabas Dlamini will be reappointed.

Whatever the outcome, it is certain that the next PM will be a Dlamini: all of Swaziland’s past PMs since independence from Britain in 1968 have been from the king’s clan.

The Swazi Observer, a newspaper in effect owned by King Mswati, reported that ‘by law, a prime minister is appointed among Dlamini members of the House of Assembly’. 

 

But, no such law exists. The constitution of Swaziland, which is often ignored by the king, simply states that the PM should be chosen from among the members of the House of Assembly.

Weeks before the election King Mswati reported that he had received a vision during a thunderstorm that told him that Swaziland should be known as a ‘Monarchical Democracy’ where the people would work with the king to govern the kingdom.

Later, the king confirmed to the Reuters news agency, that ‘Monarchical Democracy’ was nothing more than a modern name for the tinkhundla system of governance that already existed in Swaziland. 

SWAZILAND GOVT’S INVESTMENT ‘FANTASY’

The announcement that an international convention centre and a five star hotel worth over E1 billion (US$100 million) will be constructed in Ezulwini in Swaziland, financed by the government, should not be believed.

Instead, it should be placed on the pile of broken promises made over the past few years about inward investment in Swaziland. Billions of dollars were promised in investment from all over the world, for projects that did not materialise.

The latest plan, reported in Swazi media as if the buildings were already up, is said to be from the Government of Swaziland, ‘spearheaded by the Millennium Projects Management Unit within the Ministry of Economic Planning and Development’.

The Times of Swaziland newspaper reported, ‘According to the Senior Engineer of the unit Wilcan Mdluli, government will fund the project.  Mdluli said construction of the six storey building was envisaged to start mid next year and was expected to take about three years to complete.’

The Swazi Observer reported, ‘The scope of the project include a facility of international standards with a Swazi theme, a facility to handle up to 4,500 delegates at a time, trade centre for high value exhibition, a secure chamber room to take 53 heads of state, 3,500 seat banqueting hall, restaurants, 1,500 seat theatre, and special holding rooms.’

The announcement tested the critical faculties of local journalists and they have been found wanting. Observers of the kingdom will know that numerous grandiose plans have been announced in recent years and have come to nothing.

In April 2009, King Mswati III announced the building of a multi-billion emalangeni Swazi City, financed by international money and comprising a 25,000 sq m shopping, entertainment and ‘wellness’ centre ‘to rival the world’. There would be a Science and Technology Park, a hi-technology industrial Site and an expansion of the Matsapha Industrial Site. It would be completed by 2012, creating 15,000 new jobs. It did not happen.

In October 2009 we were promised an E1.5bn ‘facelift’ for the Swazi capital city Mbabane. That money would buy a civic centre and a shopping mall, described at the time as a ‘fully fledged state of the art 21st Century Civic Centre befitting a country’s capital city’. Work was expected to start in June 2010 and take three years to build. It did not happen.

In November 2009, King Mswati announced a plan partly financed from in the oil state of Qatar to build an E35bn (US$4.8bn at the then exchange rate) ‘world class facility’ that would store at least a three-month supply of fuel for Swaziland. It did not happen.

In November 2012 the king returned from a trip to the UnitedArab Emirates (UAE) and Taiwan, claiming that he had secured Taiwanese investment to build a pharmaceutical plant, a food processing plant, a bottled water plant, a cosmetics plant and a granite and marble venture – which, according to a report in the Times of Swaziland newspaper, were expected to create more than 3,000 jobs. It has not happened.

In October 2010, the Swazi Government announced its ‘fiscal adjustment roadmap’ to save the kingdom’s economy. This would include attracting investment to create, ‘between 25,000 and 30,000 new jobs created in the private sector’. These jobs have not materialised.

These are just some of the plans announced that border on fantasy. The truth is that Swaziland is a poor country that has no need of luxury hotels capable of hosting 53 heads of state at a time. Seven in 10 of the Swaziland population of 1.3 million are so poor they earn less than US$2 a day. No foreign investors are going to want to be involved in such schemes.

The Swaziland Government has no money to build conference centres and hotels, such as the one announced for Ezulwini.

A report published by the UK think-tank Chatham House in September 2013 stated that Swaziland’s gross domestic product is only 1 percent of that of its neighbour South Africa and was a relatively poor country compared to other countries in the region and in recent years it has failed to reach the same levels of economic growth as its neighbours.

‘The Swazi economy is on an unsustainable trajectory,’ the report concluded.

See also

FANTASY WATCH

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/search/label/Fantasy%20Watch

SWAZI PRINCESS TALKS WITH ‘TERRORISTS’

Swazi Princess debates with ‘terrorists’ on Twitter

SOURCE Afrika Kontakt, 2 October 2013 

In an unprecedented move, Princess Sikhanyiso (a.k.a. Pashu) of Swaziland debated for several hours with banned political movement the People’s United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO) via her Twitter account on Sunday, even though her father, Swaziland’s absolute monarch King Mswati III, has branded PUDEMO as “terrorists” and refuses to negotiate with them, writes Afrika Kontakt.

