Did you know that Swaziland is too ‘rich’ to receive development aid even though about 70 percent of the kingdom’s population live on less than one US dollar a day?
Did you know that the unemployment rate in Swaziland is 40 percent, and more than four out of ten Swazis depend on some form of food assistance to stay alive?
Did you also know that about 20 percent of the Swazi population controls more than 80 percent of the kingdom’s wealth?
If you answered yes to the questions above you’ve been reading the foreign press. If you haven’t a clue what I’m talking about, don’t worry you are no different from all the people in Swaziland who have to rely on Swazi journalists for their information.
I was prompted to ask the questions after reading both the Times of Swaziland and the Swazi Observer last Thursday (17 January 2007).
They both carried reports about the European Union Commissioner to Lesotho and Swaziland Peter Beck Christiansen who signed an agreement to hand over to Swaziland up to E630 million (about 100 million US dollars). He also gave a wide-ranging speech about the development needs in Swaziland, which included some comments about how the Swazi government was using money previously donated.
I don’t think the Swazi journalists quite understood what was being said, since the headlines they put on their reports contradict one another.
The Times had this headline EU WARNS GOVT ON SPENDING
The Observer had this headline EC BOSS PLEASED WITH GOVERNMENT
The Times reported that during his speech Christiansen said, ‘Social inequalities are increasingly leaving Swaziland with one of the most skewed income distributions.
‘I think it is a particular responsibility of the country to ensure that every citizen receives a fair share of the national wealth.’
Christiansen did not elaborate on this point of view and true to form the Swazi journalists didn’t think to ask him what he meant.
I’ve written before about the capacities of Swazi journalists and how they don’t ask questions.
There are a number of reasons for this. One is cultural: people in Swaziland are not encouraged to ask questions, especially of people in authority. The second is more practical: the journalists don’t have the capacity to understand and interpret what is being said to them and therefore they only reproduce in their newspapers the words of speeches and press handouts.
That is why it took an overseas news agency, the Inter Press Service (IPS) from Johannesburg, South Africa, (17 January 2008) to fill in the gaps for us.
IPS followed up on the Christiansen presentation and was able to reveal to its readers the facts that I used at the beginning of this post.
Its report went on.
‘The economy is performing poorly, especially in comparison with the other nations of the region,’ said Richard Ndwandwe, an investment advisor with an Mbabane bank, told IPS.
‘We have not achieved 3.0 percent economic growth in a decade, and the central bank says an annual growth rate of 3.6 percent is required just to keep up with population growth,’ Ndwandwe said, stressing that the, ‘net result has been a deterioration in the standard of living for almost all Swazis.’
‘It is the rich minority that is skewing the statistical picture, and making the country appear better off than it is for most people,’ explained Ndwandwe.
‘Social inequalities are increasingly leaving Swaziland with one of the world's most-skewered income distributions,’ noted Peter Beck Christiansen, the European Union’s (EU) ambassador to Swaziland.
Colonial-era landholders and business people who did not have their properties compromised when Swaziland gained its independence 40 years ago, government leaders, and a small - but well-off - clique of Swazi entrepreneurs have amassed wealth that has raised the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP).
Less than twenty percent of the population controls eighty percent of the nation's wealth, according to the World Bank. But, the World Bank - using GDP to classify the country's state of economic development - has placed Swaziland in the ‘low-middle income’ category of nations.
‘We are far from being a middle income country, but we are not considered a low income country, and this makes a world of difference when it comes to accessing development funding,’ said Ndwandwe.
‘It is not a fair rating,’ Abdoulaye Balde, the country director for the WFP, told IPS from his Mbabane office that coordinates the world’s response to Swaziland's food shortage crisis. ‘It does not take into consideration that way most people are living. We are always telling this to our donors,’ he stressed.
The director of another humanitarian relief NGO - which receives World Bank logistical assistance - said, ‘There is so much need in the world and so many peoples competing for limited resources that it is easy for an NGO to go by World Bank guidelines to decline assistance to a country like Swaziland. It’s not necessarily fair.’
Several times this past year, Prime Minister Themba Dlamini and Majozi Sithole, his finance minister, reminded the country that Swaziland does not qualify for low-interest loans or interest-free grants awarded to countries classified as ‘low income’ although a large majority of Swazis live in absolute poverty.
Denied developmental funds, the government's response has been to encourage economic growth by boosting the private sector, with the hope of increased tax revenue from businesses.
While foreign direct investment (FDI) is sought by globetrotting teams of government officials, ordinary Swazis are encouraged to become small entrepreneurs.
Christiansen signed a treaty with Swazi leadership for a 100 million US dollar aid package, Wednesday.
‘I think that it is a particular responsibility of the country to ensure that ever citizen received a fair share of the national wealth,’ Christiansen said.
However, not even the country’s small - and by law nonexistent - opposition groups who speak about countering the ruling monarchy’s grip on governance, have called for wealth redistribution.
‘The rich are not going away, and that's the only way to make Swaziland statistically a low income country,’ Anthony Simelane, an attorney based in the central commercial hub Manzini, told IPS.
‘There is not going to be wealth redistribution that would benefit the poor. The country is denied development funds to help the poor, so all government can hope to do is boost the economy and reap taxes,’ Simelane said.
The impediment to this plan is government corruption. Sithole has estimated that the amount of government money lost to various forms of corruption annually equals the country’s national debt.
Christiansen touched on corruption when he signed the EU's developmental agreement. ‘I have learned in my three years in Swaziland that no amount of funding or donor assistance can lead to development if the right conditions are not in place.
‘Deficiencies in the areas of governance have and will continue to seriously limit your development progress, with or without the HIV/AIDS threat,’ he told his Swazi hosts.
The EU's aid package is contingent upon the implementation of what Christensen called ‘an ambitious governance reform programme to enable Swaziland to reach at least the level of other Southern African countries’.
See also
SWAZI REPORTERS CAN’T EXPLAIN
Wednesday, 23 January 2008
Tuesday, 22 January 2008
SWAZI PRESS CHASES VIOLENT COPS
Swazi newspapers are refusing to let the police off the hook, following the heavy violence some officers engaged in last Thursday (17 January 2008) outside the University of Swaziland (UNISWA).
The Swazi Observer devoted an entire page under the headline UNISWA saga: When cops pounce on ‘innocent’ citizens yesterday (Monday 21 January 2008).
It told the story of Nkosinaye Dlamini, the Swaziland College of Technology (SCOT) student, an innocent by-stander, who was shot by police in his own home.
Witness, Nkosibone Vilakati, aged 20, told the Observer that Dlamini was passing by the gates of UNISWA on his way from SCOT to a house close to the UNISWA Kwaluseni Campus.
Vilakati told the Observer that he and Dlamini walked towards the university gates to see what was happening at UNISWA where students were protesting against examinations and semesterization at the university.
The Observer reports the pair ‘only saw students chanting and they returned into the house’.
They were followed by a group of police officers and one of them said that Dlamini had been making the life of the police difficult. Dlamini responded to them and then the police jumped over the fence of the house and Dlamini and Vilakati rushed into the house.
The Observer takes up the story.
He [Vilakati] says they rushed into the house but the officers forced themselves in, pulled Nkosinaye outside and poked him with batons. He claims that they ordered him to make a drill in the same way the UNISWA students did at the gates.
‘My sister and I came out to tell them once more that he is not from UNISWA. They seemed to understand this time around and left him. He returned to the house,’ claims Nkosibone.
As they left they fired a salvo of insults, he says, but before they left the compound, his sister asked them why they were insulting them.
‘She told them that they forced themselves in the family premises and went on to invade the privacy of the family house. They turned at once at high speed as though they had received an order. We rushed to close the door but they broke the glass door with the nozzle.
‘Nkosinaye joined us to push the door against them. At the door was my sister’s 14-month-old baby, Sibahle. They pushed so hard until I was left by myself against them. Sibahle was less than half a metre away when the shot was fired,’ says Nkosibone.
He says he thought it was a teargas canister and rushed to grab the baby outside. But lo, he threw himself at them and they went for him, he claims. He says others went inside to assault Nkosinaye. The others went for his sister Sibonelo.
‘They slapped me and pulled me with hair extensions trying to get me outside. I resisted and that made them even madder. They tried to disable me by hitting both my shoulders. I knew I was almost done and tried to plead for mercy.
‘Then they went for my buttocks instead. I collapsed and they left me. I never saw them leave. I can identify about three of them,’ says Sibonelo.
She says she then came to life after a brief passing out and entered the house to get ice to cook her face. It was then Nkosinaye told her that he was hit by a bullet.
The Observer’s account is not the first account in Swazi newspapers about police brutality at UNISWA. The Observer, the Times of Swaziland and the Times Sunday have all published accounts of police out of control.
What we have still to see in any of the Swaziland news media is a statement from the Royal Swazi Police Commissioner in response to the detailed accounts that victims of the out-of-control police have made.
It is also to be hoped that someone brings the guilty police officers to account.
See also
MORE ON SWAZI POLICE BRUTALITY
SWAZILAND POLICE ON RAMPAGE
The Swazi Observer devoted an entire page under the headline UNISWA saga: When cops pounce on ‘innocent’ citizens yesterday (Monday 21 January 2008).
It told the story of Nkosinaye Dlamini, the Swaziland College of Technology (SCOT) student, an innocent by-stander, who was shot by police in his own home.
Witness, Nkosibone Vilakati, aged 20, told the Observer that Dlamini was passing by the gates of UNISWA on his way from SCOT to a house close to the UNISWA Kwaluseni Campus.
Vilakati told the Observer that he and Dlamini walked towards the university gates to see what was happening at UNISWA where students were protesting against examinations and semesterization at the university.
The Observer reports the pair ‘only saw students chanting and they returned into the house’.
They were followed by a group of police officers and one of them said that Dlamini had been making the life of the police difficult. Dlamini responded to them and then the police jumped over the fence of the house and Dlamini and Vilakati rushed into the house.
The Observer takes up the story.
He [Vilakati] says they rushed into the house but the officers forced themselves in, pulled Nkosinaye outside and poked him with batons. He claims that they ordered him to make a drill in the same way the UNISWA students did at the gates.
‘My sister and I came out to tell them once more that he is not from UNISWA. They seemed to understand this time around and left him. He returned to the house,’ claims Nkosibone.
As they left they fired a salvo of insults, he says, but before they left the compound, his sister asked them why they were insulting them.
‘She told them that they forced themselves in the family premises and went on to invade the privacy of the family house. They turned at once at high speed as though they had received an order. We rushed to close the door but they broke the glass door with the nozzle.
‘Nkosinaye joined us to push the door against them. At the door was my sister’s 14-month-old baby, Sibahle. They pushed so hard until I was left by myself against them. Sibahle was less than half a metre away when the shot was fired,’ says Nkosibone.
He says he thought it was a teargas canister and rushed to grab the baby outside. But lo, he threw himself at them and they went for him, he claims. He says others went inside to assault Nkosinaye. The others went for his sister Sibonelo.
‘They slapped me and pulled me with hair extensions trying to get me outside. I resisted and that made them even madder. They tried to disable me by hitting both my shoulders. I knew I was almost done and tried to plead for mercy.
‘Then they went for my buttocks instead. I collapsed and they left me. I never saw them leave. I can identify about three of them,’ says Sibonelo.
She says she then came to life after a brief passing out and entered the house to get ice to cook her face. It was then Nkosinaye told her that he was hit by a bullet.
The Observer’s account is not the first account in Swazi newspapers about police brutality at UNISWA. The Observer, the Times of Swaziland and the Times Sunday have all published accounts of police out of control.
What we have still to see in any of the Swaziland news media is a statement from the Royal Swazi Police Commissioner in response to the detailed accounts that victims of the out-of-control police have made.
It is also to be hoped that someone brings the guilty police officers to account.
See also
MORE ON SWAZI POLICE BRUTALITY
SWAZILAND POLICE ON RAMPAGE
Monday, 21 January 2008
MORE ON SWAZI POLICE BRUTALITY
Newspapers in Swaziland are continuing to pursue the Swazi police after officers went on the rampage outside the kingdom’s university and shot an innocent by-stander.
I reported yesterday (Sunday 20 January 2008) that the Times of Swaziland and the Swazi Observer both reported how a man was shot in his own home. A 14-month-old baby was also nearly shot.
The Times Sunday yesterday (20 January 2008) reported another example of the police being out of control during a demonstration by University of Swaziland (UNISWA) students protesting about examinations and semesterization.
The Times Sunday reported on one student who was shot at by police, who told his story to a meeting of university of students. Here is the report as published in the Times Sunday.
Police slapped, kicked and spat on my face – student
One of the four students who were arrested at the riot at the University of Swaziland submitted at the meting that he was slapped, kicked and spat at by a policeman, whom he went on to reveal his force number.
He said this happened during his arrest. Emmanuel Ngubeni an LLB3 [third year law] student further told the gathering that the police tried to shoot him three times on the fateful day.
‘They swore at me and shouted that I must not dare run away because they were going to shoot me dead. I jumped over the wall fence and I could hear their noise as I was running. I jumped into a maize field and the bullet hit the maize cobs and I could hear that,’ the student said.
He went on and said that he became weary and stopped when two police officers wearing helmets and bullet proof clothing came and arrested him.
‘They came to me, kicked me and spat on my face. One of them slapped me, I looked at him, he asked why I was looking at him and slapped me again. It is at that moment that I took and crammed his force number,’ he related, much to the excitement of the students who then formed a big circle around him and danced.
Ngubeni assured his fellow students that his experience had not deterred him and would not so long as he was able to fight for his rights as a student.
See also
SWAZILAND POLICE ON RAMPAGE
I reported yesterday (Sunday 20 January 2008) that the Times of Swaziland and the Swazi Observer both reported how a man was shot in his own home. A 14-month-old baby was also nearly shot.
The Times Sunday yesterday (20 January 2008) reported another example of the police being out of control during a demonstration by University of Swaziland (UNISWA) students protesting about examinations and semesterization.
The Times Sunday reported on one student who was shot at by police, who told his story to a meeting of university of students. Here is the report as published in the Times Sunday.
Police slapped, kicked and spat on my face – student
One of the four students who were arrested at the riot at the University of Swaziland submitted at the meting that he was slapped, kicked and spat at by a policeman, whom he went on to reveal his force number.
He said this happened during his arrest. Emmanuel Ngubeni an LLB3 [third year law] student further told the gathering that the police tried to shoot him three times on the fateful day.
‘They swore at me and shouted that I must not dare run away because they were going to shoot me dead. I jumped over the wall fence and I could hear their noise as I was running. I jumped into a maize field and the bullet hit the maize cobs and I could hear that,’ the student said.
He went on and said that he became weary and stopped when two police officers wearing helmets and bullet proof clothing came and arrested him.
‘They came to me, kicked me and spat on my face. One of them slapped me, I looked at him, he asked why I was looking at him and slapped me again. It is at that moment that I took and crammed his force number,’ he related, much to the excitement of the students who then formed a big circle around him and danced.
Ngubeni assured his fellow students that his experience had not deterred him and would not so long as he was able to fight for his rights as a student.
See also
SWAZILAND POLICE ON RAMPAGE
SWAZI UNIVERSITY PR DISASTER
The continuing dispute between students and the University of Swaziland (UNISWA) over semesterization is turning into a public relations disaster for the university’s administration.
UNISWA has decided to suspend the examinations due to start today (Monday 21 January 2008). But the way the university announced the decision has failed to diffuse the situation and left students and the public confused.
Last Thursday police brutally attacked students at the gates of UNISWA’s Kwaluseni Campus and shot one defenceless by-stander in his own home
Following this violence from police (who were meant to protect the university community) and angry students the UNISWA Senate met on Saturday (19 January 2007) and decided to suspend the exams.
