Swaziland’s illegally-appointed Prime Minister Barnabas Dlamini met editors and senior journalists last week at what is promised to be a regular monthly ‘editors’ forum’ meeting.
The forum is billed as an opportunity for journalists to question the Prime Minister (and any other senior politicians he chooses to invite along). To some people this ‘openness’ demonstrates how much he believes in freedom of speech and freedom of the media.
The forum is not a new idea; the most recent Prime Minister Themba Dlamini also held such meetings. There was some doubt about whether Barnabas Dlamini would carry on with the ‘tradition’ because he has a well-deserved reputation as a hater of freedoms, including freedom of the press and freedom of association. Since he came to power in October 2008, Barnabas Dlamini has branded four political formations as terrorists and announced that anyone who is a member or supporter of the organisations will be deemed a terrorist. Under the Suppression of Terrorism Act,this could result in up to 25 years in jail.
I suppose Barnabas had nothing to worry about meeting the journalists. At his final editors’ forum meeting in July 2008, Themba Dlamini praised the editorsfor all the support they had given him and his government over the previous five years.
The forum is billed as an opportunity for the media to question the Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues on matters of interest to the nation, but in his speech the PM was very open about the fact that he would only answer the questions that he wanted to.
He told the editors, ‘You will recall that the initial breakfast meetings were very difficult and tense even though I had given you the rules of engagement.
‘I think you will remember rule number one, which says, “I am not under any obligation to answer all your questions and I reserve the right to refuse to answer any question” This has been the rule of thumb for our breakfast meetings and I am happy that we have kept it alive throughout our sessions; and our interaction has matured over time.’
This, of course, doesn’t represent an open dialogue. A real interaction would only take place when the Prime Minister and senior politicians were forced to answer questions they did NOT want to answer.
In view of the recent controversy surrounding Mfomfo Nkhambule, who was threatened with jail for the articles he has written in the Times of Swaziland, it is instructive to note that in his speech Themba Dlamini told editors, I’ am glad that in Swaziland people have constitutional rights to express themselves freely I am also happy that there is no one that has been reprimanded because of expressing himself or herself through the media or any other medium.’
Following Barnabas Dlamini’s first editors’ forum, the civil society group Swaziland Coalition of Concerned Civic Organisations (SCCCO) wrote a media release critiquing the Prime Minister’s contribution.
It covered the PM’s views on the Swaziland Constitution, the controversial constitutional commitment to free primary school education, the attempts at influencing the press and the diplomatic corps, the government’s disregard for ‘International Human Rights Norms’ and the use of performance incentives for cabinet ministers.
The release did not get widespread coverage, so I have posted it on the blog here.
Swaziland Coalition of Concerned Civic Organisations (SCCCO) Commentary on the Prime Minister’s First Meeting with the News Editors - 31 January 2009
The Swaziland Coalition of Concerned Civic Organisations welcomes Prime Minister Barnabas Sibusiso Dlamini’scommitment to continuing with his predecessor’s innovation of monthly meetings with the media. Such open access to the PM for the media is welcome as it allows the readers, viewers and listeners to closely examine the vision that the PM has for the government and the country and also manner in which he approaches problems and their solutions.
Assuming that the reports in the Media are accurate then the Coalition would like to make observations on the following issues covered.
‘Holistic’ Readings of the Constitution
The Meaning of Free Education
The attempts at influencing the press and the diplomatic corps
The government’s disregard for International Human Rights Norms
The use of Performance Incentives for Cabinet Minsters
We will take each of them in turn.
‘Holistic’ Readings of the Constitution
The Prime Minister has said that, like the Bible, the Constitution must be read as a whole, and that one cannot look at one section without taking into account other relevant sections. We agree. However, he seems not to have taken his own advice and selectively quoted from the Constitution when dealing with the government’s strict duty to provide free education under section 29 (6).
“Every Swazi child shall within three years of the commencement of this Constitution
have the right to free education in public schools at least up to the end of primary school,
beginning with the first grade.”
He referred to section 60 (8) of the constitution which says
“Without compromising quality the State shall promote free and compulsory basic
education for all...”
The PM, and Minister Ntshangase, seem to think that that in some way this takes away the force of s 29(6).
Of course this is a very selective and not at all ‘holistic’ reading of the Constitution. The right to free education comes under Section 3 of the Constitution. This is more commonly known as the Bill of Rights and the duties under that section can be enforced by a court. The section the Prime Minister relies (60) on is not under the Bill of Rights but the Directive Principles that are not subject to review by a court as s 56 (3) says
“The provisions of sections 57 to 63 inclusive are not enforceable in any court or tribunal.”
