SWAZILAND POLICE ATTACK AGAIN

Swaziland police officers have been on the attack again, assaulting members of the public – one a form-four school pupil and the other, a pregnant woman.

The latest news is that a group of police attacked the son of a Swaziland member of parliament. They dragged him out of the family vehicle he was driving, kicked him and threw him in a government van, before dumping him on a dangerous road.

Police later said they mistook Sizwe Ngcobo, aged 21, a son of MP Musa Ngcobo, for a wanted criminal (as if that was an excuse for their actions).

Ngcobo’s crime? He couldn’t produce his driver’s licence on demand to the police.

Meanwhile, the Coordinating Assembly of Non-Governmental Organisations (CANGO) has protested about how police assaulted a pregnant woman at the Mbabane Plaza in Swaziland’s capital city, because she was selling items at the bus rank.

The police kicked and punched the woman even though she told them (and it was obvious to see) she was eight-months pregnant.

‘It is more disappointing that even members of the law enforcement are in the habit of perpetuating violence in the pretext of pursuing their work,’ a CANGO spokesperson said.

The Swaziland Human Rights and Public Affairs Commission said it wanted to investigate the case of the assault on the pregnant woman, but it was unable to do any work because it did not have any people employed as investigators.

Editor’s note. New chief of police Issac Magagula told the world in October 2009 that his police officers were servants of the public and would treat ‘clients’ (i.e the public) with respect. I didn’t believe it then and I don’t believe it now.

SHOOT-TO-KILL AGAINST CONSTITUTION

Swaziland’s police and its soldiers have been warned that the shoot-to-kill policy they have implemented is unconstitutional.

The Swaziland Human Rights and Public Administration Commission says life is protected in the constitution.

Chairman of the Commission Rev. David Matse made a statement following a spate of killings of suspects and civilians by the police and the army.

‘Our plea to the police and the army is that they should consider the law before shooting at suspects. The constitution makes it clear that there are certain areas where killing is condoned. It is only in such instances that we can expect anyone to take away human life, Matse said.

Section 15 (1-4), of the Swaziland Constitution deals with the protection of the right to life. The law states that taking life can only be condoned if the person on the receiving end was in a riot; had been sentenced to death; in defence of property and to prevent the commission of a serious crime.

Matse said even if a person is escaping from lawful custody, other means of arresting that person can be attempted before the suspect’s life is considered expendable.

‘To the police, the army and members of the public, our plea is that when something has happened, which requires the killing of a person, let it be done legally, having observed the full course of the law.

‘When it has been necessary to take life, let there be proof that all other remedies were exhausted and that there was no other alternative,’ he said.

Section 15 of the Constitution reads:

A person shall not be deprived of life intentionally save in:

1. The execution of the sentence of a court in respect of a criminal offence under the law of Swaziland of which that person has been convicted.

2. The death penalty shall not be mandatory.

3. A sentence of life imprisonment shall not be less than 25 years.

4. Without prejudice to any liability for a contravention of any other law with respect to the use of force in such cases as are mentioned in this sub section, a person shall not be regarded as having been deprived of life in contravention of this section if death results from the use of force to such extent as is reasonably justifiable and proportionate in the circumstances of the case.

a) For the defence of any person from violence or for the defence of property.

b) In order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained

c) For the purpose of suppressing a riot, insurrection or mutiny or

d) In order to prevent the commission by that person of a serious offence.