So far, so positive. It was clear to anyone who has been paying attention that the police of all people could not guarantee calm on the campus, so the move by the Senate was welcome.
What happened next was the public relations disaster.
I wrote on Friday (18 January 2008) about how UNISWA senior management communicates with its students, staff and the world at large, through paid-for advertisements / press statements. This means that the management doesn’t have to explain itself to journalists or anyone else.
True to form such an advert was sent off to the press. It appeared in the Times Sunday yesterday (20 January 2008). This is what it said in part. ‘… the examinations for undergraduate programmes scheduled to begin on Monday 21st January 2008 be deferred pending further advice from the Senate.’
When journalists approached students on Saturday who were holding a meeting at a venue away from the university (UNISWA has banned students from meeting on campus) about the contents of the statement the students were understandably confused about what it meant. The Times Sunday reported students asking for clarification ‘because they did not understand it.’
The confusion was about what happens next. If the examinations are suspended does that mean that semesterization is also cancelled? When would exams be held? This statement talked about undergraduate programmes, what would happen to the postgraduates?
Many students interviewed saw the statement as a trick to divide them, rather than as a way forward towards a solution to the dispute.
A badly written statement was the first part of the PR blunder. The second came when the UNISWA Registrar contacted by the Times Sunday for clarification ‘confirmed the suspension but declined to comment further.’ So, a genuine confusion could have been cleared up if a senior administrator of the university had wanted it to be. It remains a mystery as to why he stayed silent.
As a result tensions on the Kwaluseni campus remained high over the weekend and there were more scuffles between police and students. Today (Monday 21 January 2008) could be a very tense day at the university.
There was no need for any of this confusion. What went unreported was that at its meeting on Saturday the UNISWA Senate decided that the exams should be suspended because of the problem over safety. It resolved that all academic faculties should meet today (Monday 21 January 2008) to discuss what happens next. It was stressed that student representatives should be invited to the meeting. Time would also be given to them to consult with their fellow students and the ban on student meetings would be lifted. After faculties had met they would forward their recommendations on the way forward to the Senate for deliberation.
Why on earth didn’t UNISWA tell the students, staff, media and the world at large any of this? Students are now being consulted on the way forward. This is a major step forward in the dispute, but the chance may have been lost because UNISWA seems incapable of explaining its intensions in a clear manner.
Let’s hope all is not lost, because it is generally believed now that the only way this semesterization mess can be cleaned up is through discussion.
See also
SWAZILAND POLICE ON RAMPAGE
UNISWA has decided to suspend the examinations due to start today (Monday 21 January 2008). But the way the university announced the decision has failed to diffuse the situation and left students and the public confused.
Last Thursday police brutally attacked students at the gates of UNISWA’s Kwaluseni Campus and shot one defenceless by-stander in his own home
Following this violence from police (who were meant to protect the university community) and angry students the UNISWA Senate met on Saturday (19 January 2007) and decided to suspend the exams.
So far, so positive. It was clear to anyone who has been paying attention that the police of all people could not guarantee calm on the campus, so the move by the Senate was welcome.
What happened next was the public relations disaster.
I wrote on Friday (18 January 2008) about how UNISWA senior management communicates with its students, staff and the world at large, through paid-for advertisements / press statements. This means that the management doesn’t have to explain itself to journalists or anyone else.
True to form such an advert was sent off to the press. It appeared in the Times Sunday yesterday (20 January 2008). This is what it said in part. ‘… the examinations for undergraduate programmes scheduled to begin on Monday 21st January 2008 be deferred pending further advice from the Senate.’
When journalists approached students on Saturday who were holding a meeting at a venue away from the university (UNISWA has banned students from meeting on campus) about the contents of the statement the students were understandably confused about what it meant. The Times Sunday reported students asking for clarification ‘because they did not understand it.’
The confusion was about what happens next. If the examinations are suspended does that mean that semesterization is also cancelled? When would exams be held? This statement talked about undergraduate programmes, what would happen to the postgraduates?
Many students interviewed saw the statement as a trick to divide them, rather than as a way forward towards a solution to the dispute.
A badly written statement was the first part of the PR blunder. The second came when the UNISWA Registrar contacted by the Times Sunday for clarification ‘confirmed the suspension but declined to comment further.’ So, a genuine confusion could have been cleared up if a senior administrator of the university had wanted it to be. It remains a mystery as to why he stayed silent.
As a result tensions on the Kwaluseni campus remained high over the weekend and there were more scuffles between police and students. Today (Monday 21 January 2008) could be a very tense day at the university.
There was no need for any of this confusion. What went unreported was that at its meeting on Saturday the UNISWA Senate decided that the exams should be suspended because of the problem over safety. It resolved that all academic faculties should meet today (Monday 21 January 2008) to discuss what happens next. It was stressed that student representatives should be invited to the meeting. Time would also be given to them to consult with their fellow students and the ban on student meetings would be lifted. After faculties had met they would forward their recommendations on the way forward to the Senate for deliberation.
Why on earth didn’t UNISWA tell the students, staff, media and the world at large any of this? Students are now being consulted on the way forward. This is a major step forward in the dispute, but the chance may have been lost because UNISWA seems incapable of explaining its intensions in a clear manner.
Let’s hope all is not lost, because it is generally believed now that the only way this semesterization mess can be cleaned up is through discussion.
See also
SWAZILAND POLICE ON RAMPAGE
Sunday, 20 January 2008
SWAZILAND POLICE ON RAMPAGE
Swaziland’s newspapers report that Swazi police have been on the rampage again.
An innocent young man was shot in the ribs after he tried to avoid police who were chasing University of Swaziland (UNISWA) students who are protesting against examinations which were due to start this month.
This is not the first time Swaziland newspapers have exposed how Swazi police consider themselves to be a law to themselves. In August 2007 the Times Sunday reported that police shot dead a man in cold blood as he tried to surrender himself after being cornered by armed officers.
In the latest incident, the Times of Swaziland reports that a 14-month-old baby was also almost shot as police forced their way into a private home and opened fire indiscriminately.
The Times reported the incident in its newspaper on Friday (18 January 2008) and also on its website . Unfortunately, the Times does not have an archive on its website which means you can only read the report online on the day it is published.
So, for those who missed the report here is an extended extract.
Visitor shot in UNISWA riot
KWALUSENI – An innocent life was almost lost yesterday afternoon, after a bullet fired by police during yet another violent university riot struck a visitor on the ribs. The young man, a student of the Swaziland College of Technology (SCOT), had been visiting a friend outside the campus when the upheaval broke out, resulting in a nasty clash between police and students.
The bullet that hit the SCOT student narrowly missed a 14-month-old baby, who was next to him when the police shot.According to a friend of the injured SCOT student, they were seated on the steps at a Simelane homestead, which is about 150 metres from the university - next to the road.
‘A group of about 10 police officers, armed with batons and guns, approached us. We told them that we were not UNISWA students, but they started quarrelling with us.
‘To avoid trouble, we entered the house, but the police became violent as they pushed the door open and started insulting us,’ said the friend, who did not want to be identified. He said the police forced the injured student out of the house and provoked him with their batons, but he forced his way back inside the house. He said they pushed back the door, which was when one police officer broke the door glass and shot the SCOT student.
He said after shooting him, they continued to insult them and they then assaulted his sister with their batons. Some of the students were injured in the process.
The Swazi Observer also published its account of the shooting. You can find the full report here.
Here are some extracts from the Observer report.
UNISWA STUDENTS INJURED IN RIOT
SEVERAL University of Swaziland students at Kwaluseni Campus were injured during clashes with police yesterday afternoon.
Among those injured is a Swaziland College of Technology student attached to the Swaziland Brewers. Police, however, have denied that any shots were fired or that police assaulted any students, but said they were investigating the allegations though.
Nkosinaye Dlamini is currently battling for dear life at Manzini Clinic after he was shot with a rubber bullet below the heart. The rubber bullet is said to have been embedded in the bowels. Dlamini was inside his rented room opposite the bus terminus near the Kwaluseni campus entrance.
Thembela Simelane, his neighbour, said after giving Dlamini a thorough hiding and a 'parting shot' they went for his house where they found his wife and his brother-in-law.
He claimed that they beat up his wife after breaking the glass door with the nozzle of the gun. He alleged that they then entered the house and proceeded to assault the two.
In another incident, three students were allegedly heavily assaulted by the police while they were studying in their rented flat situated opposite Swazi National High School. The students are Chazile Magagula, Gabsile Dlamini and Ncobile Mashinini. Chazile had a serious injury in the head and other parts of the body. She and her peers were found at Raleigh Fitkin Memorial Hospital where she was being attended to by doctors. When interviewed, she said they were inside their flat when they noticed police approaching.
‘I was so scared and I decided to close and lock the door since I feared that they might attack us. Indeed, my fears were confirmed when the police came running and demanded that I open the door. I resisted but they threatened to fire tear gas inside the house if I did not open. I eventually opened the door with the hope that they would talk to us.
‘They jumped inside and started beating us up with sjamboks and kicked us all over the body. I was injured on the head,’ said Chazile, who was soaked in blood and sporting a bandage, which covered the head round the chin. Her peers complained about stomach and body pains, which they claimed were a result of the beating.
Seven other students were reported to be injured and were treated at RFM Hospital.
See also
SWAZI UNI TRIES TO MISLEAD MEDIA
SWAZI UNI OFFERS BOGUS DEGREES
‘SUNDAY’ PROBES POLICE KILLING
POLICE ‘MURDER’ – NEW EVIDENCE
An innocent young man was shot in the ribs after he tried to avoid police who were chasing University of Swaziland (UNISWA) students who are protesting against examinations which were due to start this month.
This is not the first time Swaziland newspapers have exposed how Swazi police consider themselves to be a law to themselves. In August 2007 the Times Sunday reported that police shot dead a man in cold blood as he tried to surrender himself after being cornered by armed officers.
In the latest incident, the Times of Swaziland reports that a 14-month-old baby was also almost shot as police forced their way into a private home and opened fire indiscriminately.
The Times reported the incident in its newspaper on Friday (18 January 2008) and also on its website . Unfortunately, the Times does not have an archive on its website which means you can only read the report online on the day it is published.
So, for those who missed the report here is an extended extract.
Visitor shot in UNISWA riot
KWALUSENI – An innocent life was almost lost yesterday afternoon, after a bullet fired by police during yet another violent university riot struck a visitor on the ribs. The young man, a student of the Swaziland College of Technology (SCOT), had been visiting a friend outside the campus when the upheaval broke out, resulting in a nasty clash between police and students.
The bullet that hit the SCOT student narrowly missed a 14-month-old baby, who was next to him when the police shot.According to a friend of the injured SCOT student, they were seated on the steps at a Simelane homestead, which is about 150 metres from the university - next to the road.
‘A group of about 10 police officers, armed with batons and guns, approached us. We told them that we were not UNISWA students, but they started quarrelling with us.
‘To avoid trouble, we entered the house, but the police became violent as they pushed the door open and started insulting us,’ said the friend, who did not want to be identified. He said the police forced the injured student out of the house and provoked him with their batons, but he forced his way back inside the house. He said they pushed back the door, which was when one police officer broke the door glass and shot the SCOT student.
He said after shooting him, they continued to insult them and they then assaulted his sister with their batons. Some of the students were injured in the process.
The Swazi Observer also published its account of the shooting. You can find the full report here.
Here are some extracts from the Observer report.
UNISWA STUDENTS INJURED IN RIOT
SEVERAL University of Swaziland students at Kwaluseni Campus were injured during clashes with police yesterday afternoon.
Among those injured is a Swaziland College of Technology student attached to the Swaziland Brewers. Police, however, have denied that any shots were fired or that police assaulted any students, but said they were investigating the allegations though.
Nkosinaye Dlamini is currently battling for dear life at Manzini Clinic after he was shot with a rubber bullet below the heart. The rubber bullet is said to have been embedded in the bowels. Dlamini was inside his rented room opposite the bus terminus near the Kwaluseni campus entrance.
Thembela Simelane, his neighbour, said after giving Dlamini a thorough hiding and a 'parting shot' they went for his house where they found his wife and his brother-in-law.
He claimed that they beat up his wife after breaking the glass door with the nozzle of the gun. He alleged that they then entered the house and proceeded to assault the two.
In another incident, three students were allegedly heavily assaulted by the police while they were studying in their rented flat situated opposite Swazi National High School. The students are Chazile Magagula, Gabsile Dlamini and Ncobile Mashinini. Chazile had a serious injury in the head and other parts of the body. She and her peers were found at Raleigh Fitkin Memorial Hospital where she was being attended to by doctors. When interviewed, she said they were inside their flat when they noticed police approaching.
‘I was so scared and I decided to close and lock the door since I feared that they might attack us. Indeed, my fears were confirmed when the police came running and demanded that I open the door. I resisted but they threatened to fire tear gas inside the house if I did not open. I eventually opened the door with the hope that they would talk to us.
‘They jumped inside and started beating us up with sjamboks and kicked us all over the body. I was injured on the head,’ said Chazile, who was soaked in blood and sporting a bandage, which covered the head round the chin. Her peers complained about stomach and body pains, which they claimed were a result of the beating.
Seven other students were reported to be injured and were treated at RFM Hospital.
See also
SWAZI UNI TRIES TO MISLEAD MEDIA
SWAZI UNI OFFERS BOGUS DEGREES
‘SUNDAY’ PROBES POLICE KILLING
POLICE ‘MURDER’ – NEW EVIDENCE
Saturday, 19 January 2008
SWAZI UNI OFFERS BOGUS DEGREES
I wrote yesterday (Friday 18 January 2008) about how the University of Swaziland (UNISWA) was using paid adverts to publicise its point of view on the dispute it presently has with its staff and students.
I was particularly concerned that journalists did not question the contents of these adverts and accused them of doing a disservice to the people of Swaziland.
Now the Ministry of Education has joined in the game. Yesterday, two separate paid-for advertisements / press statements on the dispute appeared in the Times of Swaziland. One was from the Ministry of Education and the other from UNISWA. The adverts have also appeared in newspapers today (Saturday).
Since Swazi journalists aren’t doing their jobs properly let me point out the significance of the adverts.
First the Ministry of Education, which states,
That seems reasonable enough. Who would not want UNISWA, Swaziland’s only university, to have high academic standards and to have the respect of people all over the world? Actually, the answer to my question is UNISWA itself.
UNISWA’s senior management had its own paid-for advertisement / press statement on the same day (which also appeared in the Swazi Observer). Writing about students taking exams, it states,
That is a rather long-winded way of saying that if students sit an exam and they discover they hadn’t covered the topics featured in the exam paper questions because of the class disruptions that took place before Christmas they shouldn’t worry, because they will only be marked on the questions they do know.
Let’s look at that again. Usually a student does a course and is examined at the end of it. If the student passes we can all be confident that he or she has passed the whole course. What UNISWA is saying is that students do not have to pass the whole course, but only the bits of it that were covered in the classes that they happened to attend.
This is a huge mistake and completely undermines the academic integrity of the university. It means that any certificate, diploma or degree awarded under these circumstances is worthless.
If some time in the future you need, for example, an accountant, a nurse or (heaven help us) a journalist and they come to you with a ‘qualification’ from UNISWA, how can you be sure that that person really passed the course and wasn’t just awarded a pass for merely turning up for the exam? We should be grateful that UNISWA doesn’t teach heart surgery.
Once this ruling from UNISWA becomes common knowledge (and it was featured in last night's Channel S news programme) the university and the kingdom of Swaziland will be a laughing stock. All graduates, no matter from which year - past, present or future - will become suspects and none of them will be able to get jobs. People will remember UNISWA as the place where they give their degrees away.