It must be obvious that there is a hierarchy of duties. Some are answerable in court and some are not. The strict duty to provide free education is not taken away by s 60. The proper interpretation is that free education remains a duty that the courts can force the government to abide by. If the drafters of the constitution wanted it any other way they would have put the right to free education in Chapter Five not in the Bill of Rights. Therefore the right to free education is actionable - however the quality is not.
So we agree with the Prime Minister when he says that a holistic reading of the Constitution will cast the proper light on the situation. We now hope that the holistic constitutional position of the duty to provide Free Primary Education is now clear.
The Meaning of Free Education
In reports from the day and from Minster Ntshangase earlier in the week say that there is not a common definition of what “Free” Education is. This may be so, but the Coalition would like to examine the problem from another angle.
If a parent has to pay money to a school (or the government) so that their child can be taught the normal curriculum in that school, then it cannot be called free education.
Any formulation of ‘Free’ that the government comes up with must pass this simple test.
It has been commonly agreed by Parliamentarians (Observer 27/11) that were present at the time that the Suppression of Terrorism Bill was rushed through Parliament and that they were pressurised into voting it onto the Statute Book without amendment so that the safety of the international visitors for the 40/40 celebrations could be guaranteed.
On 14th and 15th of November the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister when speaking at separate occasions both undertook to review the Act.
An internationally respected panel of Human Rights Lawyers carefully analysed the Act and set out the problems with the Act in a long and detailed report that also called for a substantial review of the Act. The report set out in objective detail the shortcomings of the act in terms of balancing the provisions of the security of Swaziland against human and civil rights. The advice is based on the understanding that the best defence against terrorism is democracy and the enjoyment of human rights and any limitations to these must be measured, reasonable and proportionate.
The government’s response did not deal with any of these more important points of the report but relied on bluster, confusion and non existent international pressure. At no time has the Government explained what considerations it gave to Human Rights or the UN codes of Good Practice. It does quote the Commonwealth Models that were finalised in 2002, only one year after 9/11 but nothing after that.
It seems that the Prime Minister has not heeded any of the internal or external criticisms of the Act, nor does he seem to be interested in reviewing it at all now.
The Prime Minister’s assertions that the banning of the four organisations means that they are dead and should be ignored by the press and the diplomatic corps shows how far short this government is in understanding what a Bill of Rights is and how it protects the rights of ordinary people. The impossibly vague wording of the Act means that no one can be certain what it means and so the government’s understanding is only one of many interpretations of the Act. In a democracy, when the press does its job of reporting newsworthy events it cannot be said to be supporting terrorism or terrorist activities. Only a government hell bent on shackling freedom of expression or muzzling political dissent would define it so. Remember, every word of Osama Bin Laden’s statements is carried by the Western media that he has sworn to destroy. Why? So that his words and thoughts can be held up to public scrutiny. That is the right and the duty of the media in a democratic nation.
It seems that this government is doing exactly what is said it would not do. Using the Suppression of Terrorism Bill to target individuals and to silence and stigmatise legitimate dissent. As President Obama said in his inaguration speech: “To those who cling to power through ... the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history”
Diplomatic Immunity?
Equally, the most recent attempt at interfering with the proper function of the diplomatic community shows a deep misunderstanding of the modern role of diplomats. They are not only messengers for their governments but also representatives of their people, and the values that their systems of government stand for. It is now properly professional diplomatic good practice for diplomats to talk directly to citizens, civil society and political representatives and not just government officials. Minister Lutfo and the PM would be well advised to study ‘A Diplomat’s Handbook for Democracy Development Support’ that can be found at www.diplomatshandbook.orgto get a better understanding of the role of the modern Diplomatic Community in the post cold war and post 9/11 era. The implied threat of throwing diplomats into jail and ‘pinching’ them while questioning them is extremely worrying and, of course, if it occurred, would be a gross violation of International Law.
Performance Targets for Ministers.
The Coalition and the whole of the country welcomes the emphasis that the PM is putting on improving the service delivery of government departments. However, there are concerns that the method of delivery of using crude performance targets may turn out to be counter-productive. Especially if they are linked to job security. There will be an inevitable temptation to cut corners, bend good governance rules and ignore inconvenient laws in order to meet these targets. Instead of rooting out corruption there is the possibility that this action could make the situation worse. We do welcome this initiative but urge caution in the choice of targets and their method of assessment.
Conclusion
In summary, the reports of the PMs first meeting with the editors show a tendency to bend the facts and respect for the rule or law for political and operational expediency. Given that the defining event of his last term in office was a rule of law crisis that ended up with the mass resignation of the Justices of the Supreme Court, we wonder what lessons the PM has reflected on in the past five years to prevent such a crisis happening again.
