Search This Blog

Friday, 16 November 2012

KING’S PAPER SUPPORTS POLICE TORTURE



The Swazi Observer, the newspaper in effect owned by King Mswati III, has come out in favour of police torturing suspects.

In an editorial in the newspaper it speaks approvingly of taking suspects to the river and tying them to trees so that they freeze.

The police and state security forces regularly torture alleged suspects, including pro-democracy campaigners, in the kingdom, ruled by King Mswati, who is sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch.

The Observer was commenting on a case heard at magistrates court where a man accused of housebreaking said he had been savagely beaten by police using an iron rod to make him confess to the crime.

The Observer said the police probably did this because they ‘cannot have their precious time wasted by small time thieves like these’.

The newspaper went onto reminisce about the days ‘when police wore shorts, and polished their boots to a mirror finish, such would never happen’.

It went on, ‘For such trivialities, the investigating officer would simply take the accused to the nearest river, especially when it was winter and a few hours before the break of dawn.

‘The suspect would then be fastened to a tree, and told the officers would be returning in a few hours.  As the waves crashed on the boulders spraying drops of water on the suspect, he would shiver and gnash his teeth so much that he prayed the cops returned much earlier.

‘By the time they return, he would be more than willing to spill the beans and Bingo! the mystery was solved.’

In May 2012 the US State Department investigated the use of torture in Swaziland and found, ‘Security officers reportedly used torture during interrogation, assaulted citizens, and used excessive force in carrying out their duties. Reported practices included beatings and temporary suffocation using a rubber tube tied around the face, nose, and mouth, or plastic bags over the head.’ 

See also

KING’S PAPER BACKS RADIO CENSORSHIP

Thursday, 15 November 2012

LIMKOKWING REDUCES MINISTER TO TEARS


In one of the most bizarre stories to come out of Swaziland’s troubled Limkokwing University, the  Minister of Education and Training Wilson Ntshangase publicly claimed that he cried in cabinet in order to get the prime minister to allow it to open in the kingdom.

‘I cried, literally, because I was fighting, fighting, fighting and working hard for the university to be established in the country. On that day, the prime minister said to me, “Ntshangase, don’t cry, we are going to help you,”’ he told the guests at a book launch at Limkokwing. 

Limkokwing is a private university based in Malaysia that has opened campuses in Swaziland, Botswana and Lesotho on the African continent.  Controversy has dogged Limkokwing wherever it goes, because of the often controversial way it sets up in a country and the low standards of its courses and teaching staffs.

Ntshangase might delude himself that it was his tears that won the day for Limkokwing in Swaziland, but in fact it was King Mswati III, who made it happen. Plans to set up in Mbabane were going nowhere for years until the king stepped in.

In June 2011, it emerged that the university’s founder Tan Sri Dato Lim Kok Wing had a meeting with King Mswati and ‘persuaded’ him that Swaziland needed a new university – and Limkokwing should be it. He fooled the king into believing that low level courses in such subjects as Graphic Designing, TV & Film Production, Architectural Technology, Advertising, Creative Multimedia, Information Technology, Event Management, Business Information Technology, Journalism and Media, Public Relations and Business Management, would help Swaziland – a mainly agricultural society - to prosper.  

These courses are ‘associate degrees’, a term invented to disguise the fact that they are courses inferior to a bachelor degree, which are better known in other educational institutions as ‘diplomas’.

Limkokwing cannot escape the controversy about the quality of its courses: an organisation isn’t a ‘university’ just because it says it is.

The king passed on his wishes to government that Limkokwing should be supported and no matter how daft the proposition, it had to find the money to make it work. Before we knew it the Swazi Government had put up US$2 million a year it did not have for scholarships for up to 800 students.

We know it did not have the money because as soon as Limkokwing opened in Mbabane in May 2011, students began protesting that they were not getting their allowances and there were no text books and too few laptops. There were at least 20 protests, class boycotts and closures during the first year after it opened. Police used teargas and rubber bullets against protesting students. One student was shot in the leg. 

Limkokwing is in Swaziland illegally. You need an Act of Parliament to set up a university, but Limkokwing was allowed to start without parliament’s approval and there is no intention of creating an Act for it. This was confirmed by Ntshangase. 

Ackel Zwane, who writes for the Swazi Observer pointed out in May 2011, ‘The University of Swaziland [the kingdom’s only other university] is established by an Act of Parliament, which solely governs that institution and therefore, the same Act cannot be applied in the regulation of the new Limkokwing and others. There is something stinking under the carpet.