How does any of this sit with the Ministry of Education’s wish for UNISWA to have high academic standards and the respect of the world?
UNISWA’s decision will heap humiliation, not respect, on Swaziland.
See also
SWAZI UNI TRIES TO MISLEAD MEDIA
I was particularly concerned that journalists did not question the contents of these adverts and accused them of doing a disservice to the people of Swaziland.
Now the Ministry of Education has joined in the game. Yesterday, two separate paid-for advertisements / press statements on the dispute appeared in the Times of Swaziland. One was from the Ministry of Education and the other from UNISWA. The adverts have also appeared in newspapers today (Saturday).
Since Swazi journalists aren’t doing their jobs properly let me point out the significance of the adverts.
First the Ministry of Education, which states,
‘Maintenance of high academic standards is important for the university to continue to earn respect not only in the SADC region but also among African, Commonwealth and World Universities, and that its products are competitive in the world labour markets.’
That seems reasonable enough. Who would not want UNISWA, Swaziland’s only university, to have high academic standards and to have the respect of people all over the world? Actually, the answer to my question is UNISWA itself.
UNISWA’s senior management had its own paid-for advertisement / press statement on the same day (which also appeared in the Swazi Observer). Writing about students taking exams, it states,
‘In the event students find difficulty in answering questions based on material not covered in lectures, Senate has advised that students report such instances to their class representatives who should, in turn, inform the Examinations Officer in writing so that remedial action may be taken through appropriate University structures. The Senate took the position that no students should be disadvantaged on account of questions based on material not covered in lectures.’
That is a rather long-winded way of saying that if students sit an exam and they discover they hadn’t covered the topics featured in the exam paper questions because of the class disruptions that took place before Christmas they shouldn’t worry, because they will only be marked on the questions they do know.
Let’s look at that again. Usually a student does a course and is examined at the end of it. If the student passes we can all be confident that he or she has passed the whole course. What UNISWA is saying is that students do not have to pass the whole course, but only the bits of it that were covered in the classes that they happened to attend.
This is a huge mistake and completely undermines the academic integrity of the university. It means that any certificate, diploma or degree awarded under these circumstances is worthless.
If some time in the future you need, for example, an accountant, a nurse or (heaven help us) a journalist and they come to you with a ‘qualification’ from UNISWA, how can you be sure that that person really passed the course and wasn’t just awarded a pass for merely turning up for the exam? We should be grateful that UNISWA doesn’t teach heart surgery.
Once this ruling from UNISWA becomes common knowledge (and it was featured in last night's Channel S news programme) the university and the kingdom of Swaziland will be a laughing stock. All graduates, no matter from which year - past, present or future - will become suspects and none of them will be able to get jobs. People will remember UNISWA as the place where they give their degrees away.
How does any of this sit with the Ministry of Education’s wish for UNISWA to have high academic standards and the respect of the world?
UNISWA’s decision will heap humiliation, not respect, on Swaziland.
See also
SWAZI UNI TRIES TO MISLEAD MEDIA
Friday, 18 January 2008
SWAZI UNI TRIES TO MISLEAD MEDIA
Senior managers at the University of Swaziland (UNISWA) have been attempting to manipulate the Swazi news media during the present disruption at the university.
At first their tactics seemed to succeed but now they are losing the fight for public opinion.
What UNISWA did was to issue public statements on the dispute and rather than subject themselves to questioning by journalists they issued these statements as paid advertisements. What this meant was they could say anything they wanted without having to explain themselves to the public.
An added dimension to this was that the university has been using these press statements as the main way of communicating with its own students and staff.
For readers outside of Swaziland who do not know the background to this dispute, let me sum up its history briefly.
In August 2007, UNISWA changed the way it organised its academic year and introduced a system called semesterization which meant that students who previously only took examinations in May each year would now have to take exams in December and May.
Students believing that they had not been consulted properly on the changes (and also believing that they would be at a disadvantage under the new system) protested.
UNISWA senior management would not consult with students and a series of class boycotts took place. Then on the night of 9 December 2007, the night before exams were due to start, some students caused extensive damages at the university’s Kwaluseni campus. The examinations were cancelled because the university senior management felt that the safety of students and staff could not be guaranteed.
Examinations were rescheduled to start on 21 January 2008 and students said they would not write them. UNISWA continues to refuse to consult with students and has banned students from meeting (which almost certainly violates their rights under the new Swazi Constitution).
Since early January armed police, often dressed in full riot gear, patrol the Kwaluseni campus. Razor wire surrounds the examinations venues.
In January 2008, the UNISWA academic staff association ALAP fearing for their members’ safety if the exams went ahead discussed a possible boycott of the examination invigilation. Lecturers discovered, through one of UNISWA’s press releases / advertisements, that if they didn’t invigilate ALAP would be taken to court and staff members would face dismissal.
That brings us up to date, so let’s get back to the main plot.
The UNISWA management’s attempts to avoid discussing the situation have worked to an extent because they were the only side putting out information. But it didn’t take long for the students to catch up and overtake the university in the public relations stakes.
Student leaders have been appearing on radio and television and writing in the newspapers outlining their point of view.
Compared to UNISWA, they come across as the voice of reason. All along they have said they are not against the semesterization system, but they object to the way it has been introduced. They also say that they want talks with UNISWA management, but it is the university that won’t meet with them.
A typical example of the students’ views appeared in the Times Sunday, 13 January 2008 in which student leader Nqoba Mabusa sets out six major concerns the students have.
By being heavy handed in the way it issues information on the dispute the UNISWA management has alienated first its own students and then its own staff. That looks like two own goals that could have been avoided.
UNISWA has also managed to alienate public opinion generally in the kingdom as trade unions and civil society organizations added their support to the students.
The problem at UNISWA now extends beyond the university’s campus into the Ministry of Education and also the Swaziland government’s Cabinet. The Minister of Education was quoted in both Swaziland’s dailies on Thursday (17 January 2008) calling on the students to write the exams.
Even though it was probably making a good deal of money from the UNISWA adverts, the Times of Swaziland called for the dispute to end and for the January exams to be cancelled while the Minister of Education intervenes in the dispute.
In an editorial comment the Times (14 January 2008) wrote, ‘[... ] students could now be spectators of a clash between security forces and lecturers being frog-marched into the examination rooms with guns pointed to their heads.’
The comment goes on to say that UNISWA is ‘an institution that should boast of the most highly qualified academia expected to educate others in good leadership, management and problem solving. What are we going to learn from this; that guns will now rule at the institution?’
Although the Times editorial shows a commendable spirit of independence, the news media in Swaziland have to a large extent let the public down on this issue. They have been quick to print reports about student violence on campus and they have published the paid-for adverts. But what is ethically unacceptable is that they have extracted sections from the advertisements and published them in the news sections as if they were independently written reports from the newspapers’ journalists.
Also, journalists have not been very good at giving the background to the dispute. It is constantly stated that the issue is about ‘semesterization’ but the first time I saw an attempt by any news media at giving a clear definition of semesterization came in the Swazi Observer today (Friday 18 January 2008) and that was written not by a journalist but by a law lecturer at the university. It also came about four months into the dispute.
The article although welcome was incomplete as the writer failed to recognise that semesterization has failed in many universities across the world and as a result those universities decided to ditch semesterization and revert to their previous status.
It was nonetheless a brave attempt by the Observer. Now would someone tell us why UNISWA considered it necessary to introduce semesterization into Swaziland? Since the introduction of semesterization is at the centre of the dispute this is a very serious omission.
The news media have also mostly failed to call to account those in power. Even the Times in its editorial could only come up with the suggestion that the Minister of Education should intervene or if this was beyond his abilities then King Mswati III should ‘come to the rescue of both students and lecturers who are now learning and teaching under a state of emergency’
Regular readers of this blog will not be surprised that journalists are failing in their duty to their readers. There are three possible reasons for this present failure. The first is that journalists don’t themselves understand what ‘semesterization’ is all about and they don’t have the research skills to go find out.
The second reason is that they don’t possess the analytical skills to, for example, look at the paid-for advertisements and realise that their contents raise issues that need to be debated. I don’t recall any journalists questioning UNISWA senior management’s decision to ban student meetings at the campus, even though this looks like a clear violation of the students’ constitutional rights.
The third reason is a deeply set cultural one. Swazis do not question people who are in power. To journalists the Vice Chancellor is a big cheese and his word carries at least the same weight, if not more, than any chief in Swaziland. The Chancellor of UNISWA is the king and the chairman of the UNISWA governing council is the king’s half-brother and we all know what happens to newspapers that dare criticise the king.
See also
SELF-CRITICAL SWAZI JOURNALISTS
At first their tactics seemed to succeed but now they are losing the fight for public opinion.
What UNISWA did was to issue public statements on the dispute and rather than subject themselves to questioning by journalists they issued these statements as paid advertisements. What this meant was they could say anything they wanted without having to explain themselves to the public.
An added dimension to this was that the university has been using these press statements as the main way of communicating with its own students and staff.
For readers outside of Swaziland who do not know the background to this dispute, let me sum up its history briefly.
In August 2007, UNISWA changed the way it organised its academic year and introduced a system called semesterization which meant that students who previously only took examinations in May each year would now have to take exams in December and May.
Students believing that they had not been consulted properly on the changes (and also believing that they would be at a disadvantage under the new system) protested.
UNISWA senior management would not consult with students and a series of class boycotts took place. Then on the night of 9 December 2007, the night before exams were due to start, some students caused extensive damages at the university’s Kwaluseni campus. The examinations were cancelled because the university senior management felt that the safety of students and staff could not be guaranteed.
Examinations were rescheduled to start on 21 January 2008 and students said they would not write them. UNISWA continues to refuse to consult with students and has banned students from meeting (which almost certainly violates their rights under the new Swazi Constitution).
Since early January armed police, often dressed in full riot gear, patrol the Kwaluseni campus. Razor wire surrounds the examinations venues.
In January 2008, the UNISWA academic staff association ALAP fearing for their members’ safety if the exams went ahead discussed a possible boycott of the examination invigilation. Lecturers discovered, through one of UNISWA’s press releases / advertisements, that if they didn’t invigilate ALAP would be taken to court and staff members would face dismissal.
That brings us up to date, so let’s get back to the main plot.
The UNISWA management’s attempts to avoid discussing the situation have worked to an extent because they were the only side putting out information. But it didn’t take long for the students to catch up and overtake the university in the public relations stakes.
Student leaders have been appearing on radio and television and writing in the newspapers outlining their point of view.
Compared to UNISWA, they come across as the voice of reason. All along they have said they are not against the semesterization system, but they object to the way it has been introduced. They also say that they want talks with UNISWA management, but it is the university that won’t meet with them.
A typical example of the students’ views appeared in the Times Sunday, 13 January 2008 in which student leader Nqoba Mabusa sets out six major concerns the students have.
By being heavy handed in the way it issues information on the dispute the UNISWA management has alienated first its own students and then its own staff. That looks like two own goals that could have been avoided.
UNISWA has also managed to alienate public opinion generally in the kingdom as trade unions and civil society organizations added their support to the students.
The problem at UNISWA now extends beyond the university’s campus into the Ministry of Education and also the Swaziland government’s Cabinet. The Minister of Education was quoted in both Swaziland’s dailies on Thursday (17 January 2008) calling on the students to write the exams.
Even though it was probably making a good deal of money from the UNISWA adverts, the Times of Swaziland called for the dispute to end and for the January exams to be cancelled while the Minister of Education intervenes in the dispute.
In an editorial comment the Times (14 January 2008) wrote, ‘[... ] students could now be spectators of a clash between security forces and lecturers being frog-marched into the examination rooms with guns pointed to their heads.’
The comment goes on to say that UNISWA is ‘an institution that should boast of the most highly qualified academia expected to educate others in good leadership, management and problem solving. What are we going to learn from this; that guns will now rule at the institution?’
Although the Times editorial shows a commendable spirit of independence, the news media in Swaziland have to a large extent let the public down on this issue. They have been quick to print reports about student violence on campus and they have published the paid-for adverts. But what is ethically unacceptable is that they have extracted sections from the advertisements and published them in the news sections as if they were independently written reports from the newspapers’ journalists.
Also, journalists have not been very good at giving the background to the dispute. It is constantly stated that the issue is about ‘semesterization’ but the first time I saw an attempt by any news media at giving a clear definition of semesterization came in the Swazi Observer today (Friday 18 January 2008) and that was written not by a journalist but by a law lecturer at the university. It also came about four months into the dispute.
The article although welcome was incomplete as the writer failed to recognise that semesterization has failed in many universities across the world and as a result those universities decided to ditch semesterization and revert to their previous status.
It was nonetheless a brave attempt by the Observer. Now would someone tell us why UNISWA considered it necessary to introduce semesterization into Swaziland? Since the introduction of semesterization is at the centre of the dispute this is a very serious omission.
The news media have also mostly failed to call to account those in power. Even the Times in its editorial could only come up with the suggestion that the Minister of Education should intervene or if this was beyond his abilities then King Mswati III should ‘come to the rescue of both students and lecturers who are now learning and teaching under a state of emergency’
Regular readers of this blog will not be surprised that journalists are failing in their duty to their readers. There are three possible reasons for this present failure. The first is that journalists don’t themselves understand what ‘semesterization’ is all about and they don’t have the research skills to go find out.
The second reason is that they don’t possess the analytical skills to, for example, look at the paid-for advertisements and realise that their contents raise issues that need to be debated. I don’t recall any journalists questioning UNISWA senior management’s decision to ban student meetings at the campus, even though this looks like a clear violation of the students’ constitutional rights.
The third reason is a deeply set cultural one. Swazis do not question people who are in power. To journalists the Vice Chancellor is a big cheese and his word carries at least the same weight, if not more, than any chief in Swaziland. The Chancellor of UNISWA is the king and the chairman of the UNISWA governing council is the king’s half-brother and we all know what happens to newspapers that dare criticise the king.
See also
SELF-CRITICAL SWAZI JOURNALISTS
Thursday, 17 January 2008
SWAZILAND FILM 'WAH-WAH' ON DSTV
I wrote in November 2007 about how the film about Swaziland called Wah-Wah had been put up on the Internet for anyone to see.
I know with the poor Internet connections we have in Swaziland this is not a very easy way to watch a movie.
So, the richer readers of this blog might be pleased to know that the movie is being shown by satellite broadcaster M-Net on DSTV from this week.
Wah-Wah was made in 2005, and is a fictionalised account of the last days of British rule in Swaziland, came out. The film, directed by Richard E Grant, is the story of his childhood in Swaziland in the1960s.
Personally, I think the film ignores the exploitation of Swazi people by the British and instead concentrates on a not very interesting story about a young British boy and his family.
The film was shot in Swaziland and there are some good views of the kingdom. The scenes of the day Swaziland received its independence are worth watching.
Because I’m a fair kind of person, I searched the Internet to find a really positive review of Wah-Wah to share with you.
I didn’t quite succeed. But I did find this on a website called Urban Cinefile from Australia
The first showing by M-Net of Wah-Wah was this week. Anyone who watches DSTV will know that the movies get repeated over and over again. So, it’s a bit like the buses to Manzini, if you missed one don’t worry there’ll be another along in a while.
See also
‘WAH-WAH’ ON THE INTERNET
I know with the poor Internet connections we have in Swaziland this is not a very easy way to watch a movie.
So, the richer readers of this blog might be pleased to know that the movie is being shown by satellite broadcaster M-Net on DSTV from this week.
Wah-Wah was made in 2005, and is a fictionalised account of the last days of British rule in Swaziland, came out. The film, directed by Richard E Grant, is the story of his childhood in Swaziland in the1960s.
Personally, I think the film ignores the exploitation of Swazi people by the British and instead concentrates on a not very interesting story about a young British boy and his family.
