SWAZILAND COUNTRY REPORT

MAY – JULY 2009

Published by the Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa (OSISA)
http://www.osisa.org/

SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS

The events of the last three months reflect a continued state of emergency in Swaziland as the
State has scaled-up its defiance of the rule of law and effected numerous acts of intimidation and
violations of human rights. Of notable importance are the arrest of HUMAN RIGHTS lawyer,
Thulani Maseko in June and the further arrests of political activists, Mpandlana Shongwe and
Norman Xaba of the People‟s United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO) in July.

Maseko was arrested and charged under the Sedition and Subversive Activities Act of 1938 as
Amended (Section 5, subsection 1 and 2) for allegedly suggesting the future re-naming of the
Lozitha Bridge in honour of Musa MJ Dlamini and Jack Govender, the two men who allegedly
died while planting a bomb under the bridge last September. He allegedly made this Statement
during the May Day Celebrations held at the Mavuso Sports Centre. The duo of Shongwe and
Xaba were charged under the notorious and internationally condemned Suppression of Terrorism
Act No.3 of 2008 with the former charged for uttering words perceived by State forces as
supporting a banned entity (PUDEMO), which said, “viva PUDEMO and viva SWAYOCO!”
The latter was charged with wearing a PUDEMO T-shirt supporting the banned or “specified
entity.” This was during a civil society counter version of the Smart Partnership that was held in
July and was dubbed Kudliwa Inhloko1.

The meeting was organized by the Swaziland Coalition of Concerned Civic Organizations
(SCCCO) in collaboration with the Council of Swaziland Churches (CSC) and other civil society
actors, in a bid to amongst other things give voice to the real issues that civil society regard as
needing to be addressed by the country in any meaningful national dialogue. Essentially, it was
meant to be a shadow event for the government-planned Smart Partnership dialogue. A more
detailed reflection on this is contained later on in this report. All three suspects are currently out
on bail.

On the surface the sporadic arrests by the State may seem to the larger public – as the media is
made to report – aimed at curbing or discouraging acts of terrorism. In retrospect, these have
demonstrated a systematic targeting of political dissenters in line with the infamous King‟s
mandate to government and Parliament when installing the current Prime Minister last year. This
view has been cemented by the State‟s capricious harassment and raids visited upon members of
PUDEMO, the Swaziland Youth Congress (SWAYOCO) and the Foundation for Economic
Justice‟s offices, a non-government organization that has amongst other things supported the

1
A Swazi expression referring to the meeting of men to eat a cow‟s head while discussing important issues.
Significantly, this Forum is a simple and cost effective way to hold a huge consultative meeting. Again, the Forum is
special because of its departure from tradition by being all inclusive even allowing the participation of women and
girls.
Swaziland Ex-Miners Association in the issue of Free Primary Education (FPE). The arrest of
Thulani Maseko came across as a direct onslaught on Human Rights, particularly in view of the
sterling role he has played in putting to the test the constitution of the country in the courts. It
should be recalled that Maseko is also representing the President of PUDEMO, Mario Masuku, in
his case where he is incarcerated for contravening the Suppression of Terrorism Act.

During the period, government embarked on a crusade to uproot all politically aligned individuals
from the civil service. A law to deal with this is currently being piloted by the Ministry of Public
Service. There has also been a clampdown on all forms of criticism, particularly in the media thus
closing the space for political engagement. The case of the former Times of Swaziland columnist
and chairperson of the Inhlava Political Party, Mfomfo Nkhambule, is a classic example.
Impeccable sources note that Nkhambule had been earmarked to be arrested together with
Thulani Maseko for his views on the manner the country is being governed, particularly his direct
critique of the King. However, the internal and external condemnation of Maseko‟s arrest seemed
to have saved Nkhambule‟s skin as he was eventually let off the hook. Alongside these
developments, the State is observably all-out in a public relations drive that was and still is
characterized by overt praise-singing and glorification of the Tinkhundla system of governance at
all public gatherings. In essence, this has demonstrated the State‟s unwillingness to honestly
acknowledge the political divide that is widening each day. Consequently, the political terrain
remains skewed in favour of the status quo. Worse still, was the loss of the case on appeal by
political parties who were contesting the obvious conflict in Sections 25 (Right of Freedom of
Association) and 79 (which describes Swaziland as a Tinkhundla-based democracy) of the
Constitution.

PARLIAMENT AND THE COURTS

Parliament
There has been much activity in both Houses of Parliament over the past three months,
particularly as it was the time for the sitting of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC). Notably
however, has been the absence of discussion on serious issues of national importance such as the
Executive‟s flouting of the Constitution in such areas as the representation of women in
Parliament; FPE; the appointment of the Human Rights Commission, to name but a few. Instead,
Parliament is seen to be actively involved in addressing trivial issues such as the personal egos of
some members of the House. A case in point is the public spat between two cabinet ministers,
Ntuthuko Dlamini (Public Works and Transport) and Clement Dlamini (Agriculture and
Cooperatives) over a motion raised by a Member of Parliament from the Mtsambama Inkhundla,
Bheki Mkhonta, to the effect that government “should consider subsidizing farming inputs for
small scale farmers” (Times of Swaziland, 10 June 2009:3).

The Minister for Agriculture is reported to have responded to the motion by asserting that
government was already doing something along those lines, something that the Public Works
Minister disputed pointing out that cabinet had never discussed same. Their arguments almost
turned into physical violence as they accused each other of disrespect. Subsequently, a team of
two cabinet ministers was appointed to probe their conduct. The report of this probe is pending.

Another matter that demonstrates the lack of seriousness in the Senate pertained to the
controversial conduct of Senator Bhutana Dlamini who is alleged to have publicly assaulted his

2
girlfriend for having dinner out with a male companion at the Esibayeni Lodge Hotel in
Matsapha. This was conveniently ignored by senators yet the Senator‟s conduct bordered on
malice and bringing the standing of the House into disrepute.

In the final analysis, the expectation from Parliament is that it should ensure the respect and
implementation of the Constitution and the laws that it passes on behalf of the nation. It is
therefore quite disappointing for them to concentrate on nondescript issues at the expense of
pressing national issues. For instance, none of the parliamentarians raised the issue of Mario
Masuku‟s incarceration with the view of finding out why he is not being afforded a speedy trial.
It would seem that such issues border on the King‟s mandate on terrorism, hence a no-go area for
many a parliamentarian. On the other end, there has been some serious and possibly dangerous
pronouncements made in the House of Assembly by the country‟s Premier to the effect that there
would be a great need to expand the country‟s prisons in the future as more arrests would be
coming. This was during the debate of a proposed law termed the Electronic Records (Evidence)
Bill of 2009 presented to the House by the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs,
Ndumiso Mamba. The Premier told the House that the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) had
gathered so much evidence against many corrupt people that there would be a need to extend
jails.

