Yesterday (22 December 2010), I criticised Thulani Thwala, the recently-appointed editor of the Swazi Observer, the newspaper in effect owned by King Mswati III, who claimed it was not a lapdog.
It is.
If you want to learn how journalism should be done in Swaziland you have to turn to the Nation magazine, a small independent monthly journal of comment. Alone among the news media in the kingdom, ruled by King Mswati, sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch, it fearlessly publishes news and information to assist readers to make informed decisions – the very thing, Thwala claimed for himself.
I’ve written before with admiration about the way the Nation reported in April 2008 about how King Mswati and the Royal Family were milking their subjects and illegally taking ‘obscene’ amounts money that was not due to them. It also covered in full the documentary Without the King that exposed the huge cavern between the king’s lifestyle and those of his subjects.
Bheki Makhubu, the Nation’s editor, writes in the December 2010 edition about how the Prime Minister is stealing from the people of Swaziland.
You will see also that the Nation is not afraid to refer to the Royal Family sex scandal of August 2010 that was reported throughout the world but ignored by the rest of the Swaziland media.
It is a crying shame that the Nation does not have a website so that its journalism can be seen throughout the world. Instead, it can only be purchased in Swaziland.
Below is the article from Makhubu, published in full. I am posting this for the benefit of readers outside of Swaziland, May I urge those of us who are inside Swaziland to support the Nation by buying it each month – and those of us who can, to support it by buyingadvertising space.
SPEAKING MY MIND
by Bheki Makhubu
The heat was unbearable, sweltering hot on that Thursday, October 16, 2008 when King Mswati III, arriving in the late afternoon to Ludzidzini Cattle byre told a stunned Swazi nation that he was returning Barnabas Dlamini as the prime minister of this country.
In the speech preceding the announcement, the monarch had thundered for some 35 minutes, complaining about the state of politics in the country. There is no doubt that His Majesty did not appreciate the lack of high-handedness in A.T. [Themba] Dlamini’s running of government before.
From that speech, A. T. came out looking weak, a man who had let His Majesty down terribly. What was needed, was a man like the present premier, someone who brooked no nonsense and would deal with the political madness the king saw in the country.
We all shouted ‘Bayethe’ when the king made the announcement. We all knew, though, that the decision was wrong. We knew it because we had all seen what the cantankerous man from KuKhanyeni was capable of when given power. But, we were helpless because the monarch had spoken.
Exactly, two years into office, the prime minister has shown his hand. This time, he is stealing from the people, abusing the trust His Majesty bestowed on him. It is worth noting that this is the second time in a few months that King Mswati III has been betrayed by a person he trusted completely. Earlier this year, then Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs, Ndumiso Mamba was exposed for having an affair with an Inkhosikati [wife of the king].
Now, Barnabas Sibusiso Dlamini is stealing from the Swazi people and, according to an interview he had with the Times of Swaziland, is very arrogant about it. He is plundering the country.
The Prime Minister and his cabinet team cut a deal for themselves, taking land in Mbabane at discounted prices. This is a city so broke the Municipal of Mbabane cannot even fix potholes.
Yet, our Prime Minister sees nothing wrong with it. He argues that the deal was not illegal. If that is the case, then why has he suspended such deals so that the law is changed to conform to the constitution.
A little lecture here would suffice. If a law is inconsistent with the constitution, it has no force of law the day it purports to come into effect and, if it existed when the constitution came into effect, then it becomes ineffective the day constitution came into force.
That’s the law.
I know, I know. The law is a foreign concept with our premier.
The Minister responsible for facilitating the deal, a woman who masquerades as a pastor, Lindiwe Dlamini, told Christians at a meeting recently that cutting land deals was what she did as a hobby. For her, therefore, stealing from the public to secure her longevity in cabinet comes as second nature to her.
And she calls herself a woman of God, anointed by the Holy Spirit to spread the word? What rubbish!
But then, this is what you get when you let people who have not been elected by the people to run the government. You know when I see the prime minister now, I see Hastings Kamazu Banda of Malawi. I see Mobuto Sese Seko of the then Zaire. I see Idi Aminof Uganda. All these were Africa’s despots who plunged their countries into economic and political quagmire while they lived the lives of kings.
These are men we have all learnt never to emulate if we want to be men and women of honour. No, not our Prime Minister. He thinks they were real men. Men of honour he can learn from.
They were unashamed to silence those who questioned what they did because they wanted to feed their greed without disturbance. In our Prime Minister, I see General Sani Abacha of Nigeria, a latter-day despot who plundered the riches of that oil rich country simply because they allowed him to run the country.