The film was shot in Swaziland and there are some good views of the kingdom. The scenes of the day Swaziland received its independence are worth watching.
Because I’m a fair kind of person, I searched the Internet to find a really positive review of Wah-Wah to share with you.
I didn’t quite succeed. But I did find this on a website called Urban Cinefile from Australia
This is a platinum plated cast: Gabriel Byrne is at his best as the decent but troubled, heartbroken alcoholic, while Miranda Richardson cuts loose as his self serving wife. Emily Watson delivers a remarkable characterisation of Ruby, an American who is like a cat amongst the pigeons of England. Julie Walters and Celia Imre (she often plays Queen Elizabeth II look-alikes) are splendid as very different dames of the colony, and Julian Wadham grates just right as Charles, the stuck up oaf. But none of these are caricatures, which saves the film from a fate worse than death: boredom.
I admire how Grant's writing and direction take Africa for granted (pardon the pun) in the sense that we are spared longing long shots of landscapes and similar signs of awestruck filmmaking. He's telling a story about lives shattered, rebuilt and otherwise traversed, in a passage of time that impacts most heavily on the storyteller: puberty. Ralph's rescue is partly engineered by an early romance which is neatly and tastefully built in, while the resolution is bitter sweet - enough to make it real, yet uplifting. It's is the real thing, no wah-wah about it.
The first showing by M-Net of Wah-Wah was this week. Anyone who watches DSTV will know that the movies get repeated over and over again. So, it’s a bit like the buses to Manzini, if you missed one don’t worry there’ll be another along in a while.
See also
‘WAH-WAH’ ON THE INTERNET
Wednesday, 16 January 2008
UNREALITY OF SWAZI MEDIA FREEDOM
There is an air of unreality about media freedom in Swaziland at the moment.
On the one hand a new Swazi Constitution enacted in 2006 enshrines freedom of expression and freedom of the press, while on the other hand independent news media continue to be hounded by the kingdom’s authorities whenever they publish material the ruling elites do not like.
The most striking example of this harassment happened in March 2007 when the Times of Swaziland Group of Newspapers was forced into publishing an abject apology to Swaziland’s King Mwasti III after the Times Sunday ran a news commentary sourced from the international news agency Afrol News in which the following appeared. ‘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.’
Such open criticism of the king is not allowed in Swaziland (not even in so-called independent newspapers like the Times Sunday). The publisher was summoned to the Royal Palace and told to issue a public apology or his newspapers would be closed down. The apology was swiftly forthcoming.
This is not an isolated incident of censorship by the king. In 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.
In the recent past the king also banned newspapers from writing about his wives without his permission, even while covering official events. This happened after the Times Sunday interviewed one of his wives (with her consent) while she was sick in hospital.
The power of the king is so great in Swaziland that news media in the kingdom enforce self-censorship when opportunities to report critically about him occur. In August 2007, the world’s media reported a survey from Forbes in New York that placed King Mswati III among one of the top 15 richest monarchs in the world.
He was revealed as the richest monarch in sub-Saharan Africa and the youngest (at age 39) among the monarchs in the top 15. The king’s wealth was estimated at 200 million US dollars (approx. 1,4 billion Rand). Foreign news reports noted that more than 70 percent of Swazis lived on less than 1 US dollar a day and that more than half the population relied on food aid donated by international agencies to survive. The Swazi media mentioned none of this.
Broadcasting
The air of unreality about media freedom extends further than the newspapers. In June 2007 MISA Swaziland organized a workshop to advocate for the kingdom’s state controlled television and radio stations to adopt a system of public service broadcasting (PSB) which would provide greater access to the airwaves to a wide range of people to share information and ideas.
At present broadcasting in Swaziland is strictly controlled and only news and information that supports the monarchy and government can be aired.
The workshop was told by the Ministry of Information and Public Service that the kingdom’s radio stations were close to implementing a PSB model. Participants heard that the stations’ collective mission statement committed them to be fully under PSB by the year 2000. Workshop participants were too polite to point out that this deadline had already been missed by seven years and that the commitment to PSB by the radio stations was so weak that management had not even bothered to update their mission statement.
The truth is that the ruling elites have nothing to gain by giving up their control of the airwaves and will therefore not do so willingly. Instead, they placate media freedom advocates with fine words and promises of good intentions.
Legislation
The Swazi government is keen to give the impression that it is committed to reforming the 30-plus restrictive media laws in the kingdom, but media stakeholders doubt its sincerity.
In 2007 the government introduced seven parliamentary bills, including the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Bill, Swaziland Media Commission Bill, Swaziland Public Broadcasting Corporation Bill, Swaziland Broadcasting Bill and the Books and Newspapers Bill.
What all these bills have in common is that they purport to place the interests of the media at their centres and they have not originated from within Swaziland. A Commonwealth Secretariat consultant was engaged to draft the bills, relying for inspiration on bills that presently exist in democratic countries. The fact that Swaziland is not a democracy was apparently overlooked.
In Swaziland, customary law, which has equal status with the Roman Dutch Common Law and statutes, continues to restrict freedom of the media and freedom of expression. For instance, there are cultural dictates that prevent people from criticising or questioning those in authority. Although, in theory, the Constitution is supreme over all other laws, unwritten customary law wields enormous power in practice and because Swazi Law and Custom is not codified, it cannot be tested against the Constitution.
Members of a workshop held for media stakeholders to discuss the bills before they were piloted in Parliament saw the unreality of the approach taken by the consultant and concluded that their own input was irrelevant because ‘traditional authorities’ in the kingdom had not been consulted on the bills’ contents. Since nothing happened in Swaziland without the consent of these ‘traditional authorities’ the bills as presently written had no value, they said.
Harassment
The introduction of the new bills may be a smokescreen to obscure the fact that there are no real changes in media freedom on offer.
This was evident when the Swazi House of Assembly set up a select committee to investigate Mbongeni Mbingo, the editor of the Times Sunday, following a comment piece he wrote in his newspaper criticising the House Speaker for not allowing a debate to take place on possible amendments to the kingdom’s constitution. The House of Assembly said the editor was in contempt of Parliament.
In October 2007, the select committee cleared the editor, citing his rights under the constitution to freedom of expression. But at the same time the committee showed it had no real commitment to freedom of expression when it recommended two measures that would further restrict press freedom in Swaziland.
The first measure was a recommendation that all journalists who cover Parliament should be accredited; effectively meaning that the government would choose which journalists should be allowed to cover and which should not.
It also means the government can decide to withdraw accreditation from anyone whose reporting upsets it. It could also mean that journalists who cover Parliament would be intimidated against reporting critical stories for fear of losing accreditation and maybe their jobs as a result.
The second measure was a recommendation from the select committee for the hated Media Council Bill to be reintroduced by Parliament. The Media Council Bill is designed to force statutory regulation on the media. This move ignores work that the media houses themselves have made to form a Media Complaints Commission (MCC) to monitor standards.
The Swaziland National Association of Journalists, with the support of the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) Swaziland, launched the MCC in March but it was not until November 2007 that media owners agreed to fund the commission’s operations and also fund setting up the MCC as a Trust.
The attack on the Times Sunday editor should not be seen in isolation. Earlier in the year the Swazi parliament had turned up the heat on dissenting journalists by increasing fines on journalists and media houses who publish articles deemed to be critical of or offending against Parliament or MPs.
MISA Swaziland called these measures blatant discrimination 'likely to scare the already docile Swazi press which cannot freely report on issues due to a litany of restrictions, laws and constant intimidation from authorities.'
The Swazi government also attacked the free press generally. In 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 that had been published highlighting the impact in the kingdom 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 with journalists. Journalists were also barred from Mbabane Government Hospital, the kingdom’s key medical facility, whose problems had been highlighted in the newspapers.
On June 23, the Times of Swaziland experienced the effects of the minister’s censorship order when its photographer, Albert Masango, was denied access to the hospital. Hospital security harassed and pulled Masango out of the premises and carried him out to the gate.
Death Threats
One of the more bizarre examples of media harassment in 2007 involved a controversial TV repairman turned church pastor called Justice Dlamini who threatened two journalists with death through divine intervention.
Dlamini (who incidentally writes a regular column in the Weekend Observer newspaper and makes many appearances on Swazi television and radio) shocked a church gathering, which also included cabinet ministers, when he declared from the pulpit that he was praying for the death of two journalists, Times of Swaziland Managing Editor Martin Dlamini and reporter Nhlanhla Mathunjwa, whom he claimed wrote badly about him.
This followed a story published by the Times of Swaziland in March 2007 in which the pastor was said to have been involved a squabble over a church vehicle with one of his subordinate pastors.
The death threat caused much concern among the media fraternity in Swaziland, but both men remain alive. Of interest to media observers is not that the pastor made the threat, but that the media had so little confidence in themselves that they took the pastor seriously.
See also
A STORY THE SWAZI MEDIA MISSED
CLOSURE THREAT TO TIMES
LONG HISTORY OF SWAZI CENSORSHIP
On the one hand a new Swazi Constitution enacted in 2006 enshrines freedom of expression and freedom of the press, while on the other hand independent news media continue to be hounded by the kingdom’s authorities whenever they publish material the ruling elites do not like.
The most striking example of this harassment happened in March 2007 when the Times of Swaziland Group of Newspapers was forced into publishing an abject apology to Swaziland’s King Mwasti III after the Times Sunday ran a news commentary sourced from the international news agency Afrol News in which the following appeared. ‘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.’
Such open criticism of the king is not allowed in Swaziland (not even in so-called independent newspapers like the Times Sunday). The publisher was summoned to the Royal Palace and told to issue a public apology or his newspapers would be closed down. The apology was swiftly forthcoming.
This is not an isolated incident of censorship by the king. In 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.
In the recent past the king also banned newspapers from writing about his wives without his permission, even while covering official events. This happened after the Times Sunday interviewed one of his wives (with her consent) while she was sick in hospital.
The power of the king is so great in Swaziland that news media in the kingdom enforce self-censorship when opportunities to report critically about him occur. In August 2007, the world’s media reported a survey from Forbes in New York that placed King Mswati III among one of the top 15 richest monarchs in the world.
He was revealed as the richest monarch in sub-Saharan Africa and the youngest (at age 39) among the monarchs in the top 15. The king’s wealth was estimated at 200 million US dollars (approx. 1,4 billion Rand). Foreign news reports noted that more than 70 percent of Swazis lived on less than 1 US dollar a day and that more than half the population relied on food aid donated by international agencies to survive. The Swazi media mentioned none of this.
Broadcasting
The air of unreality about media freedom extends further than the newspapers. In June 2007 MISA Swaziland organized a workshop to advocate for the kingdom’s state controlled television and radio stations to adopt a system of public service broadcasting (PSB) which would provide greater access to the airwaves to a wide range of people to share information and ideas.
At present broadcasting in Swaziland is strictly controlled and only news and information that supports the monarchy and government can be aired.
The workshop was told by the Ministry of Information and Public Service that the kingdom’s radio stations were close to implementing a PSB model. Participants heard that the stations’ collective mission statement committed them to be fully under PSB by the year 2000. Workshop participants were too polite to point out that this deadline had already been missed by seven years and that the commitment to PSB by the radio stations was so weak that management had not even bothered to update their mission statement.
The truth is that the ruling elites have nothing to gain by giving up their control of the airwaves and will therefore not do so willingly. Instead, they placate media freedom advocates with fine words and promises of good intentions.
Legislation
The Swazi government is keen to give the impression that it is committed to reforming the 30-plus restrictive media laws in the kingdom, but media stakeholders doubt its sincerity.
In 2007 the government introduced seven parliamentary bills, including the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Bill, Swaziland Media Commission Bill, Swaziland Public Broadcasting Corporation Bill, Swaziland Broadcasting Bill and the Books and Newspapers Bill.
What all these bills have in common is that they purport to place the interests of the media at their centres and they have not originated from within Swaziland. A Commonwealth Secretariat consultant was engaged to draft the bills, relying for inspiration on bills that presently exist in democratic countries. The fact that Swaziland is not a democracy was apparently overlooked.
In Swaziland, customary law, which has equal status with the Roman Dutch Common Law and statutes, continues to restrict freedom of the media and freedom of expression. For instance, there are cultural dictates that prevent people from criticising or questioning those in authority. Although, in theory, the Constitution is supreme over all other laws, unwritten customary law wields enormous power in practice and because Swazi Law and Custom is not codified, it cannot be tested against the Constitution.
Members of a workshop held for media stakeholders to discuss the bills before they were piloted in Parliament saw the unreality of the approach taken by the consultant and concluded that their own input was irrelevant because ‘traditional authorities’ in the kingdom had not been consulted on the bills’ contents. Since nothing happened in Swaziland without the consent of these ‘traditional authorities’ the bills as presently written had no value, they said.
Harassment
The introduction of the new bills may be a smokescreen to obscure the fact that there are no real changes in media freedom on offer.
This was evident when the Swazi House of Assembly set up a select committee to investigate Mbongeni Mbingo, the editor of the Times Sunday, following a comment piece he wrote in his newspaper criticising the House Speaker for not allowing a debate to take place on possible amendments to the kingdom’s constitution. The House of Assembly said the editor was in contempt of Parliament.
In October 2007, the select committee cleared the editor, citing his rights under the constitution to freedom of expression. But at the same time the committee showed it had no real commitment to freedom of expression when it recommended two measures that would further restrict press freedom in Swaziland.
The first measure was a recommendation that all journalists who cover Parliament should be accredited; effectively meaning that the government would choose which journalists should be allowed to cover and which should not.
It also means the government can decide to withdraw accreditation from anyone whose reporting upsets it. It could also mean that journalists who cover Parliament would be intimidated against reporting critical stories for fear of losing accreditation and maybe their jobs as a result.
The second measure was a recommendation from the select committee for the hated Media Council Bill to be reintroduced by Parliament. The Media Council Bill is designed to force statutory regulation on the media. This move ignores work that the media houses themselves have made to form a Media Complaints Commission (MCC) to monitor standards.
The Swaziland National Association of Journalists, with the support of the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) Swaziland, launched the MCC in March but it was not until November 2007 that media owners agreed to fund the commission’s operations and also fund setting up the MCC as a Trust.
The attack on the Times Sunday editor should not be seen in isolation. Earlier in the year the Swazi parliament had turned up the heat on dissenting journalists by increasing fines on journalists and media houses who publish articles deemed to be critical of or offending against Parliament or MPs.
MISA Swaziland called these measures blatant discrimination 'likely to scare the already docile Swazi press which cannot freely report on issues due to a litany of restrictions, laws and constant intimidation from authorities.'
The Swazi government also attacked the free press generally. In 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 that had been published highlighting the impact in the kingdom 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 with journalists. Journalists were also barred from Mbabane Government Hospital, the kingdom’s key medical facility, whose problems had been highlighted in the newspapers.
On June 23, the Times of Swaziland experienced the effects of the minister’s censorship order when its photographer, Albert Masango, was denied access to the hospital. Hospital security harassed and pulled Masango out of the premises and carried him out to the gate.
Death Threats
One of the more bizarre examples of media harassment in 2007 involved a controversial TV repairman turned church pastor called Justice Dlamini who threatened two journalists with death through divine intervention.
Dlamini (who incidentally writes a regular column in the Weekend Observer newspaper and makes many appearances on Swazi television and radio) shocked a church gathering, which also included cabinet ministers, when he declared from the pulpit that he was praying for the death of two journalists, Times of Swaziland Managing Editor Martin Dlamini and reporter Nhlanhla Mathunjwa, whom he claimed wrote badly about him.
This followed a story published by the Times of Swaziland in March 2007 in which the pastor was said to have been involved a squabble over a church vehicle with one of his subordinate pastors.
