REPORT

OF THE

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

SELECT COMMITTEE

INVESTIGATING CONTEMPT CHARGES

AGAINST

THE TIMES SUNDAY EDITOR

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Letter to the Speaker ……………………………………………. ….. 3

Declaration letter …………………………………………………….. 5

Motion (Terms of Reference) …………………………………………. 6

Submissions …………………………………………………………… 7

Findings and Recommendations …………………………………… 25

2
 KINGDOM OF SWAZILAND

Telephone: 416 2407/8/9/10/11 Ref. No.............PAR/...........................................

416 1286/7/8/9 SWAZILAND HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT
Fax: 416 1603 P.O. Box 37
Lobamba
Swaziland

9th October, 2007

Hon. Speaker
House of Assembly
Houses of Parliament

Mr. Speaker

It is indeed an honour and to table the report of the Select Committee

investigating allegations of Contempt of Parliament against the Editor of the Times
Sunday for the article published on July 01, 2007. As the Chairman of the
Committee I would like to register my profound gratitude to the following Members
of the Committee for their support:

Hon. E. Vilane – Vice Chairperson

Hon. Vusi Dlamini – Member
Hon. Mphiwa Dlamini – Member
Hon. John Shiba – Member

On behalf of the Committee, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those
who appeared before the Committee. Without their cooperation and views the work
of the Committee would have been an uphill task.

The Committee interviewed Honourable Members, media practitioners and

stakeholders and interested parties, inter alia:

1.The Member who sparked the whole debate (Hon Mfomfo Nkambule)
2.Mover and Seconder of the Motion (Hon Madlenkhosi Dlamini and Hon
Clement Dlamini)

3.MISA Director ( Mr. Comfort Mabuza)

4. University of Swaziland Lecturers in Journalism Department (Mr. Moyo and
Mr. Adidi Uyo)
5. Government Spokesperson (Mr. Percy Simelane)
6. Law Professional (Mrs. Rufia Sarumi)
7. Swazi TV CEO ( Mr. Vukani Maziya)
8. Times of Swaziland Ombudsman ( Mr. Martin Dlamini)

3
 9. SBIS journalist (Phesheya Dube)
10. Times Sunday Editor (Mr. Mbongeni Mbingo)
11. Official from the AGs Office ( Mr. Mndeni Vilakati)

Moreover, I would also like to thank the Hon. Members of the House for entrusting
us with such an enormous responsibility.

Yours Faithfully

HON Dr TITUS .THWALA

COMMITTEE CHAIRPERSON

4
 DECLARATION OF INTEREST

I, the undersigned
Hon. Dr Titus S. Thwala

Do hereby declare that:

1. I am a regular columnist in the Times Sunday, the very paper this report
investigates.

2. I have declared any involvement in this assignment to the Times Sunday Editor
and no objection was made

3. I declare that in consideration to the issues arising from the Terms of Reference,
I have applied my independent and professional mind. Advice that I provide herein
is to the best of my ability, independent and unbiased by my involvement or
knowledge of Journalistic spheres.

4. As at, and up to, the date of this report the entire contents of this report have
been kept confidential and I declare that no person other than the duly appointed
Committee Members of this assignment, had access to information herewith till
report is tabled in Parliament.

5. I then took a step further, by suspending my writing of articles for Times Sunday
till the report is presented to Parliament.

__________________________
Hon. Dr. Titus Thwala

5
1.0 MOTION

To move that the Hon. House appoints a Select Committee to investigate

allegations of Contempt of Parliament against the Editor and of the Times Sunday
for an article published on July 01, 2007.

Mover: The Hon. Mandlenkhosi Dlamini

Seconder: The Hon. Clement Dlamini

2.0 TERMS OF REFERENCE

1.0 Terms of Reference No1

To investigate the alleged abuse of freedom of Expression to insult

Honourable Members and bring the office of the Hon. Speaker into disrepute.

2.0 Terms of Reference No2

To investigate whether the editor does have a basic understanding of

Parliamentary Practice and Procedure

3.0 Terms of Reference No3

To investigate the allegations that the article promotes division and animosity
among Members of the August House.

4.0 Terms of Reference No4

To investigate whether the article conforms to the ethics of journalism.