My take is that our Prime Minister is beyond caring what the people of our country think or say about him. He is doing what he wants as and when it pleases him.
Our country has collapsed into an economic mess under his watch.
He thinks nothing of it except making sure than his children and grandchildren will be taken care of when he is gone.
When he had an interview with the Times, he has cancelled the usual breakfast meeting with editors under the guise that the Incwala season had started. As if Incwala is a new concept that has come with him.
In cancelling the breakfast meeting, the premier showed he is a coward to boot. But bullies are like that. They can’t face those willing to take them on.
While he is quick to boast that he is the first and only prime minister with a university degree this country has ever had, he does not have the courage to meet editors, uneducated as they are, and explain his ‘brilliant’ idea of stealing from the people.
Instead, he found a lackey in the editor of the Times of Swaziland and tried to cleanse himself. It is a crying shame that Mbongeni Mbingo [the Times editor] listened to the balderdash and fed it to the public. He too should be ashamed of himself.
Anyways, let Sibusiso have his way. Akadle uMlangeni! Inkhosi iphakele.
As a thinker once said: “In a society in which there is little real economic productivity, power relationships are defined by conspicuous material wealth”.
A woman journalist was harassed and barred from reporting the speech of King Mswati III at the opening of the Swaziland Parliament.
Mantoe Phakathi, from the privately-owned Nation magazine, was treated this way because she is a woman.
According to the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA), Swazi Parliament officials first warned Phakathi that since she was female she would not be allowed to take pictures of the King.
In a statement MISA said, at first Phakathi took the warning lightly because she said she had never heard or read of such a rule in her entire career. But as she went about her duties inside the chambers of Parliament, the Clerk at Table of the House of Assembly, Ndvuna Dlamini, an ex journalist himself, ordered that Phakathi be expelled, even though she had been accredited to cover the event.
She was eventually thrown out by security personnel. Speaking to journalists later Phakathi said she felt very humiliated in that she was the only journalist to be thrown out of the House.
Nation Editor, Bheki Makhubu said it came as a shock to him to learn about the harassment and expulsion of his journalist from Parliament.
‘Because of this we don’t have the pictures and story about the opening of Parliament. There is nothing we can do as we are a small publication but we are not happy about the sexist act by the government,’ Makhubu said.
The Clerk at Table claimed that Phakathi was not dressed properly since she had not covered her head, hence her expulsion.
The Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) Swaziland chapter has issued a statement condemning the discriminatory and sexist act from the officials and has demanded that government and Parliament should apologise to Phakathi and the Nation magazine ‘for this act which was clearly humiliating to the journalist’.
News that Times of Swazilandwriter and former cabinet minister Mfomfo Nkhambule has been taken in by state police and told he must stop criticising the ruling elite is further evidence that the rule of law has broken down in the kingdom since Barnabas Dlamini was illegally appointed Prime Minister in October 2008.
Nkhambule says that the head of the Intelligence Unit and two other officers interviewed him and told him that his articles could incite people to revolt against King Mswati III and this was a security threat.
Nkhambule said the officers informed him that even though Swaziland had a new constitution, there were still laws that could be used against him, which were enacted before independence.
This threat is nonsense. According to the Swazi Constitution (Section 2), the constitution is supreme law in Swaziland and if there are any existing laws that are inconsistent with the constitution, the other law will no longer stand.
Put simply what that means is that the constitution guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the media, so Nkhambule is entitled in law to write what he likes.
We shouldn’t be surprised that the constitution is being ignored. When Barnabas Dlamini was appointed by King Mswati III, the king was acting unconstitutionally because the prime minister has to come from the House of Assembly and Dlamini does not. Dlamini was never elected to anything.
Dlamini had previously been prime minister from 1996 to 2003 and his term in office was characterised by a complete disregard for the rule of law in Swaziland. He refused to abide by decisions of the courts and unleashed a reign of terror against anyone who supported democracy and argued against the king and government. In Swaziland, the king is an absolute monarch and the parliament has little real power.
Dlamini has not changed. He remains an anti-democrat and since he started his second term in office there has been a further illegal clampdown on dissent.
As the Nation magazine points out in its current issue (January 2009) Mario Masuku, the leader of the People’s United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO), has been arrested and awaits trial for allegedly breaking the Suppression of Terrorism Act (STA), even though when he is alleged to have acted against the Act, the STA was not in force.
In the past months, marches, meetings and rallies that are perfectly legal under the constitution’s so-called ‘Bill of Rights’ that guarantees freedom of expression and assembly, have been banned or broken up by police. Police also demanded to attend workshops of journalists and meetings between church leaders and foreign diplomats.