The death threat caused much concern among the media fraternity in Swaziland, but both men remain alive. Of interest to media observers is not that the pastor made the threat, but that the media had so little confidence in themselves that they took the pastor seriously.
See also
A STORY THE SWAZI MEDIA MISSED
CLOSURE THREAT TO TIMES
LONG HISTORY OF SWAZI CENSORSHIP
Tuesday, 15 January 2008
BID TO IMPROVE SWAZI JOURNALISM
The University of Swaziland, Swaziland’s only university, is at the centre of an attempt to improve the standards of journalism and media in the kingdom.
After nine years delivering a diploma programme in Journalism and Mass Communication the university is updating its curriculum in an attempt to replace the diploma with a four-year BA degree programme.
Practitioners within Swaziland’s media industry are low skilled and its own senior journalists consider the media to be partisan, inaccurate and generally unprofessional.
In an article I have written for the academic journal Ecquid Novi (African Journalism Studies) I look at the context within which journalism education must take place in Swaziland. This highlights the small size of the media industry and the control the state exercises over it. Central here is the understanding of the role the king plays in the life of the kingdom (Swaziland has the last autocratic monarch in sub-Saharan Africa). There are more than 30 pieces of legislation that restrict the operations of the media.
It is within the context of a small, undemocratic, poorly capacitated industry, that the Journalism and Mass Communication (JMC) Department at the university has devised a new degree curriculum.
The new degree programme involves a shift in emphasis from the previous diploma, significantly to include the role of media in society and how they can contribute to the changing of that society.
A journalism curriculum that operates in a kingdom that is not yet a democracy must advocate that journalism is a practice that is necessary to foster democracy. Today, there is a worldwide consensus that people have the right to influence their governments and what they do and that the media reinforce or foster this kind of democracy.
Communities within Swaziland would be placed at the centre of the new journalism curriculum. This would be especially so within the practical classes, which would include for the first time at the university, a newspaper produced in the classroom by students.
The JMC Department would like to create a community radio station to serve both as a training facility and also as a place for local people (the university community and those outside) to broadcast programmes that they see as relevant to their own needs. This is unlikely to happen as the government of Swaziland has consistently refused to grant licences for community broadcasters and there is no indication that it is willing to release its powerful grip on the airways anytime soon.
If the curriculum is to encourage change it needs to concentrate more on rural journalism. Most of the important stories taking place are outside of the urban areas and are missed by Swazi journalists because they have a narrow definition of interest. Journalism should reflect the concerns and activities of the society it serves and mirror society as a whole and not just that part of the society that has gained political office or come to the attention of the police.
About 77 per cent of the people of Swaziland live in rural areas where the trends and events that will have a major impact on cities later are likely to be found. This is most obviously the case with in Swaziland with the spread of HIV. The concentration on communities could act as a powerful force or empowerment, especially if the treatment of information is information led and not source driven, thereby taking as a starting point where the audience is and not what the source or the practitioner knows.
Within the journalism degree programme specific courses have been designed in journalism and advocacy, community broadcasting, journalism in the community, community relations and development communications.
Those who are keen to know more about the new curriculum can download the full article here. The journal also looks at journalism education in other parts of Africa.
See also
SELF-CRITICAL SWAZI JOURNALIST
After nine years delivering a diploma programme in Journalism and Mass Communication the university is updating its curriculum in an attempt to replace the diploma with a four-year BA degree programme.
Practitioners within Swaziland’s media industry are low skilled and its own senior journalists consider the media to be partisan, inaccurate and generally unprofessional.
In an article I have written for the academic journal Ecquid Novi (African Journalism Studies) I look at the context within which journalism education must take place in Swaziland. This highlights the small size of the media industry and the control the state exercises over it. Central here is the understanding of the role the king plays in the life of the kingdom (Swaziland has the last autocratic monarch in sub-Saharan Africa). There are more than 30 pieces of legislation that restrict the operations of the media.
It is within the context of a small, undemocratic, poorly capacitated industry, that the Journalism and Mass Communication (JMC) Department at the university has devised a new degree curriculum.
The new degree programme involves a shift in emphasis from the previous diploma, significantly to include the role of media in society and how they can contribute to the changing of that society.
A journalism curriculum that operates in a kingdom that is not yet a democracy must advocate that journalism is a practice that is necessary to foster democracy. Today, there is a worldwide consensus that people have the right to influence their governments and what they do and that the media reinforce or foster this kind of democracy.
Communities within Swaziland would be placed at the centre of the new journalism curriculum. This would be especially so within the practical classes, which would include for the first time at the university, a newspaper produced in the classroom by students.
The JMC Department would like to create a community radio station to serve both as a training facility and also as a place for local people (the university community and those outside) to broadcast programmes that they see as relevant to their own needs. This is unlikely to happen as the government of Swaziland has consistently refused to grant licences for community broadcasters and there is no indication that it is willing to release its powerful grip on the airways anytime soon.
If the curriculum is to encourage change it needs to concentrate more on rural journalism. Most of the important stories taking place are outside of the urban areas and are missed by Swazi journalists because they have a narrow definition of interest. Journalism should reflect the concerns and activities of the society it serves and mirror society as a whole and not just that part of the society that has gained political office or come to the attention of the police.
About 77 per cent of the people of Swaziland live in rural areas where the trends and events that will have a major impact on cities later are likely to be found. This is most obviously the case with in Swaziland with the spread of HIV. The concentration on communities could act as a powerful force or empowerment, especially if the treatment of information is information led and not source driven, thereby taking as a starting point where the audience is and not what the source or the practitioner knows.
Within the journalism degree programme specific courses have been designed in journalism and advocacy, community broadcasting, journalism in the community, community relations and development communications.
Those who are keen to know more about the new curriculum can download the full article here. The journal also looks at journalism education in other parts of Africa.
See also
SELF-CRITICAL SWAZI JOURNALIST
Monday, 14 January 2008
SWAZI MEDIA FACE HARASSMENT
If we were to take a snapshot of the media in Swaziland at the moment we would see that the majority of them are state controlled and that small part of the industry that is in private hands has been harassed by the monarchy and the government.
The media industry in Swaziland is small and the majority of it is state controlled. As far as the newspaper industry is concerned, there are two principal players. The first is the Loffler family based in Namibia which owns African Echo, the holding company of the daily Times of Swaziland, Swazi News (published Saturday) and the Times Sunday. These newspapers, the first of which, the Times, was established in 1897, are the only major news sources in the kingdom free of government control.
The second major player is the corporation Tibiyo Taka Ngwane, which is controlled by the Swazi royal family and owns the Observer Media Group, which publishes the Swazi Observer and its companion paper, the Weekend Observer. One independent monthly comment magazine, The Nation magazine, manages to continue publishing despite government opposition and a small circulation. A free government produced newssheet, Swaziland Today has very little credibility.
Newspaper circulations are generally poor. Estimates suggest that the Swazi Observer sells between 5 000 and 15 000 copies a day and the Times of Swaziland sells about 35 000 copies a day. The Times Sunday and Swazi News sell about 15 000 copies a week. The Weekly Observer has a circulation of 10 000. All newspapers are published in the English language. These newspapers serve a population of about one million people.
Newspapers lag a long way behind radio and television as the most important source of news for Swazis. A gender and media audience study found 16 percent of women and 19 percent of men cited newspapers as the most important source of news compared to 53 percent of women (63 percent men) who cited radio and 31 per cent women (17 percent men) who cited television.
The survey found that respondents with tertiary level education constituted the highest proportion of those who chose newspapers as their main source of news.
There are two free-to-air television stations in Swaziland, the Swaziland Television Authority (STA) and Channel Swazi. The STA is the state broadcaster and still dominates airwaves. Two acts of parliament have resulted in a monopoly by state owned radio and television. Broadcast licensing is the prerogative of Swaziland Posts and Telecommunications which has the sole authority to issue licenses.
The STA has one channel with multiple national repeaters. The government in 2001 allowed Channel Swazi, a pro-establishment medium, to begin operating domestically.
The South Africa-based satellite broadcaster, MultiChoice, also operates in Swaziland providing subscribers with access to television services including Cable News Network (CNN), BBC, AlJazeera and Sky News.
There are two radio broadcasters in Swaziland: the Swaziland Broadcasting and Information Services (SBIS) and Voice of the Church, a private Christian radio station which is a local franchise of TransWorld Radio. Voice of the Church is the only privately-owned radio station in Swaziland. The Swaziland Broadcasting and Information Services is a state-run national radio service. It has one siSwati language channel, one English-language channel, and one information services channel.
There are three relatively new entrants into the Swazi media market: the magazines Youth Connexion and Siyavena and the television station, Channel Swazi, but none are particularly critical of the state. The youth magazine aims mainly at addressing social issues affecting the youth such as HIV AIDS and crime. Channel Swazi is also a pro-establishment medium that offers very little in terms of progressive and dynamic points of view. Siyavena is a sports publication without much critical content. Apart from adding its name to the media landscape, it has no new voice on behalf of media freedom in the kingdom.
The media are not independent of government. There are estimated to be more than thirty pieces of legislation which could be regarded as restrictive to press freedom in Swaziland. Generally, in the state and private sector, the government has kept a tight reign on media censorship in recent years.
A Commonwealth election monitoring team criticized Swaziland’s lack of press freedom and expressed disappointment at government-owned Radio Swaziland’s reporting on the 2003 elections, saying that restricted campaign coverage reduced voters’ knowledge of the candidates and harmed their ability to hold candidates accountable.
Last year the Times group of newspapers was threatened with closure after the Times Sunday ran a report sourced from an overseas’ news agency that blamed King Mswati III for many of Swaziland’s economic woes. The newspaper group was forced to run an abject apology or face closure.
The power of the king is so great in Swaziland that news media in the kingdom enforce self-censorship when opportunities to report critically about him occur. In August 2007, the world’s media reported a survey from Forbes in New York that placed King Mswati III among one of the top 15 richest monarchs in the world. He was revealed as the richest monarch in sub-Saharan Africa and the youngest (at age 39) among the monarchs in the top 15.
The king’s wealth was estimated at 200 million US dollars (approx. 1,4 billion Rand). Foreign news reports noted that more than 70 percent of Swazis lived on less than 1 US dollar a day and that more than half the population relied on food aid donated by international agencies to survive. The Swazi media mentioned none of this.
It is difficult to be optimistic about media freedom in Swaziland. As we make our way in 2008 the government is threatening to force news media into a system of regulation that they do not want and a government sub committee wants to choose which journalists can and cannot on the Swazi Parliament.
See also
CLOSURE THREAT TO TIMES
SWAZI MEDIA TOE THE LINE
The media industry in Swaziland is small and the majority of it is state controlled. As far as the newspaper industry is concerned, there are two principal players. The first is the Loffler family based in Namibia which owns African Echo, the holding company of the daily Times of Swaziland, Swazi News (published Saturday) and the Times Sunday. These newspapers, the first of which, the Times, was established in 1897, are the only major news sources in the kingdom free of government control.
The second major player is the corporation Tibiyo Taka Ngwane, which is controlled by the Swazi royal family and owns the Observer Media Group, which publishes the Swazi Observer and its companion paper, the Weekend Observer. One independent monthly comment magazine, The Nation magazine, manages to continue publishing despite government opposition and a small circulation. A free government produced newssheet, Swaziland Today has very little credibility.
Newspaper circulations are generally poor. Estimates suggest that the Swazi Observer sells between 5 000 and 15 000 copies a day and the Times of Swaziland sells about 35 000 copies a day. The Times Sunday and Swazi News sell about 15 000 copies a week. The Weekly Observer has a circulation of 10 000. All newspapers are published in the English language. These newspapers serve a population of about one million people.
Newspapers lag a long way behind radio and television as the most important source of news for Swazis. A gender and media audience study found 16 percent of women and 19 percent of men cited newspapers as the most important source of news compared to 53 percent of women (63 percent men) who cited radio and 31 per cent women (17 percent men) who cited television.
The survey found that respondents with tertiary level education constituted the highest proportion of those who chose newspapers as their main source of news.
There are two free-to-air television stations in Swaziland, the Swaziland Television Authority (STA) and Channel Swazi. The STA is the state broadcaster and still dominates airwaves. Two acts of parliament have resulted in a monopoly by state owned radio and television. Broadcast licensing is the prerogative of Swaziland Posts and Telecommunications which has the sole authority to issue licenses.
The STA has one channel with multiple national repeaters. The government in 2001 allowed Channel Swazi, a pro-establishment medium, to begin operating domestically.
The South Africa-based satellite broadcaster, MultiChoice, also operates in Swaziland providing subscribers with access to television services including Cable News Network (CNN), BBC, AlJazeera and Sky News.
There are two radio broadcasters in Swaziland: the Swaziland Broadcasting and Information Services (SBIS) and Voice of the Church, a private Christian radio station which is a local franchise of TransWorld Radio. Voice of the Church is the only privately-owned radio station in Swaziland. The Swaziland Broadcasting and Information Services is a state-run national radio service. It has one siSwati language channel, one English-language channel, and one information services channel.
There are three relatively new entrants into the Swazi media market: the magazines Youth Connexion and Siyavena and the television station, Channel Swazi, but none are particularly critical of the state. The youth magazine aims mainly at addressing social issues affecting the youth such as HIV AIDS and crime. Channel Swazi is also a pro-establishment medium that offers very little in terms of progressive and dynamic points of view. Siyavena is a sports publication without much critical content. Apart from adding its name to the media landscape, it has no new voice on behalf of media freedom in the kingdom.
The media are not independent of government. There are estimated to be more than thirty pieces of legislation which could be regarded as restrictive to press freedom in Swaziland. Generally, in the state and private sector, the government has kept a tight reign on media censorship in recent years.
A Commonwealth election monitoring team criticized Swaziland’s lack of press freedom and expressed disappointment at government-owned Radio Swaziland’s reporting on the 2003 elections, saying that restricted campaign coverage reduced voters’ knowledge of the candidates and harmed their ability to hold candidates accountable.
Last year the Times group of newspapers was threatened with closure after the Times Sunday ran a report sourced from an overseas’ news agency that blamed King Mswati III for many of Swaziland’s economic woes. The newspaper group was forced to run an abject apology or face closure.
The power of the king is so great in Swaziland that news media in the kingdom enforce self-censorship when opportunities to report critically about him occur. In August 2007, the world’s media reported a survey from Forbes in New York that placed King Mswati III among one of the top 15 richest monarchs in the world. He was revealed as the richest monarch in sub-Saharan Africa and the youngest (at age 39) among the monarchs in the top 15.
The king’s wealth was estimated at 200 million US dollars (approx. 1,4 billion Rand). Foreign news reports noted that more than 70 percent of Swazis lived on less than 1 US dollar a day and that more than half the population relied on food aid donated by international agencies to survive. The Swazi media mentioned none of this.
It is difficult to be optimistic about media freedom in Swaziland. As we make our way in 2008 the government is threatening to force news media into a system of regulation that they do not want and a government sub committee wants to choose which journalists can and cannot on the Swazi Parliament.
See also
CLOSURE THREAT TO TIMES
SWAZI MEDIA TOE THE LINE
Friday, 11 January 2008
POOR HIV AIDS REPORTING IN SWAZILAND
Media coverage of the HIV AIDS pandemic in Swaziland is bad and it is not only the poor quality of the kingdom’s journalists that is to blame.
On Tuesday (8 January 2008) I wrote that there was a move within Swaziland to help teach the kingdom’s journalist responsible ways to report on people who are living with HIV AIDS.
Although the move is a welcome one we must remember that there is a wider context to the poor reporting of HIV AIDS.
An independent report into how the media in Swaziland deal with HIV and AIDS concluded that the main reasons for poor reporting includeD the stringent government controls on media in Swaziland (particularly for radio) and a prohibitive legislative environment, as well as a fundamental lack of capacity within the media sector itself. Non-governmental organisations are largely responsible for contributing HIV AIDS information to Swazi newspapers.