Coming from a man of the Premier‟s calibre – a man who in the past has prided himself as a
“lightening arrestor” and a man who was responsible for the break down of the rule of law – the
intentions for such a law remain suspicious. It would seem that even though the law was being
pushed through Parliament on the grounds of fighting corruption, the real reason for its
promulgation is to pave the way for the admissibility of electronic evidence against “terrorist”
activities and persons connected thereto. This was evidenced by the police‟s recording of all the
deliberations of the civil society Kudliwa Inhloko Forum at the Bosco Skills Centre in Manzini
and subsequently their assertion in the High Court that they would use the video recording as
evidence when the matter is argued. Notably, the proposed bill will have a retrospective effect as
it will be deemed to have started operating on the date of publication in the Gazette, which is the
8th April 2009. This means that the video recording can be used against PUDEMO‟s Mpandlana
Shongwe during his trial. It is also worth noting the manner in which the proposed bill was
quickly passed through the House of Assembly similarly to that of the Terrorism Act last May.

The bill is currently with the House of Senate. Further to the Premier‟s call for the expansion of
prisons, he is on record for suggesting that there is a strong need to have the bail laws reviewed
with the view of denying suspects bail. He said this during a ceremony to mark what is called the
Sandleni Inkhundla Day in the presence of senior government officials, traditional leaders,
Members of Parliament, media and the public. Again, such utterances significantly espouse the
authoritarian and unconstitutional attitudes of the Head of Government. It would seem that the
era of the non-bailable offences order is beckoning the country even in this constitutional
dispensation. It remains to be seen how this issue will develop, but already the Ngwane National
Liberatory Congress (NNLC) has challenged it in the media.

This quarter further saw the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) sitting and hearing reports from
the various government ministries, but as usual there have been no arrests or charges against
public officials deemed to have misused government funds. A case in point relates to a cellphone
bill that ended up amounting to E16, 000 that was allegedly used by the former Home Affairs

3
Minister, Prince Sobandla. The matter goes that the said prince, while still Minister in the 1998-
2003 cabinet had his mobile phone exceed its limit by E16, 000. The then PAC resolved in 2001
to have the money recovered from the Prince‟s retirement benefits and this was eventually done
in 2003. Interestingly however, the amount grew to a lofty E24, 000 after the Minister had in a
behind-the-scenes manoeuvre claimed the money back from government coffers claiming that he
had not caused the over-expenditure, but the then Director of Sports and Culture had.
Fortunately, the Accountant General detected the anomalous transaction hence it being raised by
the present PAC, which was headed by appointed MP Thuli Dladla. Asked to shed some light on
the matter, the Under Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs, Ben Zwane, admitted the
anomaly and went on to suggest that perhaps the officers responsible for the deductions had been
intimidated by the princely status of the former Minister who is now a Senator in the current
Parliament. The suggestion sparked a furore amongst PAC members, one of whom is a princess
and half-sister to Prince Sobandla, who saw red and exited the chambers in protest. The PAC
chairperson sharply rebuked Zwane claiming that he wanted to be perceived as a hero by making
such an assertion. She then demanded that he retract his remarks. The long and short of this
analogy is the fact that government‟s continued call for fighting corruption remains nothing but
lip service. It also shows that criminal and corrupt elements within the royal setting are easily
insulated from facing the full force of the law.

The Courts
There have been a number of high profile cases that have been attended to both at the High and
Supreme Courts. These include:

Supreme Court
1. Jan Sithole – National Constitutional Assembly(NCA) vs. Government of Swaziland

High Court
1. The Swaziland National Ex-Miners‟ Association vs. Government of Swaziland
2. Amos Mbedzi vs. Government of Swaziland
3. Doo Aphane vs. Registrar of Deeds
4. Mario Masuku vs. Government of Swaziland
5. Thulani Maseko vs. Government of Swaziland
6. David Simelane vs. Government of Swaziland
7. Vusi Dlamini vs. Government of Swaziland

Jan Sithole – National Constitutional Assembly vs. Government of Swaziland

In this case the applicants were requesting the court to harmonise the conflict or „tension‟
between section 25, which deals with the right of freedom of association with its concomitant
right to form and join political parties, on the one hand with the implied prohibition of section 79
in the Tinkhundla-based electoral system against participation by political parties in elections, on
the other. The point of conflict in Swazi politics has always been the state of emergency imposed
by King Sobhuza II in April 1973 that banned all political activity, particularly multi-party
politics. With the advent of the new Constitution, the expectation is that such would be removed
for the greater practice of democracy and the enjoyment of human rights in the country.
Apparently, this was not to be as the State has continued to deny political parties the right to
actively participate in the electoral processes of the country. The matter was taken to the High

4
Court last year and lost, hence the appeal in May 2009. The case was yet again dismissed with
costs by a panel of four out of five judges of the Supreme Court on 21 May 2009. One judge,
Thomas Masuku, had a dissenting view on the matter. The four judges were J.G.P.AM Magid,
M.M Ramodibedi, J.G Foxcroft and A.M Ebrahim. Effectively, political parties remain banned in
Swaziland. It also means that there are no longer any legal remedies that are open locally to
pursue this matter – the legal doors are essentially closed. This marks the beginning of a
dangerous era wherein dissatisfied people will find themselves having no recourse to justice and
it is only a matter of time before this erupts into violence as people manifest their anger and
frustration.

In handing down their judgement, the judges argued that democracy was, “like beauty, to be
found in the eyes of the beholder” and that Swaziland‟s mere assertion to be a democratic State,
“does not mean that every part of its body politics must match up to every rule laid down either
by law or tradition by which, say the greater Western democracies are governed” (Times of
Swaziland, 22 May 2009: 4).

In essence, the judgement further posited that people belonging to political parties can join the
race for political office, but only as individuals who would upon a successful campaign team up
in Parliament with people of similar views. The obvious meaning of this is the tried and tested
“fighting the system from within” philosophy, which is similar to fighting a lion in its own den.
However, the learned judges seemed to have deliberately ignored the cardinal rules of
democracy: that people are born equal and free and that no law should try and stifle or alter this
equality or freeness. It would seem that the learned judges opted to confine themselves to an
unnecessary, whimsical, restrictive and undemocratic form of interpretation, which even in
laymen‟s terms obviously cements government‟s argument for a unique and home-grown
democracy, which unfortunately falls short of human rights as Judge Thomas Masuku aptly
observed: “the aim of the court…in interpreting the various provisions of the Constitution at the
end of the day, must, particularly where the interpretation touches on the subject of fundamental
rights and human rights, be primarily geared towards extending and not attenuating, thwarting or
negating the full reach and benefits of fundamental rights and human rights to the citizens,
persons and groupings in this kingdom” (Ibid).

Much as Judge Masuku‟s judgement was a minority one it received local and international
ovation while the majority judgement received condemnation, save from government, which was
obviously pleased.

In a statement issued soon after the judgement, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)
lamented the Supreme Court‟s decision to deprive the people of Swaziland their constitutional
entitlement in the form of the rights to free assembly and participation in political parties for the
intention of governing and thus having a say in the governance of their country. The ICJ viewed
the whole development as a serious set-back to the judicial protection of human rights in
Swaziland. On the other hand, some political commentators have regarded the judgement as
having validated the argument that the Constitution of Swaziland was only meant as a window-
dressing exercise aimed at minimizing the external pressure from the international community for
the State to democratise. This argument found its strength in pointing out that political parties are
still not allowed to freely exist and contest for political and administrative power in-country
despite the so-called new constitutional dispensation. The judgement was regarded, therefore, as

5
having assisted in showing the Tinkhundla system of governance for the sham that it really is.
Political parties are currently weighing the pros and cons of whether or not to approach the South
African Development Community‟s (SADC) Tribunal for further deliberation. It remains to be
seen if this route would be successful or not. Significantly, looking at the history and nature of
African politics, one might as well predict that such a route would be useless and time-wasting.