In November 2008, journalists working in Swaziland were warned that they could be branded ‘terrorist sympathisers’ and face up to 25 years in jail if they wrote reports unfavourable to the Swazi government and the king.
‘The ruling elite and the King seem to be surrounding themselves with higher levels of security and the ensuing paranoia that goes along with this.They are increasingly isolated and with extreme wealth and power disparities to protect seem intent on using military and paramilitary analyses and solutions.Thus they see their political foes not as legitimate challengers to power but enemies of the state and the status quo that must be demonised and defeated.They have said that they know how to ‘control’ conflict.This is inevitably going to provoke a reaction by the paramilitary supporters of the political opposition and lead to an escalation in the frequency and severity of their attacks and the subsequent reactions.Military solutions to political problems are rarely as effective as their proponents expect.’
The Swazi political elite are indeed paranoid about opposition and it is this lack of rationality that makes them so dangerous. Also, they do not recognise the constitution and they will use the police and army to maintain their hold on power in Swaziland.
This paranoia also makes them highly unpredictable. It is anybody’s guess who they will come after next.
Strangling the King’s opponents: Swaziland’s ‘war on terrorism’
When King Mswati III addressed the 63rd Session of the United Nations General Assembly in 2008, the emphasis of his speech was on the threat of terrorism.
His speech was a carbon copy of what is now an outdated political discourse that dominated global politics in the turn of the 21st century. Out of touch with the shift in global politics, he sounded hollow when he called upon the world to unite and fight terrorism. World unity was achieved in 2001 but discourses about the threat of terrorism have receded from the centre stage of global politics.
The recent 63rdSession of the UN General Assembly and the presidential election in the United States of America are examples of this shift in global politics. Whilst world leaders focused their attention on the global financial crisis and climate change, King Mswati III looked like a yesterday man. Nobody paid attention to him and he returned home a disillusioned, embarrassed and a frustrated man.
Rejected as a yesterday man and a hopeless actor in the global political theatre, King Mswati IIIreturned to home ground to vent his anger and frustration on Swazi citizens.
Shortly after the United Nations General Assembly, he summoned the nation to his royal residence for what local and international media widely described as a historical event in which the ruling monarch declared war on Swazi and South African citizens. He accused Swazis and South Africans of engaging in acts of terrorism against Swaziland. The rage in his tone and use of sadistic words such as abakhanywe (strangle them) generated a deep sense of fear and anxiety in many people. It caused significant concern that a new wave of political repression will soon follow.
From the speech, it was clear that strangling the King’s political opponents was to become the mainstay of government policy. For the King, there is no one more capable of turning this desire into practical action than his most trusted henchman, Sibusiso [Barnabas] Dlamini, a member of the King’s advisory body.
In disregard of his own laws enshrined in the Constitution of the Kingdom of Swaziland Act, 2005, King Mswati III appointed Dlamini the new Prime Minister in charge of government business and the police force. The Constitution states that the Prime Minister must be appointed from members of the House of Assembly. Sibusiso Dlamini was not a member of the House at the time of his appointment. His appointment was, therefore, unconstitutional. Dlamini’s immediate responsibility was that of forming a war cabinet to strangle what the King described ‘enemies of peace’.
There were no doubts in many people’s minds that members of the pro-democracy movement in Swaziland and the South Africa-based Swaziland Solidarity Network (SSN) are the obvious targets of this rage and war mongering. In the past few weeks SSN, PUDEMO and its youth wing, the Swaziland Youth Congress (SWAYOCO) have featured predominantly in media reports and official statements about recent sabotage attempts against public road infrastructure.
However, no concrete evidence has yet been produced to link these organisations to these activities. Furthermore, the police have not been able to confidently declare that these are indeed acts of terrorism carried out by identifiable organisations for political, social, religious or economic reasons. Thus talks about the presence of a terrorist threat are empty rhetoric and speculation with no substance. Such talks are, at best, acts of political indulgence.
If the government fuels speculation about the threat of terrorism, it streams into public fear. This is good news for King Mswati III and his government. It makes governing relatively easy because a fearful population is more susceptible to social control than a fearless population.
The ultimate goal of this government is to reclaim the power to rule absolutely by retransforming the nation into docile bodies paralysed by fear. One of PUDEMO’s great achievements has been the empowerment of the Swazi population to be less fearful of state power and to openly demand political change.
As the population of fearless citizens grew bigger, the state’s power-base has been gradually diminished. Swazis have long known that there is rottenness in the state of Swaziland but gradually people have been more able to proclaim this loudly rather than in fearful whispers. As a consequence, the regime is scrambling to regain control, a scenario reminiscent of the late King Sobhuza II’sresponse to the resurgence of pro-democracy politics in the early 1970s.