The debate started with the Princess amiably asking several questions about PUDEMO, such as “who is your President,” “can you give me an example of a country that you wish Swaziland to operate similarly to,” “what is your plan to eradicate poverty,” and “what is your ultimate goal?”

Later in the conversation, Princess Sikhanyiso had some suggestions of her own in regard to Swaziland’s problems. “Countries suffer from poverty but they don’t act poor for tv to draw false sympathy from oblivious foreigners,” she said, seemingly believing that her father was not responsible for the extreme poverty in a country where two thirds survive on less than a dollar a day in concluding that “unemployment will be solved by God.”

On the possibilities of PUDEMO interacting with her father, Princess Sikhanyiso advised PUDEMO to “ask [the governor of the King’s Royal Ludzidzini palace, Timothy] Mtsetfwa to apologize on your behalf & seek HM’s audience. You’ll be surprised,” although she seemingly insisted that political parties such as PUDEMO had no role to play in Swaziland as she claimed that “a house divided against itself cannot stand. Let the common goal be the peace and prosperity of Swaziland not organizations.”

So if members of Swaziland’s largest political party PUDEMO are really such dangerous “terrorists,” then what was the king’s eldest daughter doing discussing with PUDEMO on Twitter for several hours? 

The fact of the matter is that PUDEMO are not terrorists.  PUDEMO advocates a peaceful transition from the present absolute monarchy, via a negotiation process that includes a national convention and a transitional period of interim authority towards democracy, like the process in South Africa in the early nineties. 

 

As PUDEMO Secretary General, Skhumbuzo Phakathi, said in a statement on Monday, “we have repeatedly affirmed our commitment to peaceful resistance and dialogue … our struggle is not against the royal family or the king, but about the capture of the state and the dispensing of benefits to the majority of the people … Our debate with Princess Sikhanyiso was an opportunity for political education not just of her but to all those who followed the discussion.”

But being branded a “terrorist” in Swaziland is surprisingly easy. Swaziland’s infamous Suppression of Terrorism Bill from 2008 defines terrorism very broadly, for instance as an act that “involves prejudice to national security or public safety.” Anybody who “solicits support for, or gives support to, any terrorist group” or even meets with them can be punished with up to 15 years in prison.

According to Amnesty International, “the failure to restrict the definition of ‘terrorist act’ in the Suppression of Terrorism Act to the threatened or actual use of violence against civilians [as defined by the UN Special Rapporteur on the Protection of Human Rights] undermines the Suppression of Terrorism Act in its entirety.” 

Amnesty International has therefore asked Swaziland to repeal or immediately amend the Terrorism Bill, “because it is an inherently flawed piece of legislation which is inconsistent with Swaziland’s obligations under international law and regional human rights law as well as of the Swaziland Constitution.”

A high-profile example of the inexplicable nature of Swaziland’s Terrorism Act was when PUDEMO President Mario Masuku was charged with terrorism in 2008 for a statement about a bridge bombing. After having been imprisoned for 340 days, his case was laughed out of court in a matter of hours. Even the courts in Swaziland could not bring themselves to send him to prison for a mere statement. 

Some might see the Princess’s debate on Twitter, together with Swaziland’s government’s promise to the ILO that they would amend the Suppression of terrorism Act, as a sign of an increased willingness to discuss with PUDEMO, however.

But if this is the case, then why was her Twitter profile closed Monday? And why has the Swazi regime increased spending on security equipment and supplies fiftyfold since last year even though Swaziland has no external enemies?

POLICE CHIEF 'SORRY' FOR GUN THREAT

The Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) and the Swaziland Editors’ Forum (SFE) jointly met with Swazi national police commissioner Isaac Magagula to make a formal complaint after a policeman pointed a gun at a newspaper photographer and demanded he delete pictures of police beating up unarmed protesters.

According to MISA, Magagula ‘unreservedly’ apologised to the ‘whole journalism fraternity’ in the kingdom.

The complaint came after Walter Dlamini, a Times of Swaziland photojournalist, had a police gun pointed at him in the southern Swazi town of Gege, where he was covering a protest about the result of last month’s national election.

Dlamini and his colleague Mduduzi Magagula refused and the policeman pulled his gun away from Dlamini. Later photographs appeared in the Times of the incident. One was captioned, ‘A plain clothes police officer taking out a revolver and charges at the photographer while his colleagues beat up a man.’

MISA said in a statement, ‘Dlamini told MISA-Swaziland the protestors were not armed. He said they were peacefully trying to deliver a petition to their local leader when the police gave them 10 seconds to leave or else they would fire tear gas. The protesters didn’t leave after the ten-second window and the tear gas came, as well as beatings.’

Dlamini told MISA, ‘It wasn’t necessary for the police to beat the protestors. I saw nothing wrong with the protestors.’

Phakama Shili, advocacy officer at MISA-Swaziland, said the ‘inhumane’ squashing of protest and threats against the media ‘should be condemned in the strongest possible terms’.