The Swaziland National Ex-Miners’ Association vs. Government of Swaziland

The Swaziland National Ex-Miners‟ Association (SNEMA) in June took the government of
Swaziland to the High Court on the highly contentious issue of the implementation of the Free
Primary Education (FPE) programme at public schools. This followed an arrogant and appalling
refusal by government to respect the ruling of the High Court on the same issue on 16 March
2009, wherein it issued a declaratory judgement pronouncing that the Government of Swaziland
has the responsibility to provide FPE across all grades in public primary schools beginning this
year as per the Constitution. Instead of consulting stakeholders on how best this could be
achieved, government unilaterally decided on an incremental approach that would see the roll-out
of FPE in stages beginning with grades 1 and 2 in 2010. SNEMA took government to court in a
bid to secure a compelling judgement that would see the respect of the Rule of Law and the
Constitution. In the litigation process, SNEMA is supported by the Council of Swaziland
Churches and OSISA.

Of notable importance in government‟s adopted position on this matter is the blatant refusal to
consult and even, to at least consider, the possibilities of doing this the constitutional way. It was
apparent from the very beginning of the matter that the State has very little interest in making
sure that the law is respected. This is despite a promise from the Premier soon after the
judgement was handed down in March that they would abide by the court‟s decision. On the
contrary, government has insisted on its own unconstitutional approach. July saw the publishing
of a bill entitled the Free Primary Education Act, 2009. It is said that the Act would be
operational as from the 1 January 2009. Notably, Section 13 subsection 2 of the Act reads thus:

The government is indemnified from any liability resulting or arising from any failure to –
a) Commence to implement the right to free primary education at public primary schools during
the year 2009;
b) To roll-out the free education for all Grades up to Grade 7 on commencement of this Act.

Significantly, this section invalidates the Premier‟s earlier commitment and further exposes the
untrustworthiness of his government. The said section literally violates the Constitution and the
March 16 High Court Judgement on the issue, thus marking a serious disrespect for the Rule of
Law once again cementing the school of thought that regards the whole document as a sham.
Another area of contention in the bill is Section 8 subsection (3) which posits that where a pupil
fails a grade, government shall not pay the fees for that pupil to repeat the grade. This obviously
turns the access to the right to free education into a preserve for only those pupils that pass. It
cuts away slow learners and/or other pupils who may have been disadvantaged by sickness or
trauma or any other predicament during the course of learning or examinations thus attenuating
their rights. The Act further lacks tangible time frames for the roll-out of the programme thus
remaining vague. These are but a few examples of some of the weaknesses of the proposed Act.
Civil society will be meeting to address these weaknesses during the first week of August 2009
before it is tabled in Parliament.

6
Another notable development in the issue of FPE was the seemingly light yet politically
significant citation, by the Minister for Education and Training, of the Imbokodvo National
Movement‟s2 (INM) Philosophy, Policies and Objectives (Manifesto) published in 1972 in his
opposing papers filed against the court application by SNEMA. The Minister claimed in his
papers that the concept of FPE in public primary schools had long been envisaged, but had not
been accomplished due to a litany of unnamed challenges. The Minister further asserts that even
then, the incremental approach had been appreciated as the best way to roll-out the programme.
He acknowledges the fact that there had been no timeframe for implementing the programme
then and that it would not have been an overnight thing to do so, thus his prayers for more time to
plan and prepare for the implementation process. The essence of the Minister‟s argument
basically means that the State has had the vision to provide FPE to the public from long ago and
is therefore capable of doing so. In the light of this, the question which arises would be why the
State had not prepared itself given this history and the timeframes set by the Constitution.
Evidently, the most readily available response to this would be the fact that government has, over
the years, been reluctant to spend on matters of public importance. Instead, it focuses its energies
on hosting endless parties and lavish royal spending as historical evidence abundantly reflects.
The Minister is also on record for blaming the previous government led by former Premier
Absalom T. Dlamini for having not prepared for the implementation of FPE. He conveniently
forgot the principle of the permanence of government as he tries to justify why he is violating the
Constitution. Significantly, none of the Parliamentarians he was addressing took him to task for
these utterances, thus showing their complicity to the offence. The matter goes back to court for
arguments on the 7 August 2009.

Other landmark cases were those of Amos Mbedzi, the suspect held for the attempted bombing of
the Lozitha Bridge, Mario Masuku, Mpandlana Shongwe, Norman Xaba and Thulani Maseko.
The four were all charged under the Suppression of Terrorism Act No.3 of 2009 while Maseko
was charged under the Sedition and Subversive Activities Act of 1938 as Amended. There was
also the test case of Doo Aphane who applied to have section 16 (3) of the Deeds Registry Act
set aside in order to allow her to register immovable property in both her and her husband‟s
names. Then there were the cases of two suspected serial killers in David Simelane and Vusi
Dlamini. All these are pending at the High Court.

Amos Mbedzi
On May 2009, Mbedzi appeared in court to move an urgent application seeking to interdict the
State from keeping him in solitary confinement and also compel them to allow him access to
sunshine and exercise like any other inmate. He also wanted to be granted access to the use of
toilet facilities and not to be forced to use a bucket for his sanitary needs. He further decried the
correctional services‟ practice of remanding him in custody and asserted that this “smacks of
discriminatory treatment and makes me doubt that I will receive a fair treatment” (Times of
Swaziland, 30 May 2009: 2). A close analysis of this scenario regarding the treatment the State
was meting out to the suspect reveals that indeed it (State) is hell bent on making his life
uncomfortable and harsh as payment for the “terrorist” act for which he is incarcerated. This goes
against human rights obligations on the part of government.

2
INM is the political party established by King Sobhuza II to contest power at independence in 1968. Popular belief
is that though all other parties were banned in 1973, the INM remained and is still in power, albeit under disguise.

7
Mario Masuku
In jail since November 2008, Masuku moved an application at the High Court in May
challenging the State‟s harassment of his person through amongst other things midnight searches,
vulgar language and the deprivation of enough time to consult with his lawyer, Thulani Maseko.
He also wants the State to return to him a letter they had intercepted which he had written to the
Premier, Barnabas Sibusiso Dlamini. The content of the letter was not disclosed and the matter is
pending at the High Court. As with the case of Amos Mbedzi, the State has demonstrated an
intensive drive to harass and unsettle the suspect thus violating his rights to fair and appropriate
treatment, which is a grave cause for concern. Yet still, another area of concern is the
maltreatment of human rights lawyer, Mandla Mkhwanazi, who was made to remove his shoes
and consult Masuku over a fence at the visitors‟ room after having undergone an intensive search
by the police. He filed an urgent application at the High Court and the won the matter. The
significance of these activities indicates the total disregard for the suspects and their lawyers‟
rights to confidentiality and also to fairness. This further strengthens the assertion made earlier in
this report that it would seem the country is going back to an era of lawlessness and total
disregard for the Rule of Law. That in essence, is the trademark of the current Prime Minister.