‘All those appearing to be promoting higher education in Swaziland have personal interests that cannot be disputed.’

Educational standards at Limkokwing are lower than those at other universities, including the University of Swaziland. It is so desperate to attract fee-paying students that it does not require them to have qualifications in the English language.

Ntshangase said there was ‘nothing suspicious’ about Limkokwing wanting lower qualifications for entry. But, Limkokwing makes its money from student fees: the more students it signs up, the more money it makes. 

A proper university offers high quality courses to high quality students using high quality staff.

Limkokwing falls down on all of these. The quality of students it takes is poor. In Swaziland it takes students with three credits in the International General Certificate of Secondary Education. This is lower than the five credits needed for entry to the University of Swaziland (UNISWA), the kingdom’s only state-run university.

No student at a Limkokwing University should fail, according to its owner Lim Kok Wing. He told a Malaysian newspaper, ‘It is my belief that no student should fail. If there are failures, then it is we who have failed them.’ Which means lecturers will pass even the dullest and laziest students to avoid being criticised by their own bosses.

Then there is the quality of the staff. Limkokwing advertises internationally for staff in its new campuses (including Swaziland). It states that applicants with bachelor degrees will be considered for posts. A proper university would expect staff to have Ph.D doctorate degrees.

In June 2012, after one year of operation Bandile Mkhonta, Head of Human Resource for Limkokwing in Mbabane, told local media that of 53 professional staff at the university; only one had a Ph.D.

The Swazi Observer reported Mkhonta saying Limkokwing had fewer Ph.Ds because it was a ‘non-conventional’ university whose curriculum was mainly based on practice than theory. 

For ‘non-conventional’ one should read ‘non-university’.


See also

KING FELL FOR BOGUS UNIVERSITY


MORE CONTROVERSY FOR LIMKOKWING

Wednesday, 14 November 2012

STUDENTS MARK ‘BLACK WEDNESDAY’



Swaziland National Union of Students statement on Black Wednesday

This date 14 November is very important in the history of the student’s movement in Swaziland. It is a day which we need to commemorate, lest we forget about selfless young women and men who fought for a better learning and living environment.

It was on this day twenty two years ago that the [Barnabas] Sibusiso Dlamini led government set the army and the police, both armed to the tooth on students at the University of Swaziland Kwaluseni campus. The ‘crime’ of the students was protesting for better learning environment and mostly they demanded to be given their meal allowances instead of being given unhealthy food at the so called refectory. Upon arrival of the forces at the campus, the student’s conscious of the fact that police and soldiers are scared of books, they went to gather at the library which was under construction then. The forces, however, invaded the library and attacked the students and caused major injuries on many of them.

It is for this reason that today we pay homage to those students who never looked back in their struggle for allowances and quality education. The strides that they made in the quest for a better learning environment are still visible even today. The mark that they made greatly impacted on the lives of the students who came after them and their legacy still lives on. Surely they are the oasis of our inspiration as students of today.

It is worth noting that even in 1990, like today, the problems faced by the students of Swaziland were mainly caused by the government than the institutions. As a result of this government manufactured injustices students find themselves spending less time in class because they will be on the streets inhaling teargas and dodging rubber bullets.

As we commemorate this watershed day let each and every student answer in a practical way the critical question-what am i doing to transform education to further transform the society?

Please remember the patriots of black Wednesday to prosperity and show by your deeds as students that you are committed to fighting for better education in the country.

Commanders of 1990 we are proud of you for the enormous contribution you made to the struggle of the students and people of Swaziland.

Mlungisi Khumalo
Deputy President
 


See also

BLACK WEDNESDAY – 20 YEARS ON

KING’S PAPER BACKS RADIO CENSORSHIP



The Swazi Observer, the newspaper in effect owned by King Mswati III, has backed the Prime Minister Barnabas Dlamini’s ban on MPs going on the radio.

Dlamini had banned MPs from the airwaves in Swaziland, where all but one radio station is state-controlled and the PM is editor-in-chief.

Dlamini said MPs could not go on air without the permission of their areas’ chiefs. He said it was wrong for them to just go on radio with issues which the chiefs were not even aware of.

The Observer, in an editorial, backed the premier, saying, ‘We don’t care about the national radio ban he effected on them.’ 

In particular, the newspaper objected to MPs drawing attention to the development needs of their constituents.  ‘MPs are in Parliament to make laws and not to play small time development officers,’ it said.