The report was published by Panos in 2005.
According to its own website Panos is a global network of independent NGOs working with the media to stimulate debate on global development issues. Panos works from offices in 16 countries.
The report concluded that there are concerns about the media’s ability to contribute to effectively raising awareness about and addressing the HIV AIDS epidemic in Swaziland.
The report is a detailed analysis of the situation in Swaziland and it is worth looking at it here in some length.
The report found that radio remains a key source of information for the population. Radio authorities, formed of civil servants and the Ministry of Information, feel that HIV AIDS is a health issue and that health issues already have their slot on the station’s programme line-up. Meanwhile, occasional shows are produced by NGOs in alliance with the Ministry of Health, such as Youth and AIDS, which is now off the air.
The Swaziland Broadcasting and Information Service (SBIS) has not treated the epidemic as a national crisis worthy of sustained and prominent programming.
The report stated, ‘The government is suspicious of radio call-in shows that allow listeners to express views that might be embarrassing or politically dissenting.
‘Radio call-in programmes have largely been curtailed, although one or two are occasionally aired during the week (but not at peak times), covering uncontroversial subjects and with a low level of listeners. Some of those interviewed for this study would like to have audience participation programmes, such as radio phone-in shows. While these could effectively create spaces for debate and discussion about HIV AIDS, there is also a need to ensure that they do not marginalise sections of the population who do not have access to this means of communication, but are equally vulnerable or affected.’
The report found that overall, the tone expressed in the group interviews for the study was one of frustration and apathy. In general, audience groups commented that the way HIV AIDS information was presented in the media could be more accessible and interesting. For example, the young people interviewed tended to shun educational shows, but might consider a well-made infotainment show featuring their sports and show business idols, while also including HIV AIDS information. No member of the groups sought out health programmes or read HIV AIDS information in the press as a matter of special personal interest.
The report stated that although a number of listeners were aware of radio programmes that produce HIV AIDS information, not a single ‘fan’ of these shows could be found: that is, there was no one who tuned in to listen with the interest or devotion that they might, for example, have for a soap opera or music request show. It seems that HIV AIDS information reaches young people through school-based sex education – including visits from NGOs like the Swaziland AIDS Support Organisation – rather than through the media.
The report stated, ‘Group interview participants and individual interviewees were unanimous in their opinion that Swazis have a long way to go before they can talk candidly about sexual issues. However, media coverage of HIV AIDS has at least been able to bring the issue to people’s attention and respondents were united in their recognition that the country’s media has a role to play in addressing the epidemic.’
The report noted four factors that currently impede Swazi media in effectively communicating about and tackling HIV AIDS:
1 Lack of media legislation. The lack of a constitutional framework upholding freedom of speech and other relevant legislation severely restricts the media. There is currently little room for the amendment of domestic legislation to expressly provide for basic rights and freedoms for the sector.
2 Tensions between local laws and the role of the media in exporting information to the international media. Legislation prohibits the exporting of information that will place the country or the King in disrepute. For example, there was uproar at the international media’s coverage of the ranking of Swaziland as having the highest HIV prevalence in the world.
3 Customs and cultural traditions that result in self-censorship. The stigmatisation of HIV/AIDS in the Swazi community tends to lead traditional authorities to believe that public reporting of the epidemic is bringing the country into disrepute. This has been fostered by the restrictive legislation and repressive environment, particularly among print media professionals.
4 The capacity of the media. Reporters are not sufficiently educated and trained about different aspects of HIV/AIDS to write analytically. For example, the Department of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of Swaziland awards a diploma that is the highest qualification in the country, but the department is severely under-resourced and would benefit from continuous capacity building
The full report which includes case studies of South Africa, Zambia, Namibia, Zimbabwe as well as Swaziland is called Reporting AIDS: An analysis of media environments in Southern Africa and can be found here.
See also
BID TO IMPROVE HIV AIDS REPORTING
On Tuesday (8 January 2008) I wrote that there was a move within Swaziland to help teach the kingdom’s journalist responsible ways to report on people who are living with HIV AIDS.
Although the move is a welcome one we must remember that there is a wider context to the poor reporting of HIV AIDS.
An independent report into how the media in Swaziland deal with HIV and AIDS concluded that the main reasons for poor reporting includeD the stringent government controls on media in Swaziland (particularly for radio) and a prohibitive legislative environment, as well as a fundamental lack of capacity within the media sector itself. Non-governmental organisations are largely responsible for contributing HIV AIDS information to Swazi newspapers.
The report was published by Panos in 2005.
According to its own website Panos is a global network of independent NGOs working with the media to stimulate debate on global development issues. Panos works from offices in 16 countries.
The report concluded that there are concerns about the media’s ability to contribute to effectively raising awareness about and addressing the HIV AIDS epidemic in Swaziland.
The report is a detailed analysis of the situation in Swaziland and it is worth looking at it here in some length.
The report found that radio remains a key source of information for the population. Radio authorities, formed of civil servants and the Ministry of Information, feel that HIV AIDS is a health issue and that health issues already have their slot on the station’s programme line-up. Meanwhile, occasional shows are produced by NGOs in alliance with the Ministry of Health, such as Youth and AIDS, which is now off the air.
The Swaziland Broadcasting and Information Service (SBIS) has not treated the epidemic as a national crisis worthy of sustained and prominent programming.
The report stated, ‘The government is suspicious of radio call-in shows that allow listeners to express views that might be embarrassing or politically dissenting.
‘Radio call-in programmes have largely been curtailed, although one or two are occasionally aired during the week (but not at peak times), covering uncontroversial subjects and with a low level of listeners. Some of those interviewed for this study would like to have audience participation programmes, such as radio phone-in shows. While these could effectively create spaces for debate and discussion about HIV AIDS, there is also a need to ensure that they do not marginalise sections of the population who do not have access to this means of communication, but are equally vulnerable or affected.’
The report found that overall, the tone expressed in the group interviews for the study was one of frustration and apathy. In general, audience groups commented that the way HIV AIDS information was presented in the media could be more accessible and interesting. For example, the young people interviewed tended to shun educational shows, but might consider a well-made infotainment show featuring their sports and show business idols, while also including HIV AIDS information. No member of the groups sought out health programmes or read HIV AIDS information in the press as a matter of special personal interest.
The report stated that although a number of listeners were aware of radio programmes that produce HIV AIDS information, not a single ‘fan’ of these shows could be found: that is, there was no one who tuned in to listen with the interest or devotion that they might, for example, have for a soap opera or music request show. It seems that HIV AIDS information reaches young people through school-based sex education – including visits from NGOs like the Swaziland AIDS Support Organisation – rather than through the media.
The report stated, ‘Group interview participants and individual interviewees were unanimous in their opinion that Swazis have a long way to go before they can talk candidly about sexual issues. However, media coverage of HIV AIDS has at least been able to bring the issue to people’s attention and respondents were united in their recognition that the country’s media has a role to play in addressing the epidemic.’
The report noted four factors that currently impede Swazi media in effectively communicating about and tackling HIV AIDS:
1 Lack of media legislation. The lack of a constitutional framework upholding freedom of speech and other relevant legislation severely restricts the media. There is currently little room for the amendment of domestic legislation to expressly provide for basic rights and freedoms for the sector.
2 Tensions between local laws and the role of the media in exporting information to the international media. Legislation prohibits the exporting of information that will place the country or the King in disrepute. For example, there was uproar at the international media’s coverage of the ranking of Swaziland as having the highest HIV prevalence in the world.
3 Customs and cultural traditions that result in self-censorship. The stigmatisation of HIV/AIDS in the Swazi community tends to lead traditional authorities to believe that public reporting of the epidemic is bringing the country into disrepute. This has been fostered by the restrictive legislation and repressive environment, particularly among print media professionals.
4 The capacity of the media. Reporters are not sufficiently educated and trained about different aspects of HIV/AIDS to write analytically. For example, the Department of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of Swaziland awards a diploma that is the highest qualification in the country, but the department is severely under-resourced and would benefit from continuous capacity building
The full report which includes case studies of South Africa, Zambia, Namibia, Zimbabwe as well as Swaziland is called Reporting AIDS: An analysis of media environments in Southern Africa and can be found here.
See also
BID TO IMPROVE HIV AIDS REPORTING
Thursday, 10 January 2008
‘SWAZI OBSERVER’ OUT OF TOUCH
I often think that journalists in Swaziland live in a world of their own.
I know it’s not a kind thing to say, but when you read newspapers in the kingdom as often and as closely as I do it’s hard not to come to that conclusion.
Swazi journalists just don’t know how ordinary people in the kingdom live. A particularly revealing case of this happened on Monday (7 January 2008) in the Swazi Observer.
Two reports it published that day illustrate this perfectly.
The first was headed Swaziland poverty levels and appeared on page 13. The report stated that ‘About 69 percent of the population [of Swaziland] lives below the poverty line, and the worst situation being that 48 percent of the population cannot meet their food requirements, i.e. they are considered to be living under extreme poverty.’
The report went on to say that 40 percent of the population never have enough to eat. The national unemployment rate in Swaziland among all adults is estimated to be 29 percent with 40 percent of youth and 70 percent of women unemployed, it stated.
The second report was headed Managing debt and appeared on page 20. This report gave tips on how to control the level of money you owe. The report told readers to analyse their level of debt by asking themselves some questions. Here are some examples from the report:
- What interest rate am I paying on my bond, credit card and loans?
- Can I ask my boss for an increase in salary?
- Can I cut down on the number of manicures I have?
- Can I cut down on holidays?
And so on and so on.
My questions are these. How on earth does the Observer think the article on reducing debt relates to the 69 per cent of people living below the poverty line (which is measured as living on E7 or one US dollar a day or less)? How can the 70 percent of women without a job ask their employer for a rise in salary? How can the 40 percent of the population who don’t get enough to eat afford to have their fingernails manicured in the first place?
Do you see my problem? The same newspaper published both reports, but they are directed at people from two entirely different worlds. That’s why I say the journalists live in a world of their own.
I have a possible answer to why this is happening. A close inspection of the poverty article reveals that it was taken from a report by the Southern African Regional Poverty Report. The debt article came from something called http://www.peterpyburn.co.za/
So there you have it, neither report was actually written by the Observer. They were both taken from the Internet. The Observer does this all the time. A quick look through the newspaper on that same day shows at least 20 reports from the South African Press Association (SAPA), at least 13 from BBC News, at least seven from News24 and one each from Business Report, and Energy and Capital.
What all these reports have in common is they have nothing whatsoever to do with Swaziland.
On its front page the Swazi Observer boasts ‘We Serve the Nation’. On this evidence it does no such thing. It doesn’t know who the people of Swaziland are and probably doesn’t care much so long as it can fill its pages with any old stuff it can get its hands on from the Internet.
A good newspaper is one that gives its readers news and information that is relevant to their lives, as well as giving them space to debate issues that impact on them. The Swazi Observer has a long way to go before it can consider itself a good newspaper.
I know it’s not a kind thing to say, but when you read newspapers in the kingdom as often and as closely as I do it’s hard not to come to that conclusion.
Swazi journalists just don’t know how ordinary people in the kingdom live. A particularly revealing case of this happened on Monday (7 January 2008) in the Swazi Observer.
Two reports it published that day illustrate this perfectly.
The first was headed Swaziland poverty levels and appeared on page 13. The report stated that ‘About 69 percent of the population [of Swaziland] lives below the poverty line, and the worst situation being that 48 percent of the population cannot meet their food requirements, i.e. they are considered to be living under extreme poverty.’
The report went on to say that 40 percent of the population never have enough to eat. The national unemployment rate in Swaziland among all adults is estimated to be 29 percent with 40 percent of youth and 70 percent of women unemployed, it stated.
The second report was headed Managing debt and appeared on page 20. This report gave tips on how to control the level of money you owe. The report told readers to analyse their level of debt by asking themselves some questions. Here are some examples from the report:
- What interest rate am I paying on my bond, credit card and loans?
- Can I ask my boss for an increase in salary?
- Can I cut down on the number of manicures I have?
- Can I cut down on holidays?
And so on and so on.
My questions are these. How on earth does the Observer think the article on reducing debt relates to the 69 per cent of people living below the poverty line (which is measured as living on E7 or one US dollar a day or less)? How can the 70 percent of women without a job ask their employer for a rise in salary? How can the 40 percent of the population who don’t get enough to eat afford to have their fingernails manicured in the first place?
Do you see my problem? The same newspaper published both reports, but they are directed at people from two entirely different worlds. That’s why I say the journalists live in a world of their own.
I have a possible answer to why this is happening. A close inspection of the poverty article reveals that it was taken from a report by the Southern African Regional Poverty Report. The debt article came from something called http://www.peterpyburn.co.za/
So there you have it, neither report was actually written by the Observer. They were both taken from the Internet. The Observer does this all the time. A quick look through the newspaper on that same day shows at least 20 reports from the South African Press Association (SAPA), at least 13 from BBC News, at least seven from News24 and one each from Business Report, and Energy and Capital.
What all these reports have in common is they have nothing whatsoever to do with Swaziland.
On its front page the Swazi Observer boasts ‘We Serve the Nation’. On this evidence it does no such thing. It doesn’t know who the people of Swaziland are and probably doesn’t care much so long as it can fill its pages with any old stuff it can get its hands on from the Internet.
A good newspaper is one that gives its readers news and information that is relevant to their lives, as well as giving them space to debate issues that impact on them. The Swazi Observer has a long way to go before it can consider itself a good newspaper.
Wednesday, 9 January 2008
MORE RAPE LIES FROM ‘TIMES’
The Times of Swaziland is back to its old trick blaming the victims of rape for bringing it upon themselves.
On Friday (4 January 2008) the newspaper reported the rape of a woman security guard. In a separate piece the newspaper gave advice on ‘how to avoid being raped’.
Top of the list of advice to women was ‘avoid dressing seductively’. It went on, ‘When a woman or girl dresses half-naked she is saying through her action “I am available to any man that needs me”. When you dress seductively you are exposing yourself to the danger of being raped.’
This is nonsense. Rape has nothing to do with sexual desire; it is about men having power over women. Blaming women is just an excuse to justify female oppression through the control of women’s behaviour. The people who say that women bring rape on themselves by wearing short skirts tend to be the same people who want to restrict the role of women in Swaziland society to that of servants to men. That’s why in Swazi customary law women have no legal rights separate from men (usually husbands or fathers).
I would suggest that the Times managing editor reads his own newspaper, because not only did he allow this dangerous nonsense about rape victims to be published, he also included another report on the same day which was headlined 700 children raped in two years.
The Police Child Protection Unit released these figures along with a statement ‘children were the most vulnerable to rape because they were defenceless.’
The Times quoted the Swaziland Action Group Abuse saying the statistics showed that it was the children’s relatives rather than strangers who raped them.
This is a direct contradiction of the earlier Times report. These children were not raped because they dressed seductively. They were raped because they were defenceless and someone took advantage of this.
Just as children are defenceless so are women.
The crime of rape is prevalent in Swaziland. In the past two years as well as the 700 children, 463 women were reported raped. The newspapers are full of reports of pastors who rape women in their congregation; teachers raping their pupils and gangs of men raping women as punishment for perceived wrongdoing.
This is not the first time the Times has misled its readers about rape. In its truly dreadful weekly column Let’s Talk About Sex, the Times told its readers ‘the way women dress is entirely leading. Women bring it [rape] upon themselves. If they dress up in mini-skirts and body hugging pants, what are men supposed to do?’
This is nonsense. There is absolutely no independent evidence anywhere in the world that supports the ‘short skirts’ explanation for rape, yet the Times repeats the lie to its readers.