Mpandlana Shongwe and Norman Xaba

These two political activists were arrested under the Terrorism law on the 18 July 2009 during
the civil society Kudliwa Inhloko Forum for different offences as outlined in the introduction of
this report. Notably, their arrest serves the purpose of overshadowing an otherwise peaceful and
well attended dialogue comprising of different kinds of people representative of the varied
populations that make up Swaziland. They appeared at the High Court and were granted bail and
their case is still pending. In total, there are now four people that have been charged under the
Suppression of Terrorism Act No.3 of 2008.

Thulani Maseko
As already mentioned above, Maseko was arrested on 3 June and charged under the laws herein
stated. He was in jail for a total of nine (9) days having first refused bail in a bid to put pressure
on the State. Like with the other cases referred to above, he was denied visitors and had his
lawyers, Mandla Mkhwanazi and Paul Shilubane forced to run to the High Court in order to have
access to him. Upon a detailed consideration, one realizes that the arrest of Maseko was not just
for the pronouncements he allegedly made during the May Day Celebrations about the re-naming
of the Lozitha Bridge, but more of a targeted attempt by the State to quieten all dissenting voices
on the state of affairs regarding the governance of the country. That Maseko was arrested and
charged for merely voicing out an opinion shows the degree of non-tolerance the State has
adopted in a dramatic way. Significantly, Maseko has been instrumental in the testing of a
number of sections in the country‟s Constitution; hence his arrest was no ordinary one. Examples
of such cases include the FPE and EBC matters. In particular, the former was significantly
affected by his arrest as he was working on filing the SNEMA application at the High Court
when he was arrested, thus delaying it for over two weeks. This delay was enough for
government to prepare the FPE Bill and also drive a propaganda agenda to convince the masses
that FPE would be definitely rolled-out in the next year. Significantly, Maseko was witnessed
challenging the Sedition and Subversive Act of 1938 as Amended at the High Court on the

8
grounds that it is unconstitutional in that it erodes the constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom
of expression. He further asserted that he was a prisoner of conscious who was arrested for
expressing his beliefs. However, the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs, Ndumiso
Mamba, in is answering affidavit opposing Maseko‟s application, averred that Maseko was in
fact a “lucky man” not to have been charged with terrorism saying that, “The bombing event to
which applicant‟s expression of a view or opinion or utterances referred – obviously in
supporting or congratulatory mode – was a „terrorist act‟ but for a technicality” (Times of
Swaziland, 18 July 2009: 9). He further went on to state that freedom of expression under the
Constitution has got certain limits imposed by the law. The case is pending at the High Court.
From the foregoing discussion, it is clear that Maseko is really putting the Constitution of the
country to the test and that no degree of harassment and intimidation deters him. Strikingly
however, is the continued lone battle he is waging, without the overt support of other self-
proclaimed human rights activists in the country. For instance, on the day of his release from
prison on bail he was met by a few members of SWAYOCO and PUDEMO as well as three
officers from the Council of Swaziland Churches and selected members of the media (Times of
Swaziland and Channel Swazi). All other civil society actors were visibly absent. This clearly
demonstrates the turbulence in the political climate in Swaziland, which has turned into an era
characterized by the fear of the unknown.

Doo Aphane
This case was heard before Judge Qinisile Mabuza on the 28 July 2009. In this case, Aphane,
prayed the court to grant her an order that would effectively allow her the leeway to jointly
register immovable property in her name and that of her husband, Michael Mandla Zulu, to
whom she is married under Civil Rites and in community of property. Apparently, the Marriage
Act currently forbids such an occurrence. In arguing the matter, Aphane‟s Lawyer, Kenneth
Motsa, emphasized the discriminatory nature of Section 16 (3) of the Deeds Registry Act 37 of
1968 and regulations 7 and 9 of the Deeds Registry Regulations on the basis of gender and
marital status and therefore prayed for it to be struck off. The cited sections disallow the
registration of immovable property and bonds in the names of women married in community of
property. He also highlighted how these provisions are inconsistent with Section 20 and 28 as
well as the preamble of the Constitution of Swaziland Act of 2005. The State‟s lawyer, Mndeni
Vilakati, on the other hand opposed the application arguing that there is no restriction in law that
prevents Aphane from registering the said property as she so wished. He argued that the said
sections only applied to women who wish to register property in their names solely in which case
Aphane is not affected. Judgement was reserved in the matter and it is pending at the High Court.
This is a case of notable importance as it not only tests the rights guaranteed in the Constitution
but also represents a catalyst for the realization of women‟s rights in Swaziland. The case will,
therefore, be followed with great interest.

David Simelane
The wheels of justice seem to be turning slowly concerning the case of this alleged serial killer
who is facing charges for the murder of over 30 women and children between 2000 and 2001. His
case was postponed numerous times during the quarter under consideration for trivial reasons
such the „unsuitable‟ weather conditions (cold and rain), lack of transport, communication break
down between the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) office and the Judge, travel by either
the (DPP) or the suspect‟s lawyer, Lucky Howe or the Presiding Judge, Justice Jacobus
Annandale. Despite these unnecessary delays in the administration of justice, the case has moved

9
forward with the beginning of the inspection in loco of the scenes of crime by the suspect and the
court officials, including the former Senior Police Detective Superintendent Khethokwakhe
Ndlangamandla. This process was supposed to be done in Malkerns in June but ended up
commencing in July and is currently focused on the Macetjeni and Siphofaneni communities
where the suspect is alleged to have either killed or lured his victims.

Of great concern regarding this issue is the disinterest of civil society organizations in applying
pressure on the DPP to fast-track the case. This has been an especial indictment on the Women‟s
Coalition, which has allowed the situation to turn out the way it has. In this vein, it would seem
that a great deal of capacity building on human rights activism is required. For instance, instead
of Simelane and the delegation doing the inspection in loco being accosted by scenes of
protesting women at the sites he was met by enthusiastic crowds that rushed to “have a glimpse”
of him, thus is a way turning the suspect into some kind of hero. A classic example was when, on
29 July 2009, pupils from Gilgal High School abandoned classes just to see the suspect during
the inspection at Macetjeni and surrounding areas. Notably, the pupils were in the middle of their
mid-year examinations.

Vusi Dlamini
Vusi Dlamini, another alleged serial killer was arrested on 29 June 2009. He is reported to have
made a confession to Manzini Magistrate Florence Msisbi on 1 July in Manzini. The contents of
his confession were not divulged. He is facing 13 counts, 8 of which are murder charges and the
rest house-breaking and theft. He is alleged to have possibly raped and strangulated eight women
at different locations between the Elangeni and Ezulwini corridor between the period of February
and June 2009. Some of the bodies discovered were mutilated. It remains to be seen how fast or
slow the justice system will take attending this case.

THE EXECUTIVE

The Executive is recognizably trying to be seen to be furthering their duties in the spirit of the so-
called “business unusual” ethos of the current Premier. Amongst the number of agendas
advanced by the Executive in the past three months, this report will make reference to the key
developments that obtained. These include such issues as the Fight against Terrorism; the Smart
Partnership; the Presentation of the Performance Targeting and Appraisal Programme,
Government and Royal Spending and the Promotion of the Tinkhundla Government and Recent
Foreign Policy Developments.