It went on to say it did not want to hear the MPs talking about people’s needs like burials, school fees and elderly grants.



See also
GOVT BANS MPS FROM THE RADIO

MPS DON’T UNDERSTAND CONSTITUTION



For the first time it has been publicly acknowledged that King Mswati III took it upon himself to ignore a vote of confidence passed on his government by the Swaziland House of Assembly.
   
And, it is also revealed that members of the Swazi parliament do not understand the constitution, and some may never have even read it.

The House vote meant that the king should have sacked the Prime Minister Barnabas Dlamini, but he chose not to do so. Instead, the House was forced to take a second vote to overturn its earlier decision.

Now, Mpolonjeni MP Nicodemus Mashwama has publicly said that parliament had no choice but to withdraw the vote of no-confidence, because the king did not accept it.

The Times ofSwaziland reported him saying the king’s resolve on the matter automatically compelled MPs to rescind the motion. 

But, in giving his explanation as to why this happened, Mashwama unwittingly revealed that members of the Swazi parliament do not understand the Swaziland Constitution.

The newspaper quotes Mashwama saying that the king, ‘as the highest authority in the land, has executive powers to either implement or not implement the MPs resolution to axe Cabinet. He said the King’s powers are enshrined in the Constitution.’

But, this is not true. The constitution does not give the king any discretion in the matter. Section S68 (5) clearly states that where a resolution of no-confidence is passed on the Cabinet by three-fifths of all members of the House the king ‘shall dissolve Cabinet’.  

There is no discretion for the king: the constitution requires him to do it. And, there is not the slightest ambiguity in the section of the constitution. Anyone reading it cannot be confused about what it says, which suggests that Mashwama and his parliamentary colleagues have never read the constitution.

But, Mashwama, told the Times that he believed ‘the MPs’ vote of no-confidence on Cabinet was merely an advice to His Majesty King Mswati III. He said it was then within the king’s discretion to implement the advice or not.’

He went on to give a completely inaccurate description of the role of the House of Assembly in the matter of the vote of no-confidence. He is reported saying, ‘The nation has to understand that whatever MPs decided either pro or against Cabinet, they were doing that as part of emabandla (committees) advising the king.

‘If the king decides not to accept the advice, as he may elect to do so as the highest authority in the land, he has to be respected as it is his right.

‘In the issue of the vote of no confidence, the king decided to not accept the MPs’ advice. Protocol, as all Swazis understand, dictates that MPs had to automatically succumb or relent to the king’s wisdom in dealing with the issue.

‘Obviously the king’s actions showed that he is not sanctioning the axing of Cabinet.

‘For the sake of national progress and respect for the king, as the nation’s father, we just had to reverse the motion. Every Swazi, worthy of his identity, will understand that you just can’t continue maintaining a stance that is against your father,’ said Mashwama.

Mashwama again unwittingly demonstrated that King Mswati rules Swaziland as an absolute monarch. He told the newspaper that members of parliament take an oath that ‘states clearly that they are not only serving the nation, but the king as the father of the nation’.

He added, ‘It is an honest fact that we backtracked on our decision to axe Cabinet.

‘We did this because we believe in the wisdom of the king as the father of the nation that he has the best interest of the nation by not sanctioning the removal of Cabinet.’

See also


SWAZILAND IS NOT A DEMOCRACY. PERIOD

SWAZILAND IS NOT A DEMOCRACY. PERIOD



Swaziland’s Prime Minister Barnabas Dlamini told the House of Assembly that MPs needed a workshop so they could understand what their responsibilities were.

He told them that they did not understand the principle of ‘separation of powers’ between the executive (government ministers and their departments), the legislative (parliament) and the judiciary (judges and the courts).

He said parliament had an important responsibility but seemingly, it overlapped sometimes with his government, the Swazi Observer newspaper reported him saying. What he meant was he did not want parliament interfering with his decisions. 

The newspaper reported, ‘Dlamini said there needed to be a clarification on the separation of powers of the three arms so that none of them got in the way for the other, thus making the operation of government smooth in as far as that was concerned.’

But, Dlamini fails to acknowledge that in Swaziland any workshop on separation of powers is irrelevant. This is because Section 64 (1) of the Swaziland Constitution says that the executive authority of Swaziland rests in the king as head of state.

S11 of the constitution goes on to state that the king cannot be questioned in court, so this means his decisions cannot come under judicial scrutiny. Since King Mswati III has executive authority and his decisions cannot be overruled by the courts, this makes him an absolute monarch.