‘Journalism is becoming a dangerous profession in a country that projects itself as peaceful to the outside world,’ said Shili.

‘If there’s no action taken, journalists may end up being killed. The situation requires urgent attention.’

MISA in its statement reported Police Commissioner Magagula saying, ‘It would also help if the journalists carry their press cards or wear vests written “press” for identification purposes when covering riots.’

MISA did not report if any disciplinary action would be taken against the policeman.

See also

POLICE POINT GUN AT JOURNALIST

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2013/09/police-point-gun-at-journalist.html

LATEST DIGEST ON FREEDOM IN SWAZILAND

The Swazi people went to the polls last month to select 55 members of the House of Assembly, but more than a week after the vote the kingdom’s Elections and Boundaries Commission has failed to publish the full results, or the final voter turnout. This has added further controversy in an already discredited political system. A campaign to boycott the election because political parties are banned from taking part and the parliament that is elected has no power because King Mswati III rules as sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch may have been successful, but we are unable to tell because the results have been withheld.

Swazi Media Commentary reported and analysed the election and presents a digest of the happenings in September 2013 in the latest of its monthly compilations, Swaziland: Striving for Freedom: Vol 9 which is available on scribd dot com. Apart from the elections, September saw the annual Global Week of Action for Democracy in Swaziland. As usual, police and state security forces clamped down on any public discussion of the need for democracy in the kingdom. A panel of trade union experts, formed to discuss workers’ conditions in Swaziland, was forced to disband after police arrested and deported many of its participants, including the former South African cabinet minister Jay Naidoo.

While all this was happening King Mswati said he had a vision (it is assumed from ‘God’) who told him that the system of governance in Swaziland should henceforth be called a ‘monarchical democracy’. This caused great excitement among the media in Swaziland, which claimed a new dawn in democracy. It took the international news agency Reuters to get the king to admit that his new democracy was just a different name for that which already existed.

It was also announced that the 45-year-old king was to take an 18-year-old beauty pageant contestant as his new bride (believed to be wife number 14, but nobody is quite sure). International media pointed out the teenager had a ‘past’ and had previously ‘dated’ two of the king’s sons and dubbed her ‘naughty Sindi’. Media in Swaziland, which see the marriage as a fairy story, ignored this inconvenience.

Swazi Media Commentary has no physical base and is completely independent of any political faction and receives no income from any individual or organisation. People who contribute ideas or write for it do so as volunteers and receive no payment.

Swazi Media Commentary is published online – updated most days – bringing information, comment and analysis in support of democracy in the kingdom.

‘ONLY ONE IN SIX VOTED AT ELECTION’

The full election results and details of the total number of people who voted in the Swaziland election last month have still not been released.

Speculation is rife in the kingdom that the turnout of voters might have been fewer than 100,000 – of the 600,000 people entitled to vote. This was after prodemocracy groups campaigned for a boycott of the elections in protest at their undemocratic nature. 

The Communist Party of Swaziland in a statement said, ‘Only just over 100,000 people voted in the primary elections. There was less than that voting in the second round. This is about 500,000 fewer voters than the Mswati regime trumpeted as likely to pack the voting stations. This is much less than in the previous elections, suggesting that popular dissatisfaction with the regime is increasing.’

Earlier the Swaziland United Democratic Front, a prodemocracy group, reported the turnout at 80,000.  

The Elections and Boundaries Commission announced the names of the winners at each of the 55 constituencies promptly after voting took place on 20 September 2013, but only gave the number of votes cast for 45 of them. No figures were given for the losing candidates and the total number of voters taking part in the election has not been revealed.

Sabelo Dlamini, a spokesperson for the Electoral Boundaries Commission, which ran the election, told the Mail and Guardian newspaper in South Africa the number of actual votes cast was still being ‘tallied’. He denied to the newspaper that this was unusual or irregular and said, ‘This information is still being compiled and we will publish it as soon as we know.’  

However, this is clearly not true. If the number of votes a winner received in each constituency is known, then so too are the number of votes given to the losers. From here it is a simply step to add up the votes across all constituencies and announce the total turnout. In elections in democracies this is done immediately the vote is counted.

There is growing speculation about the size of the vote. The Weekend Observer, a newspaper in effect owned by King Mswati III, who rules Swaziland as an absolute monarch, reported ‘about 400,000’ people took part in the vote. If this were true the turnout would be about 97 percent, an unlikely figure, especially when at the last election in 2008, the turnout was54 percent. 

 

The election in Swaziland was controversial because the kingdom is not a democracy. All political parties were banned from taking part in the poll. Voters were only allowed to select 55 of the 65members of the House of Assembly, the other 10 are appointed by the king. None of the members of the 30-strong Senate House are elected by the people: the king appoints 20 members and the other 10 are elected by the House of Assembly.

The parliament has no real power as this rests with King Mswati.

See also

KING’S PAPER CLAIMS 97% TURNOUT

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2013/09/kings-paper-claims-97-turnout.html