The Fight against Terrorism

As indicated in the section dealing with the courts, the Executive was visibly busy in this regard.
The arbitrary arrests of members of the “specified” PUDEMO and SWAYOCO and human rights
lawyer, Thulani Maseko together with the harassment of members of civil society and other
human rights lawyers is evidence of this. The State was in recent months observed is stepping up
efforts to use the Terrorism Act to harass and intimidate dissenters in the name of the so-called
war on terror. For instance, State forces (the police) were deployed to all gatherings involving
members of civil society and political formations. An example is the funeral of the late Swaziland
Federation of Trade Unions‟ accountant, Sibusiso Mashaya, who was shot dead during a brawl on
the 9 May 2009. Because Mashaya was heavily involved in political activities as he was a card-

10
carrying member of the NNLC, his funeral was invaded by plain-clothed policemen deployed by
the State. The aim was to listen in and report back any utterances perceived to have been in
contravention of the Terror law. Another example is the funeral of the father to the alleged
terrorist and Lozitha bomb suspect Musa MJ Dlamini, which saw the banning of political parties‟
attendance. Again, there was heavy police attendance at the funeral. Indications were that
government did not wish to see the funeral used as a platform to “further terrorist activities”. Yet
another case is the Kudliwa Inhloko Forum where Mpandlana Shongwe and Norman Xaba were
arrested. That this latter event had been peacefully organized by civil society was no issue to the
State as it deployed the police to electronically record the entire event for the sole purpose of
using the recordings against those charged. The foregoing discussion reflects the degree to which
government is determined to silence any opposing voices.

Significantly, the State was not deterred by the international outcry that emanated from its
systematic use of the fight against terrorism as a cover-up for silencing dissenters. For example,
the Centre for Human Rights, which is based in the University of Pretoria, issued a statement
calling for the release of Thulani Maseko on 6 June, three days after his arrest. In part, the
statement reminded government that “Freedom of expression is a basic human right, which is
recognized under the Constitution of Swaziland” (Times of Swaziland, 7 June 2009: 5).
Likewise, the American Government, through the now departed Ambassador to Swaziland,
Maurice Parker, urged government to rethink its implementation of the Suppression of Terrorism
Act. He said, “We acknowledge that the Act may follow international models, but many of those
models – our own included – had to be amended to ensure that the rights of citizens were not
violated in the name of internal security,” (Times of Swaziland, 5 June 2009: 8). This was during
his official farewell function held at the Royal Villas at Ezulwini the previous day. On the local
front, political parties such as the NNLC condemned the arrest. The Media Institute for Southern
Africa‟s (MISA) Swaziland Chapter also expressed concern stating that it is becoming apparent
that government is increasing its hostility towards dissenters. Likewise, the Coordinating
Assembly of Non-Governmental Organizations (CANGO) in a statement published in the Times
of Swaziland on 7 June 2009 reminded government of its duty to safeguard and protect human
rights contained in the Constitution and other international covenants to which it is a signatory.
All these protestations fell on deaf ears. This was largely a consequence of the King‟s mandate to
government and Parliament, which had the effect of applying pressure on government to be seen
to be in compliance with same.

A call by the European Union to engage political dissenters was also ignored in favour of an all-
out clamp down. Speaking during the commemoration of Europe Day on the 27 May 2009, the
Ambassador to the European Commission to Swaziland and Lesotho, Peter Christiansen,
highlighted the mixed up priorities of the State pointing out that, “…in these times of the global
economic crisis, the prospects of decreasing SACU revenues, it is unwise to engage in prestige
projects and spend on public order and safety when the country is at peace. Swaziland‟s main
problem is poverty and the HIV/AIDS pandemic. The country is in an emergency situation with
more people getting poor and the population decreasing. Tackling these issues should be the
overwhelming priority” (The Nation Magazine, July 2009:16-17). He further went on to make a
strikingly controversial, yet calculated statement to the effect that Mario Masuku was his friend
and that government should convey his warmest greetings to him. This was after he had made a
plea to government to engage political dissenters in an honest dialogue aimed at solving the so-
called war on terror. A close analysis of these utterances reflects an obvious and deliberate

11
contravention of the Suppression of Terrorism Act by the outgoing Ambassador. It would seem
that he used his diplomatic status to show authorities the seriousness and arbitrariness of the law
as it outlaws even the slightest linkages with terrorist persons. However, his call for dialogue
was, like others before his ignored.

The Smart Partnership Dialogue

The hosting of this event by government would have been an excellent opportunity to put into
practice the advice for honest dialogue between the State and political dissenters in the country.
However, the absence of political will on the part of government resulted in members of civil
society and political parties boycotting the event, which had been planned for the month of July,
but was eventually shifted to 11-12 August 2009. However, a mini-dialogue was held by
government on the 20 July 2009 as a forerunner to the main dialogue. Key members of civil
society did not attend the mini-dialogue. The main reason for such a boycott was the lack of
inclusiveness on the agenda; the non-implementation of previous dialogues‟ recommendations;
the existence of the Suppression of Terrorism Law; and, the general lack of commitment by the
State to meaningfully address matters of national concern. Civil society actors regard the event as
yet another ploy by government to waste scant national resources as a staggering E5m has been
set aside to cater for the event and other related activities. On the other end of the spectrum,
government was observed “patting itself on the back” for what it termed a “successful” mini-
dialogue despite the underlying issues. Government claimed that 90% of the invited participants
attended and that those that did not missed out a great deal. However, an analysis of the
participants‟ list reflects a government more in dialogue with itself, than with the entire segments
of the nation. For example, the politicians‟ link consisted of people from the Ministry of
Tinkhundla Administration and Development, chiefs, Bucopho3, MPs, Senators, Royal Trustees,
Members of the Border Determination Committee, Liqoqo4, Ludzidzini Committee5, Security
Forces, Judicial Service Commission, EBC, ACC, Land Management Board and the Civil
Service Commission. This list is an example of the exclusionary nature of the event which passed
more as a monologue than a dialogue as it brought together agreeable characters that would never
deviate from the Tinkhundla philosophy. Importantly, the instructions that were published
together with the list made it clear that participants were requested to, upon arrival at the venue,
“proceed to the assigned LINK and associated Pavilion” (Times of Swaziland, July 18 2009: 4).
The inherent meaning of this is that participants were not expected to choose which link they
would have liked to participate in, but had this decision predetermined for them by someone else.
This cements the argument by civil society that government was not honestly engaging the nation
in serious dialoguing, but merely undertaking stage-management for which it is infamously
known. It was for such that civil society staged its own shadow event that was informed by the
principles of democracy: transparency and accountability.

Performance Targeting and Appraisal Programme

In a first of its kind, the Tinkhundla government introduced a programme for the monitoring of
the implementation of government‟s projects and activities. The new initiative is called the
Performance Targeting and Appraisal Programme and is part of the much talked about “business
unusual” work ethos that influences the present vision of the country‟s recycled Prime Minister.

3
Members of the communities who are also known as community councillors at Inkhundla level.
4
King‟s advisory Committee.
5
The committee that advices the Queen mother at Ludzidzini, her royal residence.