5.0 To look into any matter it deems fit

6.0 To make findings and recommendations.

7.0 To compile and table a report within four weeks

6
4.0 SUBMISSIONS

4.1SUBMISSIONS BY HON. MFOMFO NKAMBULE

The Hon. Mfomfo Nkambule told the committee that he approached the Speakers‘
office to raise a matter of Privilege as per the practice.

He told the Hon Speaker that he had carried out an investigation on certain people
in the corridors of power who were meeting at Nkhanini with a view to changing the
Constitution. He stated that this was a threat to the stability of the Kingdom and
the Minister should be asked to shed some light on the developments which were
undermining the authority and sovereignty of the legislature.

The Speaker agreed and told him that the minister might not be present as he was
reported to be indisposed. He was told that if the Minister did not show up he was
to continue to raise the matter in the House so that the Speaker would be
reminded to call the Minister to the House on the following day. Indeed the matter
was raised in the House, but could not proceed due to the absence of the minister.
He was accordingly advised to defer the matter pending the availability of the
minister.

Notwithstanding such a promise, he was very surprised when he was ruled to be

Out of Order when he later raised the matter under Standing Order 58 on a day
when the minister was present in the House.

4.2 SUBMISSIONS BY THE MOVER AND SECONDER OF THE MOTION (HON

MANDLENKHOSI DLAMINI AND HON CLEMENT DLAMINI)

They thanked the Committee for allowing them to present their point of view. Also
asserted that the Editor of the Times Sunday should be investigated for Contempt
of Parliament and putting the august House into disrepute.

The Hon Members submission was based on the Committee‘s Terms of

Reference, inter alia:

7
TERMS OF REFERENCE

1.0 To investigate the alleged abuse of Freedom of Expression to insult

Honourable Members and bring the office of the Hon Speaker into disrepute.

They submitted that the Editor abused Freedom of Expression to insult Honourable
Members and bring the office of the Speaker into disrepute.

2.0 To investigate whether the Editor does have a basic understanding of

Parliamentary Practice and Procedure.

They argued that the Editor lacks basic understanding of Parliamentary Practice
and Procedure. He failed to understand that Hon Mfomfo Nkambule was ruled to
be out of Order for wrongly using Standing Order No 58 (Point of Priviledge)
instead of raising the matter through the established procedure.

3.0 To investigate the allegation that the article promotes division and
animosity among Members of the august House.

They strongly believed that the article did promote division and animosity among
Members of the august House.

4.0 To investigate whether the article conforms to ethics of Journalism.

They argued that the editor‘s article did not conform to ethics since it was
inaccurate and bias.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

 Journalists covering Parliament should be properly trained and well

versed on procedure

 A media Bill should be piloted.

8
4.4 WRITTEN SUBMISSION MISA DIRECTOR (MR. COMFORT
MABUZA)

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

Freedom of Expression is not just freedom to communicate accurate, inoffensive

information and ideas, but includes the right to ridicule and shock public officials in
their undertaking of public duties. In democratic countries, it is accepted that
politicians must be more open to public scrutiny and tolerate more comment and
criticism than ordinary citizens. They have sought and attained public office, they
use public money and they are supposed to be accountable to the public. In fact,
the freedom to openly criticize and scrutinize public officials be it accurate or
inaccurate criticism is a cornerstone of robust democracy.

The Constitution of Swaziland guarantees the right to freedom of _expression and

specifies limitations. The article in question does not breach the limits of freedom
of _expression/press freedom as provided by the Constitution. Section 24 (3)
details the types of speech that may not be protected by freedom of _expression.
These include speech related to: national defense, public safety, public order,
public morality, public health, protection of reputation, rights and freedom of other
persons, private lives of persons concerned in legal proceedings, preventing
disclosure of information received in confidence, maintaining authority and
independence of the courts.

At no point does the content of this article fall under the limitations on freedom of
_expression listed in the Constitution. For media coverage of Parliament, it is
critical that limitations on freedom of _expression be narrowly defined. The very
basis of any democracy is informed communication between citizens and their
representatives. The media is the vehicle for this information and therefore need
broad reign to truly be the eyes and ears for the public.

Defamation

Given that the article in question is criticizing the actions of public officials, it does
not give reason to sue for defamation. Public officials should only pursue litigation
in relation to matters that clearly belong in the private sphere. Suing for criticism of
one‘s public functions is an instrument to restrict the media‘s reporting of politicians
and limit public scrutiny.