In all aspects, King Mswati III’s declaration of war resonates with King Sobhuza II’s Proclamation to the Nation in 1973 in which he proscribed opposition political parties. Although supporters of the regime would like us to believe that the enactment of the 2005 Constitution eclipsed the Proclamation, it is indubitable that the principles which underpin this Proclamation remain a major influence in government thinking.
All the key aspects of the Proclamation – political fear, hatred and intolerance of political dissent, constitutional vandalism and dictatorship – are evident in the current political development.
The proclamation placed dictatorship at the centre of governance. Today, dictatorship remains the cornerstone of the monarchy-led government. Under this system, those capable of furthering this most abhorrent form of political repression are appointed to public office.
Thus, the choice of Sibusiso Dlamini is not surprising, given King Mswati III’s emphasis on a form of governance based on strangulation rather than peaceful political engagement. In his capacity as Prime Minister from the late 1990s to early 2000s, Dlamini acquired a shocking reputation as a heartless and ruthless political operator.
From 2001 to 2003, he was famous for senseless spending on royal luxuries, interference in the administration of justice, media censorship and engaging in political witch-hunts against state critics. He also presided over spectacular examples of government incompetence, such as the disastrous failure to reign in the HIV/AIDS pandemic. Sibusiso Dlamini has the ability of a typical ruthless dictator to act swiftly against state opponents and sluggishly on issues of national development.
In 2002, PUDEMO warned that the Sibusiso-led government resembled a steamroller driven by a drunk and that it was capable of causing harm to the nation. At the time, PUDEMO was responding to the government’s decision to close down two print media organisations, The Nation and the Swazi Observer, because it didn’t like what they published.
Despite local and international condemnation against the closure of these media organisations, the steamroller was allowed to continue on its way, causing widespread havoc. It brought Swaziland into the realms of failed statehood by crushing flat one of the most vital institutions of government, the judiciary.
On November 28, 2002 Dlamini shocked the nation and international community when he publicly declared that his Majesty’s Government would disobey the Court of Appeal judgements in Gwebu and Bhembe v. Rex and Minister of Home Affairs et al. v. Fakudze et al.
According to Dlamini, the rulings sought to strip His Majesty King Mswati III of powers accorded to Swazi Kings since "time immemorial". No judge, Mr Dlamini declared, could question the King’s decision or challenge his power. An avalanche of local and international condemnation was brought to bear on the regime.
King Mswati III recapitulated and removed Dlamini from office. Many Swazis were hopeful that the drunk would be institutionalised in a detoxication centre for good. But alas, that was not to be. The drunk is back behind the wheel of the steamroller looking more intoxicated than he was in his previous term of office. He is back to kill and pillage national resources with impunity.
King Mswati III and his chosen henchman, Sibusiso Dlamini, are hoping to use the yesteryear strategy, ‘war on terrorism’, to wage a proxy war against the pro-democracy movement.
In 2008, The Suppression of Terrorism Act was enacted as a vehicle to waging this war. The Act gives authorities such as the Prime Minister unlimited powers to proscribe political organisations and wage a vicious witch-hunt against their membership. Immediately after his appointment as Prime Minister, Dlamini proscribed a number of political organisations including PUDEMO as ‘terrorist entities’.
Globally, the effectiveness of this strategy to retain unpopular government in office has long receded. In the turn of the 21st century, citizens of various nation states were cajoled into believing that terrorist attacks were imminent and that the state was acting in their interests when it suspended basic rights and freedoms in the name of fighting terrorism.
Threats of terrorism, as described by state officials and the media, began to infuse a deep sense of fear, anxiety and insecurity among citizens and fellow travellers. Through advanced technology, acts of ‘terrorism’ were brought into people’s living rooms. In most cases, images of terrorism were accompanied by harsh official statements to hunt down ‘terrorists’, ‘sympathisers’, ‘acquaintances’ and ‘supporters’ of terrorism.
As nation states became increasingly relentless in their pursuit of ‘terrorists’, they acquired greater presence in people’s private lives. Consequently, a state of paralysis emerged among populations of various nation states gripped with fear of ‘terrorism’ and fear of the state.
People were fearful of the ever looming terrorist attack and that their political views could be construed by the state as rendering support to terrorism. In the ‘war on terrorism’, over zealous states transformed into terrorist entities causing fear, insecurity and enormous harm to the people they claimed to protect.
In many instances, nation states with reputable records of democratic rule used the ‘war on terrorism’ to shred away civil liberties. Kidnapping, arrest, rendition, eavesdropping, persecution and detention without trial were common tools of the ‘war on terrorism’. Indeed, the turn of the 21st century was an era of great fear and strong statehood.