12
In essence, the programme intends to provide an assessment and monitoring tool for the
performance of Ministers and Principal Secretaries on a quarterly basis until the end of the year.
Subsequently, they would be required to sign the document year after year until the completion of
their current term of office. The Prime Minister is on record having stated that such a framework
would be utilised to fire underperforming Ministers and their PS‟s. The programme was formally
presented to Parliament on the 8 July 2009. A perusal of the document reveals that government‟s
priorities are in line with its mandate from the King. The fight against terrorism, for example, is
seriously highlighted together with the promotion of the Tinkhundla system of government both
locally and internationally. There is no mention whatsoever of the promotion of political
dialogue, let alone the ensuring of the full implementation of the Constitution of the country – a
case in point being the long awaited appointment of the Human Rights Commission.

Government and Royal Spending

The excesses of government and the royal family continue to plague the nation. In the period
under review, government set aside a total of E5m for the Smart Partnership Dialogue and other
related activities. Government is on record, through the Head of Secretariat of the Smart
Partnership, Phiwa Ginindza, asserting that the event would utilize a total of E1m. However,
knowing the history of corruption and misappropriation of public resources, it would be difficult
to give the benefit of doubt where government is concerned. Another example of government‟s
excesses was revealed through the publishing of a staggering E28m that was used to host the 14th
Global Smart Partnership Dialogue in 2003. Over and above this figure, “government had to
provide extra resources…to permanently develop infrastructure” (Times of Swaziland, 14 July
2009: 10). The bulk of the money is reported to have been used for accommodation and transport,
while the rest went to food, décor and security. Towards the end of July, government allegedly
spent a staggering E1m to hire equipment that would enable a plane transporting the Prime
Minister of Kuwait to land safely at the Matsapha Airport. Further, undisclosed amounts were
obviously used for the upkeep of the Prime Minister and his over-sixty men delegation that came
to the country on a State visit, which lasted two days. This was done against the backdrop of
acute poverty levels amongst the population paralleled by government‟s denial of the right to
FPE on the grounds of lack of finances. Again, the whole world is reeling from the effects of the
global economic meltdown, with a classic example being the imminent closure of the SAPPI
Company in the forestry sector.

Impeccable sources revealed that a royal entourage of over 50 people including five of the King‟s
wives left the Kingdom on 26 July 2009 on a shopping spree to Dubai and the United States of
America. Interestingly, the media have not reported anything on the matter. It would seem that
the fracas that ensued last year after the publishing of the 40/40 spending spree brought some
woes on the Times of Swaziland, hence the silence this time around.

Also significant is the forced apology that the Times Group of Newspapers was made to run for
close to a week concerning the Monarch‟s purchase of 10 Mercedes Benz vehicles for his 41st
birthday celebrations in April 2009. Apparently, it was brought to the attention of the Group that
the said cars had actually been purchased at a “highly reduced figure due to them being ordered
directly from their manufacturers in Germany” (Times of Swaziland Sunday, 3 May 2009: 1).

Recent Foreign Policy Developments

13
The foreign policy direction of the country took a sharp turn towards the Middle East and some
African countries, whose human rights records and democratic practices remain questionable.
The Middle East relationship manifested itself in the form of the historic arrival of the Kuwaiti
Prime Minister, Sheikh Nasser Al-Mohammed Al-Ahmed Al-Sabah, on 23 July 2009 with a
delegation of over 60 men who included the Ministers of Commerce and Finance as well as the
Directors of the Kuwait Fund for Arab Economic Development (KFAED), Kuwait Investment
Authority (KIA) and Kuwait Chamber of Commerce and Industry (KCCI), respectively. The
Premier was in the country for a two-day State visit during which he was hosted by the Monarch.
A State banquet was held in their honour and the Kuwaiti Prime Minister was awarded with an
honour termed the Order of the Royal Family First Class. He later also got an opportunity to visit
Parliament where he was addressed by the Speaker of the House, Prince Guduza. This visit had
the notable effect of excitement in royal circles and government as the Kuwaitis seemed to have
had a positive interest in the country. Also important to note is the fact that this visit was a
culmination of an earlier visit by the Queen Mother to Kuwait in June. Again, this development
should be considered in the context of the King‟s recent announcement during his 41st birthday of
a surprise big project dubbed “the Swazi City”, which is meant to create jobs for the country. It
would seem the funding for such an enterprise will be sourced from Kuwait. It remains to be seen
how far this “honeymoon” with the Middle East will go as the Arab States are renowned for their
authoritarian rule.

On the African front, the King was observed visiting Zimbabwe and Zambia. The visit to the
former served the purpose of demonstrating the Monarch‟s tilt towards undemocratic elements,
particularly given the obvious closeness between him and President Robert Mugabe. Of further
concern, was the nature in which Mugabe pampered the King saying that it “… evoked a sense of
pride that in Africa there was a King who can easily associate with ordinary people” (Weekend
Observer, 6 – 7 June 2009:5). This was during the King‟s commissioning of a silo farm in
Zimbabwe as part of his three-day State visit. Mugabe further presented the King and Queen
Mother with 10 cattle. In line with Mugabe‟s gift, the country has also witnessed the arrival of six
camels that came into the country as a present to the King from the Libyan leader, Muammar
Gaddafi, in July. The reason for such a gift remains unknown. However, speculation has it that it
was a way of getting the King‟s support for the current African Union Chairperson‟s vision of a
United States of Africa. Another interesting development in the area of foreign relations is the
“peace rhetoric” that seems to have been adopted by the King and his government. Notably, in
every speech he makes, one is sure to hear him invariably preaching the gospel of peace and
stability. This peace rhetoric goes contrary to the practice that he and his government are
undertaking in the country such as the “throttling” of dissenting voices using the draconian
terrorism law. Further, there were reports from the South African Press (Mail and Guardian) to
the effect that a consignment of arms had found its way into the hands of mercenaries allegedly
employed by the former President of Madagascar, Marc Ravalomanana, in a bid to reinstate him.
These arms were suspected to have come from Swaziland. Interestingly, there was no denial of
this allegation by the Swazi government despite one of the local newspapers carrying the story. It
died a natural death. However, the point being made is that the King‟s “peace rhetoric” seems to
be a smokescreen aimed at covering his real authoritarian nature.

Another observable development was witnessed on the 9 May 2009 when the King attended the
inauguration of the President of South Africa, Jacob Zuma. The Congress of South African Trade
Unions (COSATU) and the banned Swaziland Solidarity Network (SSN) had apparently

14
organized a protest against the Monarch‟s participation at the event arguing that he was not
entitled to attend the event in the light of his undemocratic tendencies. True to their word, the
King received an embarrassing reception as he was heckled and ridiculed. The event was
broadcast live by the South African media and those that had the opportunity to watch must have
observed this scenario. Strangely however, the local press ran a front page headline the next day
that read thus, “KING RECEIVES WARM WELCOME.” Likewise, the State-owned radio was
heard propagating the same message to the misled nation. This was extremely unrepresentative of
the actual occurrences at the event. Consequently, only a small segment of the nation really got to
know about the King‟s embarrassing experience. For the Times of Swaziland, it would appear
that they are still in an apologetic mood over their so-called misinformation regarding the
purchase of the expensive cars for the King‟s 41st birthday in April. Their stunt to misrepresent
facts should, therefore, be regarded in this context. Surprisingly, the same paper later allowed the
Sibahle Sinje political party to run a statement where they called for a peaceful political dialogue
that would, in the future, save the King from similar embarrassment. This shows that they knew
the exact occurrences that took place at the Union Buildings in South Africa on the day in
question.