If public officials want to correct inaccurate or offensive media content, they should
exercise their right to reply. Determining matters of defamation is the exclusive
domain of the courts and Parliament should respect this separate role of the
judiciary.

9
Contempt of Parliament

Contempt of Parliament strictly refers to any act wish obstructs parliamentary

functions. The article did not in any way cause interference or obstruction to the
House or its members in the discharge of their duties. Times Sunday cannot be
guilty of contempt of parliament, as the article does not breach any parliamentary
privileges that are necessary for the execution of parliamentary functions.

Journalism Ethics & Media Regulation

It is not the role of a parliamentary select committee to judge journalism ethics, or

indeed the code of conducts of any profession. It is the responsibility of the media,
not parliament, to set and supervise their professional and ethical standards.

The fact that Parliament is investigating ethical compliance by a journalist

demonstrates an attempt to exercise control over editorial content and the media.
This contravenes the constitutional protection of media freedom that was endorsed
by Parliament itself.

Training of Journalists

The profession of journalism is based on the right to freedom of _expression. This

right belongs to all people and cannot be made contingent on specific education or
training. It is the preserve of media owners and editors to employ the right people
to work in a particular role.

Journalists can best be compared to politicians who also must be versatile enough
to address a wide range of people‘s concerns. Neither is obliged to obtain training
or a license to do their job. With regard to specific training for parliamentary
reporters, as with all journalism portfolios the world over, specialization usually
occurs on the job.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

 Parliament should repeal Standing Order 195 and cease seeking to punish
the media and others for offending the dignity of Parliament by criticizing the
institution or its members.

 Offensive and inaccurate reporting should be not considered Contempt of

Parliament. Contempt should be reserved for serious cases of interference
with Parliament‘s ability to perform its function.

 Public officials should tolerate criticism and scrutiny of their public functions
and not pursue litigation.

10
  Eligibility of media access to Parliament should be determined by the media
itself.

 The professional standards and ethics of journalists should be set and

judged by the media itself.

4.5WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY MR. MOYO (SENIOR JOURNALISM LECTURER

AT THE UNIVERSITY OF SWAZILAND)

He said the article which appeared in the Times Sunday is judgmental in that it
questions the credentials of the Speaker of Parliament. No Editor of any country
should assume that he /she is equipped with knowledge to tell qualifications of an
officer selected by Member of Parliament. The whole notion of denigrating
parliament is a sign of disrespect for a duly constituted institution where national
matters are discussed. If criticism is done in the name of Press Freedom, it must
be remembered that whereas such freedom is contained in the constitution, it is
nevertheless limited. Press Freedom is one side of the coin- the other side is
respect for privacy and responsibility.

It must be remembered that some two years ago a Danish newspaper journalist
drew cartoons of Prophet Mohammed. This was done in the name of Press
Freedom. These cartoons failed to recognize respect for religion. Muslims around
the world labeled the cartoons as an offence punishable by death. The feelings
were that those responsible should be beheaded.

The cartoon controversy spread throughout the world one time threatened to cause
a Third World War. Various leaders said caricatures of Prophet Mohammed were
an attack on the spiritual values of Muslims. The leaders said should be a limit to
Press Freedom. The then British Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw said while he was
committed to press freedom ―I believe that the re-publication of these cartoons has
been insulting, it has been insensitive, it has been disrespectful and it has Muslims
….Inciting religious or ethnic hatred in this manner is not acceptable. Some
commentators said ―the real issue surrounding the Danish cartoons of the Prophet
Mohammed is hate speech and incitement to violence rather than freedom of
expression‖. The cartoons were seen as inflammatory, showing disrespect and
lack of moral maturity.

The Times Sunday article fell into the above category of lacking moral maturity and
lacking respect for Swazi tradition and custom. The article had uncalled-for satire
that cartooned Parliament. The language used was derisive and disdainful. It
portrayed Parliament as an institution that did not deserve respect. It certainly was
unSwazi and could not be protected by freedom of speech and or opinion.

In conclusion, the freedom of speech has limits in any society and should observe
traditions and culture of the society which it operates. Parliament and its

11
committees should be given the respect it deserves. It cannot be labeled as a
Kangaroo Court at any stage of its operation. He stressed that this was not
suppose to be done by a journalist.