Swaziland Coalition of Concerned Civic Organisations
Swazis are being urged to jump at shadows following an absurd claim in a newspaper owned by King Mswati III that al Qaeda terrorists may be in Swaziland disguised as secondhand car salesmen.
The Observer report relies heavily (a polite way of saying is copied almost word for word) from a story published in the Botswana Sunday Standard this weekend (1 February 2009). The Standard claimed that al Qaeda terrorists were infiltrating Botswana and 10 nations across the world, ‘Brazil, Namibia, South Africa, Malaysia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Lesotho, Mauritius, Swaziland, and Trinidad and Tobago’.
According to the Observer, Swazi Police Public Relations Officer (PRO) Superintended Vusi Masuku said they would follow-up the allegations. ‘We will apply all forms of investigations available to prove and disprove the reports,’ he said.
Of course the Observer nor the Standard really explain why a supposed international terrorist ring would want to be in Swaziland, although the Standard does allude to the fact that Botswana and Swaziland are close to South Africa which might be a target for terrorist action during the FIFA World Cup next year.
It’s not much of an explanation, since most of the countries in the list given by the newspapers are nowhere near South Africa.
Although we might be tempted to laugh off the newspapers’ claims, there is something more sinister going on here. Since October 2008 with the illegal appointment of Barnabas Dlamini as Prime Minister, there has been a clampdown on free speech in Swaziland (there was never much to begin with) and a Suppression of Terrorism Acthas been implemented to ban organisations critical of the government and the non-democratic structures in Swaziland.
The actions of the Swazi Government have caused outrage both inside Swaziland and in the international community for being heavy handed and anti-democratic. In response the government has said it needs to do these things in order to save Swazis from terrorism.
Up to now we have been told that the so-called ‘terrorist threat’ comes from within Swaziland. People close to the ground have laughed openly at the absurdity of the suggestion, so now it is extremely convenient that the Swazi Government can claim that an international threat exists and who better to blame than al Qaeda (a supposed international network of terrorists?)
The message that the people of Swaziland will be asked to swallow is that they must allow the government a free hand to tackle this new terrorist threat and if that means rounding up dissidents, then so be it.
The Swazi people are not alone in being duped about the dangers of al Qaeda. A convenient mythology about the group has grown since the World Trade Center bombings in 2001 as a fear of a phantom enemy has been allowed to grow by politicians desperate to maintain their power.
A documentary on al Qaeda shown by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) in 2004 concluded that al Qaeda ‘is not an organised international network. It does not have members or a leader. It does not have “sleeper cells”. It does not have an overall strategy. In fact, it barely exists at all, except as an idea about cleansing a corrupt world through religious violence.’
If the Swazi Observer really is a ‘newspaper’ and not a propaganda sheet for the king and the anti-democratic forces in Swaziland it needs to retract its story pronto.
Swazi dissident Mfomfo Nkhambuleand has vowed to continue writing his controversial articles in the Times of Swaziland.
And he has called on King Mswati III to support him by telling the traditional authorities who have told Nkhambule to stop writing to shut up.
Writing his regular Monday column in the Times today (2 February 2009), Nkhambule says that only his readers can tell him to stop writing.
Nkhambule has been under intense pressure over the past three weeks after members of the Swazi state police Intelligence Unit hauled him in for questioning and told him he must stop criticising the king. He was threatened with 20 years in jail. It is also reported that Nkhambule faced tortureif he didn’t do as the police said.
Later, traditional authorities at Nkhambule’s home and at his regimentwaded in by telling Nkhambule that he would lose all rights and privileges if he didn’t stop his criticism.
In his column today Nkhambule continues his attack on supporters of the king who exploit ordinary Swazi people. ‘I think my king should be happy when we realise that we have been exploited by other Swazis who have turned us into a nation of beggars whilst they have been using His Majesty’s resources (people, tax and any other source of income) to enrich themselves and their friends much to the detriment of the majority of his subjects. I want to believe that if there is anything that my king can look after carefully with all of his might, it is none other than the culture of the Swazi people,’ he writes.
He goes on, ‘Therefore it is my hope that His Majesty will quickly call the regiments to order before great damage is done to our culture. If His Majesty endorses the unbecoming behaviour of the leadership of this regiment then he needs to maintain his silence on this disturbing development so that you and I may draw the necessary conclusion. If my king decides to marginalise the matter of the regiments, then we will deduce as to who was behind the action of the police warning me about the articles and who is behind the action of the regiment leadership threatening me with expulsion for helping my fellow countrymen believe in themselves and or giving them information that will help them make good decisions for their survival as well as their children's survival.’
In conclusion, Nkhambule writes, ‘What I have undertaken in this column is a public duty and I cannot make a unilateral decision. When the people who I serve tell me to stop I will do so.’