POLITICAL PARTIES

As previously stated, political parties remain banned in the country and the court judgement cited
herein cement this. Government is currently in a drive to introduce a law that would effectively
deal with civil servants that are publicly aligned to any political formations. The Minister of
Public Service, Mtiti Fakudze, piloted the bill in recent months. The obvious effect of such a law,
if it passes, would be that the rights provided for in the Bill of Rights found in the Constitution
would be severely corroded. Again, the law would be contrary to the spirit and letter of the
Industrial Relations Act of 2000, which guarantees workers‟ rights to freely associate. Efforts by
labour movements to have the process of the creation of such a law have hit a dead end as
government has continued to pilot the bill, which is now supposedly in Cabinet. It is alleged that
it would be taken to Parliament for endorsement soon. Taking into consideration the King‟s
mandate to Parliament as discussed above, it seems set to pass without any hassles.

The Swaziland United Democratic Front (SUDF) seems to have been in paralysis in the reported
period as there has been no visible activism either on the cases of the arrested members of
PUDEMO or that of Thulani Maseko, save for the SUDF threatening to march for Masuku‟s
release during the May Day Celebrations. Neither has there been a challenge of the numerous
instances of the violation of the Constitution by government. Instead, the Front seems
fragmented. An example for this is protest march for FPE that had been planned for 19-20 May
2009 that was hastily cancelled because of the lack of agreement on how to address the
problematic issue of violence instigated mainly by PUDEMO and SWAYOCO members during
such activities. Significantly, there is talk of some members of the SUDF, specifically SNAT,
threatening to pull out of the movement. It would seem that a lot of investment both financially
and technically needs to be done in assisting this nascent body to play the role for which it was
founded.

The NNLC has also questioned the Premier‟s utterances regarding bail, which he made at
Sandleni Inkhundla on the 18 July 2009. The political party was of the view that the Premier was
hell bent on returning the country to its former position of being the “skunk of the world” by

15
systematically undoing the work of the previous government led by Absalom T. Dlamini. Indeed,
they are no further from the truth as indications are that Swaziland is again in an era of
lawlessness. The fact that the PM was unconstitutionally appointed gives credence to this view
let alone the other blatant instances of the non-implementation or violation of the Constitution at
every possible opportunity by the King and his government.

There has also been a considerable degree of confusion regarding the issue of whether or not to
apply for bail within the ranks of PUDEMO. This was demonstrated when Mpandlana Shongwe
refused not to apply for bail stating that it was not a party decision not to apply for bail but the
president of PUDEMO‟s choice. Earlier, some members of SWAYOCO had expressed their
discontent on Thulani Maseko‟s application for bail arguing that staying in jail would have
applied more pressure on the State.

CIVIL SOCIETY

To some degree, civil society – just like the political parties – is in a state of fragmentation. For
instance, there has been no concerted attempt to unite and advance the agenda for change in one
solid voice. However, there are recognizable efforts to apply pressure on government to address
the political and socio-economic concerns facing the country. The Kudliwa Inhloko Forum held
in July is an apt example of such attempts where civil society met and, together with a gathering
of over a thousand (1000) participants from throughout the country, discussed the real issues
facing Swaziland today through the 12 commissions listed below:

1. Democracy and Good Governance

2. Human Rights
3. Rule of Law and Crime
4. Gender and Women‟s Rights
5. Cost of Living and Decent work
6. Privatization
7. Health and HIV/AIDS
8. Youth Issues
9. Educational Reform
10. Informal Economy
11. Food Security/Food Sovereignty and Land Ownership
12. Customs, Traditions and Culture.

This was done under a total of 12 Commissions. The end result of this process was the
formulation of recommendations that were called the “Manzini Declaration”. It was further
resolved that civil society would, at a later date, march to the Prime Minister‟s offices to deliver
the contents of the “Manzini Declaration” and demand that government address the concerns
raised. The key outcomes of the Kudliwa Inhloko Forum were inclusive, but not limited to the
following:

1. the call for meaningful political dialogue;

2. the removal of land rights from the trusteeship of the King;
3. the crafting of and ushering in of a new constitutional dispensation that allows political
parties; 4) equitable distribution of resources;

16
4. stoppage of the privatization policy;
5. Release of Mario Masuku and all persons charged under the terrorism law and so on. The full
formal report of this event is yet to be availed by the organizers of this remarkable event.

In May labour formations and progressive groups together with the entire civil society convened
to commemorate May Day. Over 2000 workers attended the event, which served as a platform for
the call for political reforms. Participants called for more marches to be held until government
acceded to their demands for an open and free society in Swaziland. Notably, members of
PUDEMO and SWAYOCO were present at the celebrations wearing and brandishing their
party‟s regalia, which is a crime in terms of the terrorism law. However, not a single one of them
were arrested save for Thulani Maseko. This gives credence to the view that Maseko was targeted
mainly for the sterling role he plays in assisting progressive forces to realize change by testing
the Constitution and by extension the State‟s willingness to reform.

On another note, civil society was observed suffering from the effects of the global economic
meltdown. NGOs and the labour sector in particular are reported to be the worse hit. For
example, NGOs such as Cabrini Ministries – a faith-based organization working in the eastern
part of the country – have reported that most donors have instructed them to slash their budgets in
this financial year as the meltdown continued unabated. The Swaziland Network of People
Living with HIV/AIDS (SWANNEPHA) also indicated that their annual grant from the National
Emergency Response Council on HIV/AIDS (NERCHA) was cut from E1.8m to E1m. This is
recorded in the Nation Magazine, where SWANNEPHA Finance Manager, Gcebile Ndlovu, said
“We‟ve been told that because of the global economic downturn we could not receive the E1.8m
we had asked for from Nercha this year” (The Nation Magazine, July Edition: 33). Speaking to
the same magazine Emmanuel Ndlangamandla, Director of CANGO attested to the fact that the
downturn was really hitting NGOs hard, particularly those dealing in advocacy work aimed at
addressing social, economic and political imbalances. This state of affairs is a sad one given the
embryonic and fragmented nature of the country‟s civil society. The grounding of these entities
may result in less or no advocacy work and thus no opposition to the Tinkhundla regime.

Another interesting issue in the civil society arena is the tension between government and the
labour movement over their conflicting reports at the International Labour Organization‟s (ILO)
convention in Geneva in May. Labour formations, which were represented by the Swaziland
Federation of Trade Unions‟ Secretary General, Jan Sithole, reported on the human rights abuses
and the violation of the Swazi Constitution to the convention‟s delegates. He highlighted how the
State had harassed him last year for attending a mass demonstration held in Sandton, South
Africa, by COSATU to protest the attendance of the King to the SADC Summit and the Kig‟s
subsequent ascension of the chairmanship of the SADC Troika Organ on Politics, Defence and
Security.

Government, on the other hand accused the labour formations of meddling in political affairs and
not dealing with labour related issues. In summary, labour formations were able to convince
delegates of the terrible state of affairs in Swaziland. Consequently, the country was placed under
a special paragraph of the ILO agenda, which means the ILO secretariat would be taking up the
concerns raised during the meeting. This was a very positive result for the country‟s democratic
forces as it mounts the pressure on the State and canvasses for much needed international
attention.

