EU NOT FOOLED ON POLITICAL PARTIES

Nobody needs to worry that the European Union (EU) is being fooled into thinking that King Mswati III is about to allow political parties to operate in Swaziland, the kingdom he rules as sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch.

The idea that the EU is being misled surfaced after news that David Matse, the Swazi Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs, met with members of the African United Democratic Party (AUDP) surfaced in the Times of Swaziland, the kingdom’s only independent daily newspaper.

The Times reported, ‘Political observers we cannot name said the government meeting with AUDP was a smokescreen as it was solely convened to lead the EU into believing that there was a genuine dialogue over the registration of political parties.’

AUDP has been pressing the Swazi Government to unban political parties in time for the next election in 2013. Parties have been banned since 1973 following a proclamation by King Sobhuza II, after Swazi people dared to elect a political party that King Sobhuza didn’t like.

The EU became involved because Matse and some of his colleagues met with an EU delegation the day after his meeting with the AUDP.

If it really was Matse’s intention to fool the EU, he is wasting his time. The meeting he had with the EU was a regular ‘Article 8’ meeting that is held every six months. The EU delegation members are old hands at dealing with the Swazi Government. They have been around long enough to know that you can’t trust a word the government says.

The government can make as many promises as it wants, but it’s what it actually does that matters. And as we all know Barnabas Dlamini, the illegally-appointed Prime Minister of Swaziland, who is presently embroiled in a corruption scandal about government land, is not a man to be trusted.

As an example, just think of all the international conventions Swaziland has signed on subjects such as human rights, civil rights and gender rights. All signed, but not implemented. And as for the Swaziland Constitution – we all know that’s not worth the paper it’s printed on.

Meanwhile, what about the AUDP? It wants political parties to operate in Swaziland, but it supports the present Tinkhundla system of government. Like the Imbokodvo National Movement, that has been in the headlines for the past three weeks after news emerged there were attempts to reform it, AUDP seems to pose no threat to the established order.

Or maybe it does. One source told me of being approached by a leader of the AUDP who wanted to know where he could purchase weapons. Leaders of the AUDP have also been approaching foreign embassies seeking to raise funds. The Times reported that Canada had been approached for E5 million (about US$ 450,000).

I hear that the AUDP has had its approaches to embassies rebuffed. This is hardly surprising because no foreign government could be seen to be openly financing an opposition party in Swaziland. It was naive of the AUDP to make the approach. Even more naively, I am told, upon being told that it could not be openly supported, the AUDP, asked to be funded ‘indirectly’.

The AUDP has also angered the People’s United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO), the best known of the opposition groups in Swaziland (and one that wants to see the present political system in Swaziland changed radically). The media constantly refer to AUDP as a ‘breakaway’ from PUDEMO.

In a statement yesterday (23 January 2011), PUDEMO said, ‘PUDEMO has neither links nor history with the AUDP. We share nothing in common ideologically and otherwise. The formation of the AUDP has got nothing to do with PUDEMO – period! We cannot recall in our history where the founders of the AUDP decided to walk out of PUDEMO and announce they were breaking away to form their own organization.’

That seems clear enough.

HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION IS BOGUS

Swaziland’s Human Rights Commission (HRC) is denying women access to its offices if they wear trousers.

And women who are in mourning are also barred.

As Swaziland claims to be close to becoming a ‘First World’ nation, it is revealed today (6 January 2011) that the main body set up to support human rights in the kingdom doesn’t understand the first concept about them.

Women in trousers (pants) and those in mourning are barred because they violate Swazi traditional law and custom: even though Section 28 (1) of the Swaziland Constitution says, ‘women shall have equal opportunities as men in political, economic and social activities.’ The constitution also expressly gives women the right to ignore Swazi law and custom if they wish, but the HRC denies them their constitutional rights.

Keen observers of Swaziland, ruled by King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch, will know that the ruling elite disregard the constitution whenever it likes. King Mswati also tries to curry favour with the international community by pretending that it a ‘democratic’ nation. The king and his hangers-on like to claim Swaziland’s has a ‘unique’ democracy, although in practice this means elections are bogus, political parties are banned, and traditional custom takes precedence over constitutional law.

Now, the HRC is exposed as a sham.

The Women and Law in Southern Africa (WLSA) Swaziland chapter has complained about the ban at the Nkanini national offices where, as with royal residences, women in mourning gowns and in trousers cannot enter the premises.

David Matse, Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs told the Times of Swaziland, the only independent newspaper in the kingdom, that the matter was of primary importance to him and would address it as soon as possible.

But instead of instructing the HRC to immediately lift its ban on women, Matse, himself a former Chairperson of the HRC, said ‘Human rights are a vital issue and we are working on it to ensure that visitors who cannot access the Nkanini offices, for whatever reason, are accommodated elsewhere, particularly in town.’

Lomcebo Dlamini, speaking on behalf of WLSA, told the Times, ‘Right now the perception, because of where they are situated, is that they are not totally independent because some people could have reservations about going there.’

Dlamini said the Commission should be located at a place where all people would feel safe and not fear to report cases.

On the issue of trousers, Dlamini said it was ridiculous that in 2011 there were certain places, in particular courts and Parliament, where women could not enter because they were wearing pants.

I have written before about how Swazi women are unable to get their rights. Last week I reported on the High Court where a judge ruled that women were the property of their fathers for life. Last month (December 2010), I reported how a woman was stripped in public on the orders of a chief because she was wearing trousers.

NEW MINISTER NOT KING’S LOVE RIVAL

Media statement from the Swaziland Solidarity Network (SSN) regarding the kingdom’s illegally-appointed Prime Minister Barnabas Dlamini and jokes he made about the new Justice and Constitutional Affairs Minister, David Matse. The former minister Ndumiso Mamba was forced to resign after he was discovered having an affair with Inkosikati LaDube, the 12^th wife of King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch.

14^th September, 2010

Sibusiso Barnabas Dlamini, Swaziland’s Premier comic doesn’t seem to be slowing down on his scornful jibes aimed mostly at the regime’s perceived enemies. Fresh from suggesting that police mete out foot-whipping to South African political activists, the Premier on Monday afternoon sent a parting shot to the former minister of Justice and Constitution affairs by labelling him a philander, likhwahla.

The Prime Minister said this at the swearing-in ceremony of the new minister of Justice, Mr David Matse, at the cabinet offices in Mbabane. His fellow cabinet members gullibly laughed at the joke oblivious to the fact that their head of state was also being lampooned in the process. His exact words were “Kube ulikhwahla uhlala wedvwa you probably would not be here”, which means, “You would not be here if you were a philandering bachelor.” The statement means that the king’s appointment was based on his personal belief that the new minister would not give him competition in his harem, which in itself suggests insecurity in the monarch who has the dubious title of being the undisputed champion womanizer in the country.

The most ironic twist to this tale is the fact that the Prime minister himself was once the subject of a law suit when a man, Lawrence Mduli, accused him of having an adulterous relationship with his wife, the current Deputy Governor of the Central Bank of Swaziland, Mrs Sibongile Mdluli .

The Cabinet jester’s contact details were tracked and people are encouraged to remind him to keep his lame jibes to his interactions with his grand children. He can be reached on this phone number: +268 7602 1942

Issued Swaziland Solidarity Network [SSN] South Africa Chapter

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.