4.6SUBMISSION BY PROFESSOR ADIDI UYO SUBMISSION BY DR ADIDI

UYO

He thanked the committee for inviting him to a meeting that is of critical importance
to the role of the Media in society. He indicated that he would respond against
each Term of Reference. He also made a brief presentation on journalism ethics.

TERMS OF REFERENCE

1.0 To investigate the alleged abuse of Freedom of Expression to insult

Honourable Members and bring the office of the Hon Speaker into disrepute.

He was non committal since he strongly believed in freedom of expression.

2.0 To investigate whether the Editor does have a basic understanding of

Parliamentary Practice and Procedure.

Had difficulty in answering the question since he did not know much about the
editors

3.0 To investigate the allegation that the article promotes division and
animosity among Members of the august House.

He also declined to answer this Terms of Reference because he was not too sure.

4.0 To investigate whether the article conforms to ethics of Journalism.

Although evasive, he did concede that it is important for Journalists to adhere to

ethics.

4.7SUBMISSION BY PHESHEYA DUBE SBIS

He thanked the Committee for inviting him to a meeting that is of critical

importance to the role of the Media in society. He also made a brief presentation
on journalism ethics.

TERM OF REFERENCE

1.0 To investigate the alleged abuse of Freedom of Expression to insult

Honourable Members and bring the office of the Hon Speaker into disrepute.

12
In a general response, he stated that freedom of expression is a fundamental
human right.

2.0 To investigate whether the Editor does have a basic understanding of

Parliamentary Practice and Procedure.

Could not answer the question since he did not know much about the Editor‘s
background.

3.0 To investigate the allegation that the article promotes division and
animosity among Members of the August House.

He was not too sure of the answer.

4.0 To investigate whether the article conforms to ethics of Journalism.

Without being judgemental on the article in question, he stressed the importance of

ethics.

4.8 SUBMISSION BY GOVERNMENT SPOKESPERSON (PERCY SIMELANE)

He thanked the committee for inviting him and he apologized that as a Government
Spokesperson he should have said something about the matter but he was away
with the Prime Minister in Ghana.

1.0 To investigate the alleged abuse of Freedom of Expression to insult

Honourable Members and bring the office of the Hon Speaker into disrepute

He said there is no absolute freedom of Expression.

2.0 To investigate whether the editor does have a basic understanding of

Parliamentary Practice and Procedure

Maintained that the editor was not clear on Parliamentary Procedure.

3.0 To investigate the allegation that the article promotes division and
animosity among Members of the august House

Stated that the article was divisive. He pointed out that the issue of
Parliamentarians and Speaker being called stooges is an insult to the entire nation
because the Honorable are chosen by the people.

4.0 To investigate whether the article conforms to ethics of journalism.

13
The article violated ethics moreso because it was subjective and very insultive to
Hon. Members.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

 He recommended that Journalists must be well educated; at least they

should have a Diploma in Journalism.

 There must be a Media Bill which would guide the media houses

 Parliamentary reporters should be properly trained and accredited

4.9 WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY RUFIA (OFFICIAL ON HUMAN LAW)

On the question of whether the article on page 16 of the Times of Swaziland

Sunday newspaper (July 1 2007) constitutes a libel and to what extent the freedom
of the press is protected in this regard -

INTRODUCTION

The test applied in courts in other jurisdictions to determine what amounts to libel
is stated in the law1 which provides that –

Every malicious publication by writing, printing, picture, effigy, sign, radio

broadcasting or which shall in any other manner transmit the human voice or
reproduce the same from records or other appliances or means, which shall tend -
1. To expose any living person to hatred, contempt, ridicule or obloquy, or to
deprive him of the benefit of public confidence or social intercourse; or
2. To expose the memory of one deceased to hatred, contempt, ridicule or
obloquy; or

3. To injure any person, corporation or association of persons in his or their

business or occupation, shall be libel.

14
To this end, in order to determine whether an article is libelous, one needs to
consider the nature of the article in contention and answer the following questions
–
1. Is it the truth
2. Is it offensive
3. Is the article merely giving information to the general public or does it
amount to hate speech (one must also look at if the article can instigate
violence or adverse reaction from the general public)
4. Has the inherent right to dignity of the person(s) referred to in the article
been violated

On the question of whether the article under consideration is the truth, the Alaska
Supreme Court in the case of Elizabeth Pitka2 in reversing the verdict of the trial
court stated that the truth of a defamatory statement is an absolute defense to an
action of defamation.