This has been demonstrated many times in Swaziland, most recently last month when Prime Minister Dlamini lost a vote of confidence in the House of Assembly. According to the constitution, King Mswati was required to sack him, but he chose not to do so and Dlamini remains in power.

The supremacy of the monarch is not in doubt, but it is not talked about much in Swaziland.

Prime Minister Dlamini is not the only major figure in Swaziland to misrepresent the status of separation of powers; the Attorney General (AG) Majahenkhaba Dlamini did the same in January 2008, when he claimed in a speech that separation of powers were enshrined in the constitution and that the executive (government ministers) was ‘first among equals’ in the three branches of government.

The Swaziland Lawyers for Human Rights made several important criticisms of the AG’s at the time and in doing so gave an excellent account of just how undemocratic a state Swaziland is. 

In a statement the lawyers said the King and iNgweyama (his Mother) had a special and revered role in Swazi traditional law and custom to such an extent that Swazi custom dictates that ‘the King cannot tell a lie’.

‘This is not a prohibition of royal falsehoods but a statement on how truth and reality are recognized in Swazi Traditional Law.

‘The King and iNgweyama also has an elevated role under the Swazi Constitution where under section 11 he cannot be questioned in court and therefore his decisions cannot come under judicial scrutiny either.

‘Therefore it follows that our Executive is not first among equals but first among strongly weighted unequals.’

The lawyers continued, ‘The Attorney General [says] that the separation of powers can be found in the constitution. We strongly contest that assertion. Separation of powers is a philosophy of providing checks and balances between the three branches of government: the executive (government ministers and their departments), the legislative (parliament) and the judiciary (judges and the courts).

‘In theory, it distributes the power of the state between these three branches and maintains a healthy tension of oversight and accountability between them.

‘In a democracy that practices separation of powers the ultimate power rests in the will of the people, and so parliament and the legislature become the final arbiter of how the country is governed - not the executive.

‘We have already seen that in Swaziland the King has supreme executive authority. Let us look at parliamentary authority in Swaziland today. Section 106(a) of the Constitution says ‘the supreme legislative authority of Swaziland vests in the King-in-Parliament’.

‘It goes on to state the King can appoint nearly one fifth of the House of Assembly and two thirds of the Senate. The majority of both houses is required for a bill to become law. In any case, under section 134(b), the King has the absolute authority to dissolve parliament. It is impossible to argue that emaSwati [Swazi people] have any real political power in this arrangement.

‘We know that the real power lies with the traditional authorities and Liqoqo in advising the King. In other countries, parliamentary elections are typically closely fought and so often the people in the centre hold the balance of power. This promotes a culture of problem solving, compromise and respect for minorities.

‘The Swazi system ensures an inbuilt majority for those who are sympathetic to traditional causes in all but the most extreme situations. Democracy is not reflected in the simple rule of the majority. It is equal access to power and influence by all.

‘The arrangement is Swaziland is simply and clearly not democratic.’

The lawyers then turned their attention to the judiciary in Swaziland.

‘Section 141 guarantees the independence of the judiciary. However, the senior judges of the country are chosen by the Judicial Services Commission.

‘The majority of this commission is directly appointed by the King and his advisors. Given this fact, how independent can new judges really be?’

The lawyers continued, ‘Thus we can see that the combined position of the Monarchy and its advisors directly controls the makeup of, and has the potential to manipulate the decisions of, all three branches of government.

‘We therefore must disagree in the strongest of terms with the Attorney General that the Swazi Constitution embodies the doctrine of the separation of powers.’

DON’T OSTRACIZE SINGLE MOTHERS



Swazi single mothers: do not ostracize us
   
Stiffkitten blog / Peter Kenworthy November 13, 2012


“We believe that those who find themselves involuntarily having children should not be rejected and banned from their community. Swaziland Single Mothers’ Organization (SWASMO) is working hard to ensure that young single women are considered in Swaziland,” SWASMO said in their annual statement last week.

SWASMO is a membership-based Swazi NGO that amongst other things organizes projects and self-help groups that promote self-reliance, mutual support, mobilisation and education to try and improve the position and consciousness of single mothers by mobilising and educating poor single mothers in Swaziland. SWASMO is planning to expand both their outreach and projects.