Whilst in some countries, particularly democratic nations, the “war on terrorism” introduced political conditions unfamiliar to many people, the majority of Swazis were born into conditions of fear and repression.
These conditions, unbearable as they are, have enabled many in Swaziland, particularly those in the pro-democracy movement, to build a strong culture of resilience. PUDEMO leader, Mario Masuku, is a living example of this culture of resilience.
Since the formation of PUDEMO more than 20 years ago, he has been in the forefront of the struggle for democracy and has endured the brutality of King Mswati III and his predecessors. He was the first to be arrested under the new terrorism laws. On November 15, 2008, Prime Minister Sibusiso Dlamini ordered the police to arrest Masuku on charges of terrorism. Masuku is accused of providing support to ‘terrorism’ following his response to reports about attempts to bomb bridges.
In our view, the charges preferred against Masuku are part of the government’s long-term strategy to persecute PUDEMO members.
Masuku did not render support to terrorism as alleged by the police. What he said was what all responsible Swazis would have said. He called upon the government to reflect on why these bombing incidents were occurring. In his view, these incidents were an indication that some people in the community have reached the end of their tether and the time had come for the government to reconsider its position on the question of democracy.
He implored the government to open talks with the pro-democracy movement to chart a way to a future political dispensation. This is not a statement of support for terrorism but a genuine and forward-looking gesture of goodwill from a man who has committed his life to build a democratic system of governance in Swaziland.
A week after Masuku’s arrest, the Catholic Church Bishop, Ncamiso Ndlovu expressed similar sentiments and condemned the terrorism laws, the proscription of pro-democracy organisations and the incarceration of Masuku (see All.Africa.com, November 21, 2008 report). It remains to be seen if the government will now arrest Bishop Ndlovu and charge him with supporting terrorism.
Masuku has endured frequent arrests and detention because of his political views. However, the determination of the regime to break his spirit has failed to yield results. Instead, it has strengthened his resolve to soldier on and fight for his people.
It is against this background that when Sibusiso Dlamini proscribed the pro-democracy movement, Masuku was resolute that we will fight on and we will exercise our rights as members of the global community to disobey unjust laws.
The regime may arrest, incarcerate and strangle our members to death but they will never kill our spirit and our movement. PUDEMO has deep roots in the community as a people’s political party.
It is not a terrorist organisation. PUDEMO has not killed or threatened to kill anyone, caused or attempted to cause fear among the Swazi population and it has not, in its history, threatened to use force to overthrow the government. PUDEMO is, however, committed to the overthrow of the dictatorship monarchy regime through peaceful political processes. This is the core principle of our movement.
Various PUDEMO leaders have repeatedly stated that the movement will not be drawn into a military confrontation on terms defined by the regime. It is well known that the government has, on numerous occasions, engaged in activities akin to spoiling for a war.
We refused to be party to this and we will continue to do so. It is, therefore, ludicrous to declare PUDEMO a terrorist organisation. Similarly, it is preposterous to arrest and charge PUDEMO leader, Mario Masuku, with acts of terrorism. Masuku has never handled a firearm or explosives, threatened anyone with violence, contemplated to wage a war or supported acts of terrorism.
PUDEMO calls upon the people of Swaziland to stay strong and not allow the government to push them back to the 1970s and 1980s. People should disobey the terrorism laws and continue to publicly declare their support and membership to the movement for democracy without fear.
The declaration of the ‘war on terrorism’ must be seen as none other than a stunt designed to rejuvenate the culture of political fear in Swaziland. It is important that people understand that this war is part of the government’s long-standing agenda to liquidate the pro-democracy movement and to use fear as a political resource.
It is not about fighting terrorism because there are no terrorists to fight in Swaziland - just pro-democracy activists demanding a democratic system of governance and respect for basic rights and freedoms.
In a remarkable admission, the Prime Minister told diplomats that there are no terrorists in Swaziland yet but maintains that there are terrorist organisations (see Times of Swaziland, November 22, 2008). This statement does not make sense.
It is like saying there are no soldiers in Swaziland but there is an army. If the Prime Minster believes that there are no terrorists in Swaziland, he must reverse the government’s decision and release the PUDEMO leader from prison.
The Prime Minister and his government need to revise their understanding of terrorism, particularly the fundamental question of what makes a person a terrorist.
Does a person becomes a terrorist merely because of his/her membership of an organisation that has been officially classified a terrorist entity? Or can an individual become a terrorist, independent of his/her association with an organisation, if he/she engages in the activities outlined in the Suppression of Terrorism Act? The people of Swaziland demand answers to these questions.