The Supreme Court also ruled that the newspaper in this case should have had the
opportunity to raise the defense that the statements in the headlines were true.
Under the common law truth is an absolute defense and would constitute a
complete justification for the statements.

On the second question of whether the statement was offensive, the test applied in
this case is ―if statement is defamatory on its face, the law assumes that the
individual‘s reputation has been injured‖.

On the other hand, if the false statements are not defamatory per say, the injured
party must prove that he or she was directly harmed in some way by the
statements. To be defamatory, the false statements must relate to the individual‘s
professional performance. Once the statements are determined to be libelous then

15
the amount of damages are decided based on how serious the plaintiff‘s reputation
was harmed.

Thirdly, in determining whether the article was merely giving information to the
general public or if it does amount to hate speech, one has to consider if the article
can instigate violence or adverse reaction from the general public. In the statement
of the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) it case of National Party
Vs Maharaj Kasrils and Mokaba,3 it was stated that
For speech to fall outside the protection of the Constitution it must comply with the
following requirements -

a. the speech must advocate hatred;

b. the target group must have been subjected to the hate speech
because of their race, ethnicity, gender or religion; and
c. the speech must amount to an incitement to cause harm.

If the article was merely ―in pursuit of the truth, within the context of fair political
comment and in the public interest‖4 it might not be said to amount to hate speech.
In addition, if nothing in the article can be linked to or construed to be referring to a
―race ethnicity, gender or religions‖, then it cannot be said that the article
constitutes hate speech.

The final test, to determine if the article constitutes libel is that there must have
been a violation of the inherent right to dignity of the person(s) against which the
article was directed. Everyone has a corresponding duty to have the dignity of
others respected and protected.

3 Report in terms of Section 15 of the Human Rights Commission Act, 1994 (Act No 54 of 1994)

4 This was stated in the letter dated 28 May in the case of National Party Vs Mahraj Kasrils and
Makaba (see note 2 above).

16
In the case stated above, it was contended that the inherent right of Mr. de Klerk
had been violated. This was also based on the fact that Mr. de Klerk is a senior
politician and, in a democracy as a leader of the opposition, he is entitled to
respect and dignity, which is in accordance with his status in society. Failure to
render such respect and honour would have grave consequences for the upholding
of democracy and the duty of trust that should be accorded to someone of his
stature.

The thrust of the complaint is that the complainants‘ right to have their dignity
respected has been impaired by the statements reported and that under these
circumstances; the right to human dignity should take precedence over the right to
freedom of expression. Alternatively, that the right to freedom of expression did
not extend so far as to justify an infringement of the right to dignity.

CONCLUSION

One must look at the general information being passed in the article to determine if
the article constitutes a libel. After a careful consideration of the position of the law
under other jurisdictions, it is settled that the law is clear on what constitutes a
libelous document.

Once this has been determined, the person(s) who‘s right has been violated by the
libelous article needs to prove that he or she has suffered substantial damage by
virtue of the violation before a meaningful compensation can be awarded by the
court of law.

clueless when it comes to the constitution, a document they supposedly approved.

To them SWEEPING STATEMENTS AGAINST MPS IN THE ARTICLE

Prince Guduza must be ashamed of himself …

17
…that he didn‘t see the urgency in the matter that is simple to a grade 1 child…

―… The truth is that the MPs didn‘t have enough guts to go for someone else who
would handle this job properly, to this decision was to lament the lack of adequate
people to lead the legislators.‖

―…The foolishness the MPs display while pretending to be engaging in meaningful

debate and the mere fact that those very MPs have combined to form some little
cliques within the House are so transparent …‖

―…let me end by saying that perhaps the reason MPs couldn‘t tell the difference
and couldn‘t care less is that they are what could be the problem really, when they
don‘t even know the document?‖

… a man who must rally count himself lucky to occupy that position in the first
place

…It must be pointed out that Prince Guduza is lucky to occupy that seat because
the MPs failed to see the danger in getting him to replace S‘gayoyo Magongo.

… if prince Guduza displays such ignorance while still Speaker of the House, there
is no doubt in my mind that our Parliament would have also gone to the dogs.