“The fact is that SWASMO is the only organisation taking care of young single mothers and their children,” says Project Coordinator and founder of SWASMO, Beatrice Bitchong. “But we have begun giving talks on the radio to promote a supportive attitude from parents. We are also planning a march on the 8th March 2013 with the aim of sensitizing people about the problems of young single mothers. And we are planning a day care project where their children could have good meals and be well looked after.”

Church organisations from Canada and the USA have recently donated materials to SWASMO’s projects. “But we are interested in other donors who can help Swaziland’s young single mothers. They need it more than most,” says Beatrice Bitchong.

Women in Swaziland are generally heavily discriminated against. In Swazi customary law, women in effect have the status of minors and cannot get a bank loan without the consent of their husbands. Women can also be fined for wearing trousers by traditional authorities.
But young single mothers are even worse off than other women in Swaziland. Over a third of all pregnancies in Swaziland are teenage pregnancies. But teenage mothers receive little or no help from the government, their families or communities. On the contrary, when they are found to be pregnant they are often ostracised and stigmatised by their neighbours, communities and families.

“Swazi single mothers get no support from the government, they get expelled from their schools, and are rejected by their communities,” says Beatrice Bitchong. “Some young women even find it difficult to run their small businesses in their communities because of stigmatisation. People in the communities also label them as being ‘naughty, lazy, prostitutes’ and if they are beaten by their boyfriends the community police do little to help them. Their children are labelled as bastards and looked down upon.”

Swaziland’s conservative and patriarchal culture is thus used to condone widespread violation of women’s rights in Swaziland, even though Swaziland has signed the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and Swaziland’s Constitution guarantees women the right to equal treatment with men – politically, economically and socially.

Wednesday’s debate in Swaziland’s parliament was a case in point. Here Swazi senators complained about the criminalization of forced marriages and opposed the protection of women from stalking.

Tuesday, 13 November 2012

GOVT BANS MPS FROM THE RADIO

Swaziland Members of Parliament say they are being banned from the radio airwaves by the government. 


They say it is because of a policy made by the Swazi Cabinet. 

A row erupted in the House of Assembly when MPs accused Prime Minister Barnabas Dlamini of keeping them off the airwaves. In Swaziland broadcasting is state controlled and the PM is editor-in-chief of the SBIS radio stations and the Swazi TV Channel.

Dlamini said MPs could not go on air without the permission of their areas’ chiefs. He said it was wrong for them to just go on radio with issues which the chiefs were not even aware of.

This is not the first time the government has been shown to be censoring the airwaves.

In August 2012 it was revealed that radio stations in Swaziland would be banned from broadcasting news and information that did not support the government’s own agenda.

Coverage of all events was banned ‘except those authorised by relevant authorities’, according to the rules.

The guidelines  also bar ‘public service announcements’ unless they are ‘in line with government policy’ or have been authorised ‘by the chiefs through the regional administrators’ or deputy prime minister’s office’.

The guidelines say the radio stations, which fall under the control of the Swaziland Broadcasting and Information Service (SBIS), cannot be ‘used for purposes of campaigning by individuals or groups, or to advance an agenda for political, financial popularity gains for individuals or groups’.

There is a long history of censorship on state broadcasting in Swaziland. Strikes and anti-government demonstrations are usually ignored by broadcasters. Sometimes live radio programmes are censored on air. In July 2011, the plug was pulled on a phone-in programme when listeners started criticising the government for its handling of the economy. Percy Simelane, who was then the boss of SBIS, and is now the government’s official spokesperson, personally stormed the radio studio and cut the programme. 

In April 2011, Welile Dlamini, a long-time news editor at SBIS, challenged the Prime Minister at an editors’ forum meeting on why the state radio station was told by the government what and what not to broadcast. Dlamini said that at the station they were instructed to spike certain stories such as those about demonstrations by progressives and strike action by workers. The PM responded by saying editors should resign if they were not happy with the editorial policies they are expected to work with. 

In March 2011, SBIS stopped broadcasting the BBC World Service Focus on Africa programme after it carried reports critical of King Mswati III. In the same month, SBIS failed to cover the march by nurses that forced the Swazi Government into paying them overdue allowances.

In 2010, Swazi police told SBIS it must stop allowing people to broadcast information about future meetings unless the police had given permission. Jerome Dlamini, Deputy Director of the SBIS said this was to stop the radio station airing an announcement for a meeting that was prohibited.

He said, ‘It’s the station’s policy not to make announcements without police permission.’

See also

SWAZI RADIO PULLS PLUG ON CRITICS
http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2011/07/swazi-radio-pulls-plug-on-critics.html