17
It is important to note that press freedom continues to be curtailed in Swaziland as it has been
demonstrated by the muzzling of the Times of Swaziland. Despite such harsh conditions, the
country celebrated World Press Freedom Day in May, where important players in the media
fraternity such as MISA called for the respect of journalists and the opening of spaces for
objective and balanced reporting. Significantly, the guest speaker was. Mfomfo Nkhambule, who
was recently banned from writing for the Times of Swaziland because his articles were perceived
to have been disrespectful to the King.

THE ECONOMY

On the economic front, Swaziland continues to decline yet government‟s spending on

unnecessary and non-priority areas remains unchecked. In its monetary policy meeting in May,
the Central Bank of Swaziland (CBS) noted that economic activity in most advanced and
emerging market economies continues to be depressing and that the global economic prospects
remained subject to high levels of uncertainty. However, it also noted that emerging indicators
suggested that the rate of contraction was moderating, supported by moderating commodity
prices.

Real economic growth was estimated at 2.6% in 2008 compared to 3.5% in 2007. The
manufacturing sector faced a decline in demand for the country‟s exports by developed countries
and the low growth rate stood to persist until the end of the year. Inflation was reported to be on a
downward trend from 10.5% in March 2009 to 8.8% in April 2009. Currently, inflation stands at
7.92% reflecting a further decline. Year-on-year growth in credit extension to the private sector
decelerated from 6.6% in January to 4.6% in March. The bank is concerned by the notable
slowdown in credit extension to the business sector over the period as this component of credit
extension typically finances productive activity. The bank reduced its discount rate 100 basis
points to 7.0% per annum with effect from the 1 June 2009. By the end of July, this stand had not
changed. May saw the gross official reserves amounting to E7, 078.7 million, representing a
monthly decline of 4.7%. The decline was mainly a result of outflows in the form of budgetary
payments. Over the year, however, gross official reserves increased by 22.1%. Valued in Special
Drawing Rights (SDRs), the reserves decreased by 2.2% from the previous month but grew by
22.8% during the year to close at SDR 573.1 million.

While inflation is on a downward trend, the prices of commodities remained high. For example,
the price of bread is still over the E7 per loaf. Also, unemployment stands at 28% - again a very
high rate. In the meantime, the Swaziland Electricity Company (SEC) indicated in July its
intention to increase the price of electricity by 28.2%. This increase was made necessary by the
increase by 74.9% of the import tariff for SEC by ESKOM in South Africa. The major impact of
this anticipated rise will greatly affect the citizens, particularly the poor.

In the meantime, government has not created any jobs in the local economy. Instead, it has
persistently called on people to look for jobs outside the country. This is despite the recurrent
bursts of xenophobic violence in neighbouring South Africa. The latest spate of xenophobia was
witnessed in early July when Swazis working in Piet Retief were given an ultimatum to either
resign from their jobs or die. This occurrence flies in the face of the Monarch who is on record
advising Swazis to look for jobs externally, hence reflecting the admittance of failure on the part

18
of government at job creation. Presently, government has indicated that it would create 2 500 new
jobs by the end of the year. It remains to be seen if this target will be met. While still on job
creation, the country is holding its breath as it waits to see how government handles the imminent
case of the closure of the Sappi Usuthu (SAPPI) Company due to a combination of the global
economic downturn and forest fires that damaged 40% of the company‟s trees last year. The
company is on the brink of collapse and is currently in talks with government for the prospects of
a bail out.

Another important development in the economic sphere was Swaziland‟s signing of the Interim
Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) with the European Union in June 2009, together with
Botswana and Lesotho. This development has created a rift in the region with South Africa
threatening to set up trade barriers with the country (including Lesotho and Botswana) mainly
because it regards the EPAs as unfair (as they promote the influx of cheap – highly subsidized –
goods from Europe, thus forcing indigenous companies out of business) and a threat to the
SACU. It is also contrary to SACU rules to sign unilateral trade agreements. However, Swaziland
defended its position by declaring that it was compelled by the circumstances to sign because it
did not have a fall-back position in readiness for any eventuality. The Prime Minister is on record
stating that the country had the obligation to protect companies (and jobs) that are doing business
with the EU. The latest position by government is to negotiate with South Africa to sign the
EPAs – a thing that is yet to unfold. The whole debacle has set the local economy into turmoil
and uncertainty. Significantly, Swaziland heavily depends on SACU receipts (over 60%) and an
upsetting of this source of revenue would create financial problems of unprecedented magnitude
for the country. It would seem, however, that government is caught between a rock and a hard
place as on the one hand it has to please the EU (which is a major donor) and on the other it has
to respect the SACU rules that it appended its signature to. It remains to be seen how this
imbroglio will sought itself out in the near future.

Lastly, government was observably confused and apparently economical with the truth regarding
a highly controversial matter involving the intended sale of shares held by the Swaziland Post
and Telecommunications (SPTC) on behalf of government in MTN Swaziland. It would seem
that SPTC had engaged government on a huge project that would see the public enterprise set up
a mobile unit under a new company called Horizon. To avoid unfair competition and conflict of
interest, SPTC had to dispose of the shares in their possession. The whole project had been
marred by controversy with disgruntled workers fighting against it, claiming that it would cost
them their jobs. The tension became so high such that in June, acts of sabotage were allegedly
staged by the workers to force management to stop the project. Worse still, at the eleventh hour
government stopped the sale of the shares saying that it was not aware of the matter. The Minister
for Information Communications and Technology, Nel‟siwe Shongwe, issued the denial and
subsequently dismissed the entire SPTC board. Without necessarily getting into the merits and
demerits of this debacle, it is important to state that what has happened at SPTC reflects the level
of determination by the present government to undo the work of its predecessors. It is also
important to note the negative effect of the whole fracas to possible foreign investors and by
extension the country‟s ability to attract Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). Further, it should be
recalled that the current Premier owns some shares in MTN Swaziland; hence it would not be
wrong to suspect that his stopping of the SPTC project was informed by capitalistic and self-
benefiting intentions.

19
CONCLUSION

In summation, the socio-economic and political outlook in Swaziland is not at all promising.
Instead, the country looks set to traverse very severe socio-economic and political grounds in the
times ahead. As the foregoing discussion reflects, there is very little political will on the part of
the State to listen to and engage political dissenters. While new attempts have been introduced to
try and make the Tinkhundla system deliver, it remains to be seen whether these are genuine
measures or simply another stage management gimmick by the country‟s leaders. Again, it is
important to emphasise the degree to which the country is slowly sinking backwards towards the
era of the lack of respect for the rule of law, democracy and human rights.

References

Central Bank of Swaziland Quarterly Report, March 2009

Constitution of Swaziland Act No. 1 of 2005

Free Primary Education Act of 2009, (Draft Bill)

Performance Targeting and Appraisal Programme Document, 8 July 2009

The Nation Magazine, July Edition, 2009

Times of Swaziland (May 22 and 30), 2009

Times of Swaziland (June 3, 5 and 7), 2009

Times of Swaziland (July 18), 2009

Weekend Observer, June 6-7, 2009

20