… the foolishness the MPs display while pretending to be engaging in meaningful

debate and the mere fact that those very MPs have combined …

…he is confirming people‘s feelings that because of his royalty status, he is

therefore to safeguard that interest and not that of the people

…he is old enough to draw that line to make an intelligent decision

18
…but with the arrogance which he displayed this past week, he is showing us all
that he wouldn‘t be bothered what the rest of us think of him and how he carries his
job, so long as his cronies are satisfied.

…MPs couldn‘t tell the difference and couldn‘t care less is that they are clueless
when it comes to the constitution, a document which they supposedly approved.

5.0 SUBMISSION BY VUKANI MAZIYA STVA DIRECTOR

1.0 To investigate the alleged abuse of Freedom of Expression to insult

Honorable Members and bring the office of the Hon Speaker into
disrepute

He said there is no absolute freedom of Expression because there are limits.

2.0 To investigate whether the editor does have a basic understanding of

Parliamentary Practice and Procedure

Though not judgemental, he stressed the importance of training of Journalists

on Parliamentary Reporting.

3.0 To investigate the allegation that the article promotes division and
animosity among Members of the august House

Non committal on this issue

4.0 To investigate whether the article conforms to ethics of journalism.

It does not conform to ethics of journalism since it is bias and insultive. Also
put the Honourable House into disrepute. He took great exception to the use of
vulgar words like stooges to insult Honourable Members who are people‘s
representatives.

5.1 SUBMISSION BY MR. MARTIN DLAMINI TIMES OMBUDSMAN

He stated that the primary responsibility of an Ombudsman is to listen to

complaints and make necessary corrections. Since there was not complaint lodged
against the initial story and the subsequent comment of the Editor, there was
nothing the Ombudsman could do. Needless to state, the Ombudsman can only
act when a complaint has been made.

19
1.0 To investigate the alleged abuse of Freedom of Expression to insult
Honorable Members and bring the office of the Hon Speaker into disrepute

He said there is freedom of Expression and fortunately for Swazis it is protected in

the country‘s the Constitution.

2.0 To investigate whether the editor does have a basic understanding of

Parliamentary Practice and Procedure

He regards the editor as a mature journalist who understands procedural issues. .

3.0 To investigate the allegation that the article promotes division and
animosity among Members of the august House

Declined to comment on this issue.

4.0 To investigate whether the article conforms to ethics of journalism

Believes that no ethics were violated.

5.2WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY THE EDITOR (MBONGENI MBINGO)

Defending my opinion:

I am not a journalist, or writer, to pick a fight for the heck of it. I am normally also
very respective, aware of my boundaries and my responsibility as editor and Swazi
living (and always will be) in Swaziland. I do not write for the sake of it either. I do
write because there is a point to be made, and that there is an argument to be
stimulated. I don‘t often write because I want to simply start a debate, though I am
fully aware that one of the key things needed for a progressive and democratic
nation is dialogue and to stimulate debate is a move in that direction.

I have, over the years, learned that journalism does not allow journalists or editors,
carte blanche to write anyhow—at least responsible journalists and editors. Ours is
nation building, and to do that takes a lot of responsibility of the issues we write
about. I take a lot of responsibility in my writing, because that to me is how one can
earn respect for the job that he does.

This country, however, while having a constitution that grants us a bill of rights that
arguably compares with the rest of the world, still struggles to accept that this
document is the supreme law of the land that we all have to live by it. The
constitution offers us journalists and every living soul of this country, freedom of
expression, thought and opinion.

20
But, it does not give that right without securing the next person‘s right, which is
simply to say the right to expression has its own boundaries. I for one, knows this
and live by it because we can‘t always be right, and we can‘t run roughshod over
other people‘s rights so that we enjoy ours.

Freedom of expression simply means that I am free to expression my opinion if it

does not infringe on the next person‘s, and I am fully aware that when it does, the
next person has a lot of options to exercise their opinions. Therefore I have got to
accept a person can have a differing opinion to mine, I am not and cannot always
be right, a person reserves his right—especially in our case—to demand to be
heard too (right to reply) or take up legal action if defamed.

Having said that, I must point out that ever since The House of Assembly agreed to
institute a probe to ascertain whether or not I had overstepped my boundary in my
article ‗Our Worst Fears Confirmed‘, I have looked at the article countless number
of times. I have read every word and paragraph and am still feel I was still within
reasonable bounds of freedom of expression. The article, which raised the furore
of Members of Parliament—and I now understand the Speaker of the House of
Assembly—did not tarnish the image of the House as it was alleged during the
debate in the House.