The Times is wrong on rape. It has been told time and again that it is wrong, so why does it insist on continuing to give men permission to rape?
See also
‘TIMES’ PEDDLES IGNORANCE ON RAPE
On Friday (4 January 2008) the newspaper reported the rape of a woman security guard. In a separate piece the newspaper gave advice on ‘how to avoid being raped’.
Top of the list of advice to women was ‘avoid dressing seductively’. It went on, ‘When a woman or girl dresses half-naked she is saying through her action “I am available to any man that needs me”. When you dress seductively you are exposing yourself to the danger of being raped.’
This is nonsense. Rape has nothing to do with sexual desire; it is about men having power over women. Blaming women is just an excuse to justify female oppression through the control of women’s behaviour. The people who say that women bring rape on themselves by wearing short skirts tend to be the same people who want to restrict the role of women in Swaziland society to that of servants to men. That’s why in Swazi customary law women have no legal rights separate from men (usually husbands or fathers).
I would suggest that the Times managing editor reads his own newspaper, because not only did he allow this dangerous nonsense about rape victims to be published, he also included another report on the same day which was headlined 700 children raped in two years.
The Police Child Protection Unit released these figures along with a statement ‘children were the most vulnerable to rape because they were defenceless.’
The Times quoted the Swaziland Action Group Abuse saying the statistics showed that it was the children’s relatives rather than strangers who raped them.
This is a direct contradiction of the earlier Times report. These children were not raped because they dressed seductively. They were raped because they were defenceless and someone took advantage of this.
Just as children are defenceless so are women.
The crime of rape is prevalent in Swaziland. In the past two years as well as the 700 children, 463 women were reported raped. The newspapers are full of reports of pastors who rape women in their congregation; teachers raping their pupils and gangs of men raping women as punishment for perceived wrongdoing.
This is not the first time the Times has misled its readers about rape. In its truly dreadful weekly column Let’s Talk About Sex, the Times told its readers ‘the way women dress is entirely leading. Women bring it [rape] upon themselves. If they dress up in mini-skirts and body hugging pants, what are men supposed to do?’
This is nonsense. There is absolutely no independent evidence anywhere in the world that supports the ‘short skirts’ explanation for rape, yet the Times repeats the lie to its readers.
The Times is wrong on rape. It has been told time and again that it is wrong, so why does it insist on continuing to give men permission to rape?
See also
‘TIMES’ PEDDLES IGNORANCE ON RAPE
SILENCE OVER SWAZI KING’S WEALTH
I know this is beginning to seem like a personal crusade on my part but I’d like to return to the subject of Swaziland’s King Mswati III’s huge wealth.
The international media have been reporting for months that the king has a net worth of about 200 million US Dollars (about 1.4 billion Swazi Emalengeni) and is one of the richest monarchs in the world.
Although people across the world have been able to learn about this wealth, the king’s subjects, 70 percent of whom live on one US Dollar a day or less, have not been told anything by Swaziland’s media.
The latest newspaper to carry the news was the Daily Star in the Lebanon on Monday (7 January 2008).
The newspaper published the report from Forbes in New York, US, that this blog originally carried in September 2007.
Forbes placed King Mswati III among the top 15 richest monarch’s in the world and as the very richest in Sub-Saharan Africa. At aged 39, he was also the youngest monarch to appear in the Top 15 list.
The Daily Star reports, ‘The list's youngest member and the only one from sub-Saharan Africa is 39-year-old King Mswati III of Swaziland, with a net worth of $200 million. Almost every year, he chooses a new bride from among 20,000 naked bare-breasted virgins; so far, he has 13 wives and is building a palace for each.’
None of this has appeared in the Swazi media because they are not allowed to run pieces critical of the king. Any media outlet that dares will be closed down.
For example, as I wrote previously the Times of Swaziland Group of Newspapers in March 2007 was forced into publishing an abject apology to Swaziland’s King Mwasti III after the Times Sunday ran a news commentary sourced from the international news agency Afrol News in which the following appeared. ‘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.’
Such open criticism of the king is not allowed in Swaziland (not even in so-called independent newspapers like the Times Sunday). The publisher was summoned to the Royal Palace and told to issue a public apology or his newspapers would be closed down. The apology was swiftly forthcoming.
See also
STORY THE SWAZI MEDIA MISSED
CLOSURE THREAT TO TIMES
The international media have been reporting for months that the king has a net worth of about 200 million US Dollars (about 1.4 billion Swazi Emalengeni) and is one of the richest monarchs in the world.
Although people across the world have been able to learn about this wealth, the king’s subjects, 70 percent of whom live on one US Dollar a day or less, have not been told anything by Swaziland’s media.
The latest newspaper to carry the news was the Daily Star in the Lebanon on Monday (7 January 2008).
The newspaper published the report from Forbes in New York, US, that this blog originally carried in September 2007.
Forbes placed King Mswati III among the top 15 richest monarch’s in the world and as the very richest in Sub-Saharan Africa. At aged 39, he was also the youngest monarch to appear in the Top 15 list.
The Daily Star reports, ‘The list's youngest member and the only one from sub-Saharan Africa is 39-year-old King Mswati III of Swaziland, with a net worth of $200 million. Almost every year, he chooses a new bride from among 20,000 naked bare-breasted virgins; so far, he has 13 wives and is building a palace for each.’
None of this has appeared in the Swazi media because they are not allowed to run pieces critical of the king. Any media outlet that dares will be closed down.
For example, as I wrote previously the Times of Swaziland Group of Newspapers in March 2007 was forced into publishing an abject apology to Swaziland’s King Mwasti III after the Times Sunday ran a news commentary sourced from the international news agency Afrol News in which the following appeared. ‘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.’
Such open criticism of the king is not allowed in Swaziland (not even in so-called independent newspapers like the Times Sunday). The publisher was summoned to the Royal Palace and told to issue a public apology or his newspapers would be closed down. The apology was swiftly forthcoming.
See also
STORY THE SWAZI MEDIA MISSED
CLOSURE THREAT TO TIMES
Tuesday, 8 January 2008
BID TO IMPROVE HIV AIDS REPORTING
Journalists in Swaziland are to be given the chance to learn more about HIV and AIDs, following criticisms that their reporting on the subjects was biased and sensational.
The Swaziland National Network of People Living with HIV and AIDS (SWANNEPHA), the Swaziland National Association of Journalists (SNAJ) and the Media Institute of Southern Africa Swaziland Chapter will join forces to raise awareness among journalists.
According to a report in the Weekend Observer on Saturday (5 January 2008) sessions will be held to ‘clear the misconceptions that the public and the media have about people living with HIV and AIDS. Sessions will also ensure accurate and evidenced based reporting on HIV and AIDS issues as well as consistent information sharing.’
The Weekend Observer, quoting a report from SWANNEPHA, said the public is normally cynical of journalists who take information, sensationalise and change it before publishing it without the consent of the informant.
The Weekend Observer reported that journalists acknowledged that information on HIV and AIDS was sometimes wrongly presented, but they were willing to learn.
This move to raise awareness among journalists is welcome, but we must remember that we have been here before. The SNAJ already has a code of conduct which includes guidelines on HIV and AIDS reporting
Article 19 of the SNAJ Code of Conduct is about the reporting of HIV and AIDs. It is divided into nine subsections, including gender, privacy, rights of infected children and the language to be used in reports.
The point is that even though guidelines exist, reporters and their editors often don’t understand them and there is no incentive within media houses to learn how to do things better.
The problem of poor reporting of HIV and AIDS is not confined to Swaziland. They also have a lot of problems in South Africa where a lot of work has been done to help journalists report well.
In South Africa guidelines have been drawn up because it is believed that what the media report have consequences for people’s lives. This is especially true in the area of reporting on HIV and AIDS. Stigma and discrimination means that careless reporting could have a serious negative impact on the individual concerned. Media reporting can also perpetuate myths and stereotypes and so contribute to stigma and discrimination. This means there is a need for specific ethical guidelines for reporting on HIV and AIDS.
Here is an edited version of the guidelines which can bee seen in full here
Privacy
Media reporters should note that:
» The HIV status of an individual is private unless otherwise indicated;
» All individuals have the right to control personal information, even where such information is already contained in public/semi-public documents;
» Children have a right to privacy
Confidentiality
The name or photograph of an individual with HIV should not be published without that individual’s expressed informed consent.
Informed consent
To obtain informed consent, journalists, photographers and camerapersons should:
» Clearly identify themselves when requesting to interview or photograph people living with HIV and AIDS;
» State the purpose of the interview/photograph, the context in which these may be utilised and the potential ramifications for the individual, their children and other family members;
» Consider whether the individual person living with HIV and AIDS is in a position to provide informed consent;
» Ensure that the person being interviewed has disclosed their status to their partners and families;
» Seek to obtain informed consent in the individual’s home language, wherever possible;
» Remain sensitive to the dangers of implying, or placing a person in a situation that may imply, HIV status; and
» Avoid promises that cannot be upheld (for example that the story will not be used within South Africa).
These guidelines apply even where media work has been facilitated by organisations working in the area of HIV and AIDS.
Interviewing people living with HIV and AIDS requires special sensitivities
Media workers should be aware that:
» If they are ill they present a health risk to people whose immune systems may be compromised, and it is advisable to postpone scheduled interviews;
» It is advisable to interview individuals in their home language;
» Direct payment for interviews or material is not advised, though support provided through a third party and in the interest of the person concerned is acceptable.
More information on good reporting of HIV AIDS, including fact sheets and reporting tips, is available from the HIV/AIDS and the Media Project at the University of the Witwatersrand.
The Swaziland National Network of People Living with HIV and AIDS (SWANNEPHA), the Swaziland National Association of Journalists (SNAJ) and the Media Institute of Southern Africa Swaziland Chapter will join forces to raise awareness among journalists.
According to a report in the Weekend Observer on Saturday (5 January 2008) sessions will be held to ‘clear the misconceptions that the public and the media have about people living with HIV and AIDS. Sessions will also ensure accurate and evidenced based reporting on HIV and AIDS issues as well as consistent information sharing.’
The Weekend Observer, quoting a report from SWANNEPHA, said the public is normally cynical of journalists who take information, sensationalise and change it before publishing it without the consent of the informant.
The Weekend Observer reported that journalists acknowledged that information on HIV and AIDS was sometimes wrongly presented, but they were willing to learn.
This move to raise awareness among journalists is welcome, but we must remember that we have been here before. The SNAJ already has a code of conduct which includes guidelines on HIV and AIDS reporting
Article 19 of the SNAJ Code of Conduct is about the reporting of HIV and AIDs. It is divided into nine subsections, including gender, privacy, rights of infected children and the language to be used in reports.
The point is that even though guidelines exist, reporters and their editors often don’t understand them and there is no incentive within media houses to learn how to do things better.
The problem of poor reporting of HIV and AIDS is not confined to Swaziland. They also have a lot of problems in South Africa where a lot of work has been done to help journalists report well.
In South Africa guidelines have been drawn up because it is believed that what the media report have consequences for people’s lives. This is especially true in the area of reporting on HIV and AIDS. Stigma and discrimination means that careless reporting could have a serious negative impact on the individual concerned. Media reporting can also perpetuate myths and stereotypes and so contribute to stigma and discrimination. This means there is a need for specific ethical guidelines for reporting on HIV and AIDS.
Here is an edited version of the guidelines which can bee seen in full here
Privacy
Media reporters should note that:
» The HIV status of an individual is private unless otherwise indicated;
» All individuals have the right to control personal information, even where such information is already contained in public/semi-public documents;
» Children have a right to privacy
Confidentiality
The name or photograph of an individual with HIV should not be published without that individual’s expressed informed consent.
Informed consent
To obtain informed consent, journalists, photographers and camerapersons should:
» Clearly identify themselves when requesting to interview or photograph people living with HIV and AIDS;
» State the purpose of the interview/photograph, the context in which these may be utilised and the potential ramifications for the individual, their children and other family members;
» Consider whether the individual person living with HIV and AIDS is in a position to provide informed consent;
» Ensure that the person being interviewed has disclosed their status to their partners and families;
» Seek to obtain informed consent in the individual’s home language, wherever possible;
» Remain sensitive to the dangers of implying, or placing a person in a situation that may imply, HIV status; and
» Avoid promises that cannot be upheld (for example that the story will not be used within South Africa).
These guidelines apply even where media work has been facilitated by organisations working in the area of HIV and AIDS.
Interviewing people living with HIV and AIDS requires special sensitivities
Media workers should be aware that:
» If they are ill they present a health risk to people whose immune systems may be compromised, and it is advisable to postpone scheduled interviews;
» It is advisable to interview individuals in their home language;
» Direct payment for interviews or material is not advised, though support provided through a third party and in the interest of the person concerned is acceptable.
More information on good reporting of HIV AIDS, including fact sheets and reporting tips, is available from the HIV/AIDS and the Media Project at the University of the Witwatersrand.
Monday, 7 January 2008
UNHAPPY NEW YEAR FOR SWAZILAND
Welcome back to the blog after the holiday break.
Swaziland’s media has been full of retrospectives looking back at the past year, 2007, or looking forward to what may be in store in the coming year.
It’s lazy journalism designed to fill up space during the holiday period. And nearly all of it is worthless. See for example The Swazi News, which on the last Saturday of the year filled an entire page with pictures of front pages from 2007. Pointless.
Also, anyone who regularly reads Swaziland’s newspapers knows that most journalists – even those who are given space in their own comment columns to write about matters that are supposed to be of public importance – are incapable of putting a coherent sentence together and do not have any original ideas.
That’s why one comment column published over the holiday period shines out like a beacon. Needless to say a journalist didn’t write it.
Bishop M B Mabuza, the chairperson of the civil society organisation SCCCO, wrote the comment piece in question in the Swazi News on 29 December 2007. He analysed how Swaziland’s new constitution is a ‘fig-leaf to cover the international shame of 33 years of rule by decree’.
This is part of what the bishop wrote. ‘What we now have is a piece of paper that is not being promoted or even defended by the government. The rights and duties that are enshrined in it are not being protected or enforced. This year has seen defenceless suspects killed by the police, public meetings broken up or prevented from happening, union members harassed, property taken without due court processes, newspaper editors intimidated, journalists threatened by government. The people of Swaziland are in the dark about the constitution and their rights and the government seems more than happy to keep them that way.
‘The kingdom continues to wear two faces, the one it shows to the outside world, a happy, peaceful united democratic nation. The other face is the reality of the internally driven, politically bankrupt, corrupt and profoundly anti-democratic system that is under performing economically. Rather than investing the public coffers in relation to areas of greatest need and with the potential for greatest results it squanders them on economically unproductive projects that do little more than stroke already inflated egos.
‘It is the year that many comparative international studies have started to peak behind the veil and show that Swaziland consistently is one of the worst performers in terms of human rights, political participation, civil rights, governance, corruption and the use of natural resources.’
The bishop concludes his article, ‘All in all, 2007 has not been a good year for Swaziland, the terrible effects of HIV / AIDS, drought, poverty, unemployment, corruption and poor governance continue to unnecessarily kill far too many people and to sap the ability of the country to perform. Our “unique” system and style of governance wastes time, effort, resources and energy that could be better spent on really tackling the issues.’
He goes on, ‘We say to the democrats in government, reach out respect diversity of opinion and pluralism, embrace civil society and work with us in partnership. The present system has failed and can only continue to do so.’
The bishop’s analysis reminds me of the ‘open letter’ to the Swazi media written in October 2007 by Derek von Wissell, of the HIV / AIDS NGO, NERCHA. Von Wissel identified Swaziland as a nation ‘on its knees’.
He wrote that the kingdom’s ability to stand and face adversity is slowly being eaten away. ‘HIV, death, disease and poverty have sapped the very strength required to overcome these challenges.’