Rather, what the article served was to argue a certain point. The article was
topical, fair and well argued. It also was about an issue that concerned all Swazis
who were told to defend the constitution as their supreme law. I am one of those
people. When the king said he would be the constitution‘s number one defender,
he wasn‘t merely just saying that, or endorsing it (constitution), he was telling all of
us to take the constitution as ours and fight for it. So when the honourable Member
of Parliament Mfomfo Nkhambule raised his concern over a meeting that was
outside of Parliament but purporting to look into certain clauses of the constitution,
I had every right as a journalist, editor and Swazi to sit up and notice.

I certainly noticed his argument and call for explanation the first day he raised the
matter, and I supported the way that he felt the second day he raised the matter in
Parliament and was duly told to ‗shut up‘. The MP, it must be understood, used the
same standing orders when bringing into the house the motion. He was not told he
used the wrong standing orders. Rather what he was told was that the minister
responsible for that issue was out of the country due to health reasons, but as
soon as he returned, the MP would be at liberty to raise the matter.

Consequently, when the minister returned to Parliament the next time, the MP
stood on the same standing order to seek a response, as had been promised.
It was then that the Speaker could now say the MP‘s matter was not urgent, and
that he was quoting a wrong standing order.

21
It was then that the MP retaliated emotionally and said he felt he was being
humiliated and made a fool. It was then that the MP argued the Speaker was
treating him unfairly. It was in that respect, therefore, that I approached my article,
and basing it in the manner the MP felt as a result of the treatment accorded him
by the MP. My point was to say the Speaker was wrong, and I substantiated my
reasons for it, hence the reason the article goes on to review how the Speaker was
appointed to that demanding position. The people, especially journalists, cannot be
fickle and therefore it is essential the background to his election to the position was
brought up.

As a columnist, the Honourable Committee must understand I play the role of a

commentator, someone analyzing matters and issues of the day. This is where the
issue of the opinion comes in, because it is how I look at things that matters. I don‘t
necessarily have to interview the people for what I am writing about. I am simply
expressing my opinion, based on what has been reported in the media. I am simply
reacting.

Likewise, I reacted to the events in Parliament, by finding that the Speaker‘s action
was unfair towards MP Nkhambule. I felt it was wrong to say the matter was not
urgent because we were all aware by then that there was a meeting taking place at
Nkhanini and which we were told through Cabinet office, had something to do with
the constitution and in particular looking at clauses regarding the elections
commission and the boundaries commission.
The Swazi people, I argue, deserve to know what role the MPs, the legislators
elected by the people and who must speak for the people, play in this. This is why I
sided with MP Nkhambule in the urgency of the matter. However, I can accept a
counter argument from the Speaker on why the matter was not urgent, something I
felt the honourable Speaker could have pursued if he had felt the argument was
wrong. Such is what dialogue is about.

I also sided with the manner that MP Nkhambule felt he was treated, largely
because I had been aware that he had raised the matter previously, and therefore
could not understand why it was not being entertained when the minister was in
the House. I am aware of course that perhaps the Speaker exercised his right but
then again, this he could still say, without the need of a Parliamentary probe.

This leads me to say that we have a right to criticize the Speaker—and

Parliament—because we are the voice of the people and they are put there by the
people. The Speaker‘s position is a political one and there can be no escaping the
amount of spotlight that shines on him every single day he occupies it. To expect
that he would not be subject to criticism would be folly and to expect that we are
not going to be harsh on him is undermining the importance of the position.

I should also point out that as politicians, the Speaker and the Members of
Parliament need to develop a thick skin to criticism because that is part and parcel
of their job. The press as the fourth estate must always do its job of keeping

22
everyone on their tours, and therefore cannot be seen to be muzzled—which is
what it will look like when MPs disagree with an opinion to the extent of constituting
a probe. I have to conclude by pointing out of course, and reemphasizing the point
that there is no malice in my article, and there was non intended. There is only the
issue of taste, which can be the subject of another debate.

MPs can not start now disagreeing with the way people see things, that is not how
things work. I have attended several courses on political reporting, and everywhere
I go, I am schooled to hold politicians accountable for their actions. Public officials
must be more open to public scrutiny and they must tolerate comment and criticism
than ordinary citizens because they have sought and attained public office, they
use public money and they are supposed to be accountable to the public. Let me
also pint that the freedom to openly criticize and scrutinize public officials, be it
accurate or inaccurate criticism is a cornerstone of robust democracy.