Sadly, nobody seems to have taken much notice of Von Wissell’s warning and I don’t expect anyone in any power will care what the bishop thinks either.
See also
SWAZILAND IN GOVERNANCE DENIAL
A COUNTRY ON ITS KNEES
Swaziland’s media has been full of retrospectives looking back at the past year, 2007, or looking forward to what may be in store in the coming year.
It’s lazy journalism designed to fill up space during the holiday period. And nearly all of it is worthless. See for example The Swazi News, which on the last Saturday of the year filled an entire page with pictures of front pages from 2007. Pointless.
Also, anyone who regularly reads Swaziland’s newspapers knows that most journalists – even those who are given space in their own comment columns to write about matters that are supposed to be of public importance – are incapable of putting a coherent sentence together and do not have any original ideas.
That’s why one comment column published over the holiday period shines out like a beacon. Needless to say a journalist didn’t write it.
Bishop M B Mabuza, the chairperson of the civil society organisation SCCCO, wrote the comment piece in question in the Swazi News on 29 December 2007. He analysed how Swaziland’s new constitution is a ‘fig-leaf to cover the international shame of 33 years of rule by decree’.
This is part of what the bishop wrote. ‘What we now have is a piece of paper that is not being promoted or even defended by the government. The rights and duties that are enshrined in it are not being protected or enforced. This year has seen defenceless suspects killed by the police, public meetings broken up or prevented from happening, union members harassed, property taken without due court processes, newspaper editors intimidated, journalists threatened by government. The people of Swaziland are in the dark about the constitution and their rights and the government seems more than happy to keep them that way.
‘The kingdom continues to wear two faces, the one it shows to the outside world, a happy, peaceful united democratic nation. The other face is the reality of the internally driven, politically bankrupt, corrupt and profoundly anti-democratic system that is under performing economically. Rather than investing the public coffers in relation to areas of greatest need and with the potential for greatest results it squanders them on economically unproductive projects that do little more than stroke already inflated egos.
‘It is the year that many comparative international studies have started to peak behind the veil and show that Swaziland consistently is one of the worst performers in terms of human rights, political participation, civil rights, governance, corruption and the use of natural resources.’
The bishop concludes his article, ‘All in all, 2007 has not been a good year for Swaziland, the terrible effects of HIV / AIDS, drought, poverty, unemployment, corruption and poor governance continue to unnecessarily kill far too many people and to sap the ability of the country to perform. Our “unique” system and style of governance wastes time, effort, resources and energy that could be better spent on really tackling the issues.’
He goes on, ‘We say to the democrats in government, reach out respect diversity of opinion and pluralism, embrace civil society and work with us in partnership. The present system has failed and can only continue to do so.’
The bishop’s analysis reminds me of the ‘open letter’ to the Swazi media written in October 2007 by Derek von Wissell, of the HIV / AIDS NGO, NERCHA. Von Wissel identified Swaziland as a nation ‘on its knees’.
He wrote that the kingdom’s ability to stand and face adversity is slowly being eaten away. ‘HIV, death, disease and poverty have sapped the very strength required to overcome these challenges.’
Sadly, nobody seems to have taken much notice of Von Wissell’s warning and I don’t expect anyone in any power will care what the bishop thinks either.
See also
SWAZILAND IN GOVERNANCE DENIAL
A COUNTRY ON ITS KNEES
Thursday, 6 December 2007
Tuesday, 4 December 2007
NO CHANGE IN SWAZI PRESS FREEDOM
I wrote recently about how two newspapers and one magazine were closed down by the authorities in Swaziland because ruling elites, including King Mswati III, did not like what they were saying.
The trouble the Swazi Observer, the Swazi Guardian and the Nation found themselves in were not isolated incidents. Swaziland has a long dishonourable history of attacks on press freedom.
One organisation that has been monitoring these attacks is the International Press Institute (IPI). Each year it publishes a report on Swaziland detailing how the freedom of the press is under attack.
The IPI has put annual reviews of the position in Swaziland dating back to 1997 on the Internet. They make depressing reading because they show that not much has changed in the kingdom over the past decade.
Here as a slice of history is the IPI report on Swaziland for 1997. You can see for yourself that the same old issues occur. For instance, the Media Council Bill was a hot topic and so was media regulation.
1997 World Press Freedom Review
The climate for the press deteriorated dramatically in this African nation during 1997, sparking fury among journalists at the government's attempts to control both the public and the private media.
The Media Council Bill was introduced in Parliament on October 3 and numerous objections have been raised by journalists and other workers in Swaziland. The Bill seeks to entrench government control over the media through the introduction of a government-appointed media council, with which all journalists wishing to practise in Swaziland would have to register. The council will also be responsible for enforcing a government-drafted code of ethics. The Bill lays down prison terms and fines for journalists contravening the law.
The government's approval of a Media Regulation Bill, despite protests from journalists and other organisations in Swaziland, shows the insensitivity of the authorities. It seeks to introduce a media council appointed by a government minister, which will license and arbitrate in media complaints. The council has power to enforce a government drafted code of ethics, de-register journalists, and fine or imprison them for violating the proposed law. It will also set minimum qualifications for a journalist to be licensed. These will include O-level examination passes and a journalism certificate.
On October 7, Swaziland journalists took to the streets to protest against the Bill. Incensed scores of angry journalists from the country’s five media houses -The Times of Swaziland, Swazi Observer, Nation Magazine, Broadcasting and Information Services and Television Broadcasting Corporation - marched to the Prime Minister’s Office to protest.
Mbuso Mtsenjwa, President of The National Association of Journalists (NAJ), demanded that the Prime Minister, Dr Sibusiso Dlamini, withdraw the media Bill, and vowed that the association would fight the matter in court.
A human rights activist, Simon Noge, said the country's media had been comprised into toeing the government line and the media Bill would worsen the situation.
The Information Minister, Muntu Msawane, insisted that the Media Bill was aimed at promoting professionalism. He said journalists, as professionals, needed to behave rationally and not make unfounded statements. He pledged that the government would not infringe the rights of journalists: ‘Swaziland boasts free media and we intend to maintain that’, he said.
However, Swazi journalists did not accept these reassurances. They argued that the government would effectively dictate to journalists what to write - or the reporters would risk having their accreditation withdrawn. Journalists who fail to toe the line will face a fine or a jail term of five years while the publishers would also risk substantial fines. Anyone who continues to publish, distribute or disseminate a banned publication risked maximum prison term of seven years or a fine.
The press were by no means the only victims in Swaziland this year. The authorities were also accused of human rights violations, cracking down brutally on political dissent.
The authorities announced plans to block the transmission of South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) programmes in Swaziland. The blackout was privately seen as an attempt to stop Swazis from tuning into anti-Swaziland programmes - although the move was officially described as a cost-cutting measure.
The director of Swaziland Television, Mike Cornwell, then announced that his station had suspended its intention to stop the transmission of SABC channels. Cornwell first announced the blackout on October 15, saying his station would switch off the transmitter which makes it possible to view the SABC channels because it was costly to run.
However, it was largely believed that public protests forced Swazi TV to suspend the decision.
IPI, the global network of editors, media executives and leading journalists, is dedicated to the furtherance and safeguarding of press freedom, the promotion of the free flow of news and information, and the improvement of the practices of journalism.
See also
LONG HISTORY OF SWAZI CENSORSHIP
The trouble the Swazi Observer, the Swazi Guardian and the Nation found themselves in were not isolated incidents. Swaziland has a long dishonourable history of attacks on press freedom.
One organisation that has been monitoring these attacks is the International Press Institute (IPI). Each year it publishes a report on Swaziland detailing how the freedom of the press is under attack.
The IPI has put annual reviews of the position in Swaziland dating back to 1997 on the Internet. They make depressing reading because they show that not much has changed in the kingdom over the past decade.
Here as a slice of history is the IPI report on Swaziland for 1997. You can see for yourself that the same old issues occur. For instance, the Media Council Bill was a hot topic and so was media regulation.
1997 World Press Freedom Review
The climate for the press deteriorated dramatically in this African nation during 1997, sparking fury among journalists at the government's attempts to control both the public and the private media.
The Media Council Bill was introduced in Parliament on October 3 and numerous objections have been raised by journalists and other workers in Swaziland. The Bill seeks to entrench government control over the media through the introduction of a government-appointed media council, with which all journalists wishing to practise in Swaziland would have to register. The council will also be responsible for enforcing a government-drafted code of ethics. The Bill lays down prison terms and fines for journalists contravening the law.
The government's approval of a Media Regulation Bill, despite protests from journalists and other organisations in Swaziland, shows the insensitivity of the authorities. It seeks to introduce a media council appointed by a government minister, which will license and arbitrate in media complaints. The council has power to enforce a government drafted code of ethics, de-register journalists, and fine or imprison them for violating the proposed law. It will also set minimum qualifications for a journalist to be licensed. These will include O-level examination passes and a journalism certificate.
On October 7, Swaziland journalists took to the streets to protest against the Bill. Incensed scores of angry journalists from the country’s five media houses -The Times of Swaziland, Swazi Observer, Nation Magazine, Broadcasting and Information Services and Television Broadcasting Corporation - marched to the Prime Minister’s Office to protest.
Mbuso Mtsenjwa, President of The National Association of Journalists (NAJ), demanded that the Prime Minister, Dr Sibusiso Dlamini, withdraw the media Bill, and vowed that the association would fight the matter in court.
A human rights activist, Simon Noge, said the country's media had been comprised into toeing the government line and the media Bill would worsen the situation.
The Information Minister, Muntu Msawane, insisted that the Media Bill was aimed at promoting professionalism. He said journalists, as professionals, needed to behave rationally and not make unfounded statements. He pledged that the government would not infringe the rights of journalists: ‘Swaziland boasts free media and we intend to maintain that’, he said.
However, Swazi journalists did not accept these reassurances. They argued that the government would effectively dictate to journalists what to write - or the reporters would risk having their accreditation withdrawn. Journalists who fail to toe the line will face a fine or a jail term of five years while the publishers would also risk substantial fines. Anyone who continues to publish, distribute or disseminate a banned publication risked maximum prison term of seven years or a fine.
The press were by no means the only victims in Swaziland this year. The authorities were also accused of human rights violations, cracking down brutally on political dissent.
The authorities announced plans to block the transmission of South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) programmes in Swaziland. The blackout was privately seen as an attempt to stop Swazis from tuning into anti-Swaziland programmes - although the move was officially described as a cost-cutting measure.
The director of Swaziland Television, Mike Cornwell, then announced that his station had suspended its intention to stop the transmission of SABC channels. Cornwell first announced the blackout on October 15, saying his station would switch off the transmitter which makes it possible to view the SABC channels because it was costly to run.
However, it was largely believed that public protests forced Swazi TV to suspend the decision.
IPI, the global network of editors, media executives and leading journalists, is dedicated to the furtherance and safeguarding of press freedom, the promotion of the free flow of news and information, and the improvement of the practices of journalism.
See also
LONG HISTORY OF SWAZI CENSORSHIP
Monday, 3 December 2007
START TO GENDER ABUSE CAMPAIGN
Swaziland’s Sixteen Days of Activism on Gender Violence campaign got off to a good start in the Times Sunday.
The United Nations campaign which runs from 25 November (International Women’s Day) to 10 December (Human Rights Day) is designed to raise awareness about the problem and impact of violence on women and children.
To mark the start of the campaign the Times Sunday (25 November 2007) ran two pages of articles about a four-year-old girl who was repeatedly raped.
The Times Sunday reported that the man who is said to have raped the child was caught but community members let him go free with a warning. He later raped an eight-year-old and a four-year-old. It transpired that members of the community knew the man had a record of raping children.
The man has now been arrested and faces two charges of rape and indecent assault.
This was an important story and it was right for the Times Sunday to publish it even though the subject matter is distressing. It is important that the public knows that these things are going on. It is also important to know that many members of the community don’t believe the crime of child rape to be important enough to turn the alleged rapist over to the police.
The Times Sunday reported that the Swaziland Action Group Against Abuse (SWAGAA) had registered its surprised that people could keep quiet about such an incident.
As part of its coverage of the Sixteen Days of Activism on Gender Violence the Times Sunday also gave information to help parents who might find that their child has been the victim of child sexual abuse.
Also included were statistics about how much violence against women and children take place in Swaziland.
According to its own figures, women were the highest number of SWAGAA clients in the past year with 1,453 of them attended for counselling services. There were 547 males who were counselled and only 427 children.
A total of 242 women were subjected to physical abuse. High numbers on sexual abuse were on the girl child with 172 cases reported while boy children sodomised were 11.
SWAGAA records that lovers are the most perpetrators of violence with 34 per cent of reported cases.
The reports in the Times Sunday also included personal testimony from a gender activist who was herself sexually molested by a male nurse while in labour pains at a hospital. She said, ‘I am a gender activist, I’m an anti abuse advocate, I’m everything that represents an “empowered woman”. I kept wondering to myself, what could have gone wrong, what made me keep silent about this terrible experience that still makes me disgusted even 15 months down the line.’
Interestingly, she said that she was afraid to tell anyone about the assault in case the newspapers got hold of the story. She said this about the fear of the media. ‘I can remember imagining the news headlines “ABC employee raped” “Gender activist sexually assaulted during labour” “Activist claims to be raped”
She may have had some justification for her fears. The headline that the Times Sunday gave to her story was sensational. ‘Gender Activist Breaks her silence: I was sexually molested’
The United Nations campaign which runs from 25 November (International Women’s Day) to 10 December (Human Rights Day) is designed to raise awareness about the problem and impact of violence on women and children.
To mark the start of the campaign the Times Sunday (25 November 2007) ran two pages of articles about a four-year-old girl who was repeatedly raped.
The Times Sunday reported that the man who is said to have raped the child was caught but community members let him go free with a warning. He later raped an eight-year-old and a four-year-old. It transpired that members of the community knew the man had a record of raping children.
The man has now been arrested and faces two charges of rape and indecent assault.
This was an important story and it was right for the Times Sunday to publish it even though the subject matter is distressing. It is important that the public knows that these things are going on. It is also important to know that many members of the community don’t believe the crime of child rape to be important enough to turn the alleged rapist over to the police.
The Times Sunday reported that the Swaziland Action Group Against Abuse (SWAGAA) had registered its surprised that people could keep quiet about such an incident.
As part of its coverage of the Sixteen Days of Activism on Gender Violence the Times Sunday also gave information to help parents who might find that their child has been the victim of child sexual abuse.
Also included were statistics about how much violence against women and children take place in Swaziland.
According to its own figures, women were the highest number of SWAGAA clients in the past year with 1,453 of them attended for counselling services. There were 547 males who were counselled and only 427 children.
A total of 242 women were subjected to physical abuse. High numbers on sexual abuse were on the girl child with 172 cases reported while boy children sodomised were 11.
SWAGAA records that lovers are the most perpetrators of violence with 34 per cent of reported cases.
The reports in the Times Sunday also included personal testimony from a gender activist who was herself sexually molested by a male nurse while in labour pains at a hospital. She said, ‘I am a gender activist, I’m an anti abuse advocate, I’m everything that represents an “empowered woman”. I kept wondering to myself, what could have gone wrong, what made me keep silent about this terrible experience that still makes me disgusted even 15 months down the line.’
Interestingly, she said that she was afraid to tell anyone about the assault in case the newspapers got hold of the story. She said this about the fear of the media. ‘I can remember imagining the news headlines “ABC employee raped” “Gender activist sexually assaulted during labour” “Activist claims to be raped”
She may have had some justification for her fears. The headline that the Times Sunday gave to her story was sensational. ‘Gender Activist Breaks her silence: I was sexually molested’
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)