Here, I did nothing wrong, and I find it absurd that we have wasted the public funds
to constitute a probe over a matter that would have needed a phone call from that
aggrieved person and in which he would have been allowed to voice his own
opinion. We are now governed by the constitution and we must all abide by it.

5.3SUBMISSION BY MNDENI VILAKATI FROM ATTORNEY GENERAL’S

OFFICE

He thanked the Committee for the invitation and stated categorically that there was
no Contempt of Parliament in this case.

1.0 To investigate the alleged abuse of Freedom of Expression to insult

Honorable Members and bring the office of the Hon Speaker into disrepute.

The Columnist did not abuse the Freedom of Expression.

2.0 To investigate whether the editor does have a basic understanding of

Parliamentary Practice and Procedure.

Non comment on this issue.

3.0 To investigate the allegation that the article promotes division and
animosity among Members of the august House.

He said that he was not too sure if the article did to promote division and animosity
among MPs.

23
4.0 To investigate whether the article conforms to ethics of journalism

It does because it merely refers to something that happened and the Columnist
was expressing his personal opinion.

24
Findings and Recommendations

1.0 Terms of Reference No 1

1.1 It is the finding of the Committee that the Times Sunday Editor did
not abuse freedom of the press more so because he was
expressing his personal opinion.

1.2 The Committee recommends that the Editor should be cleared of

this allegation.

2.0 Terms of Reference No 2

2.1 It is the finding of the Committee that the Times Sunday Editor lacks a
basic understanding of Parliamentary Practice and Procedure. Worse
still, he does not comprehend the interpretation and the contextual usage of
Standing Order No 58.

2.2 The Committee recommends that the Rt. Hon Prime Minister together
with the Minister for Public Service and Information should consult
media stakeholders like the Media Institute of Southern Africa with the
view to holding workshops on Parliamentary Practice and Procedure for
journalists covering Parliament. Furthermore, should put in place
mechanisms for the accreditation of Parliamentary Reporters.
Thereafter, report progress within eight weeks.

3.0 Terms of Reference No 3

3.1 It is the finding of the Committee that the comment of the Times
Sunday Editor did not promote division and animosity among Hon.
Members of the august House . It brought about different view points
which are a vital ingredient of a lively debate.

3.2 The Committee recommends that the Editor should be cleared of

this allegation.

4.0 Terms of Reference 4

4.1 It is the finding of the Committee that the Times Sunday Editor has failed
to observe journalism ethics of objectivity and accuracy.

4.2 The Committee recommends that the Minister for Public Service and
Information together with media stakeholders should hold workshops on
the importance of Ethics of Journalism.

25
Terms of Reference No 5

5.1 It is the finding of the Committee that media stakeholders have dragged
their feet in establishing a Self Regulatory Media Complaints
Commission that was recommended by a House of Assembly Select
Committee in 1997. The absence of such a Commission has denied the
public the fundamental right to lodge complaints and seek reddress on
issues of poor reporting.

5.2 The Committee recommends that the Minister for Public Service and
Information should pilot a Media Council Bill within eight weeks.

5.3 It is the finding of the Committee that there are inherent difficulties and
loopholes in the laws of Defamation and Libel that makes the process to
be arduous, time consuming and very expensive

5.4 The Committee recommends that the Minister for Public Service and
Information should pilot a bill within eight weeks dealing with issues of
defamation and libel in order to make the process less costly and more
expedient.

5.5 It is the finding of the Committee that the Parliamentary Priviledges

Act of 1967 needs serious review

5.6 The Committee recommends that the Parliamentary Priviledges Act

of 1967 should be amended to be in line with the recently amended
Standing Orders and also conform to the spirit and dictates of the
Constitution.

Not Guilty Verdict:

Cognisant of the above findings and recommendations, also the

fundamental principle of Freedom of Expression enshrined in the country‘s
Constitution (Bill of Rights), the Committee recommends that the Editor
should not be found guilty of the charge of Contempt of Parliament since
he was expressing his personal opinion.

_____________________ _________________
HON. Dr T.T THWALA THANDO DLAMINI
COMMITTEE CHAIRPERSON COMMITTEE CLERK

26