‘SWAZI OBSERVER’ PLOTS FOR KING

I smell a rat at the Swazi Observer.

For the past two weeks Thulani Thwala, the newspaper’s editor, has attacked Barnabas Dlamini, Swaziland’s illegally-appointed Prime Minister, on his personal character (for being involved in a corrupt deal that stole government land from the people for his own personal benefit) and his competence in handling the economy of the kingdom.

Yesterday (29 December 2010), he called on Dlamini, along with the Deputy Prime Minister and the Finance Minister to quit.

At the same time as condemning Barnabas Dlamini, Thwala praised Themba (AT) Dlamini, the man King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch, replaced as Prime Minister in 2008, after what in Swaziland passes for a ‘parliamentary election’.

The king replaced Themba with Barnabas, even though this was against the constitution of Swaziland.

Thwala’s praise of Themba Dlamini had a few tongues wagging in Swaziland. The reason is this: after he left office as Prime Minister the king made Themba Dlamini Managing Director of Tibiyo, the conglomerate that runs the Swazi Observer on behalf of the king.

So we have Thwala praising his boss and saying that the boss made a better PM than the present post holder.

Did Themba Dlamini instruct Thwala to praise his work as PM and put it into people’s minds that he would be an ideal replacement for Barnabas, or was this just a bit of freelance brown-nosing by Thwala?

We can be sure of one thing: the attack in the Swazi Observer and its companion Weekend Observer on Barnabas Dlamini and his government has been sustained and I expect will continue in the days and weeks ahead.

King Mswati appointed Barnabas Dlamini and the king owns Observer newspapers, so it is inconceivable that Thwala would make this attack if he didn’t have the support of Themba Dlamini (his boss) and the king.

Thwala, his journalists and paid commentators, make it clear in their criticisms that Barnabas and his minister are to blame for the current crisis in Swaziland and that King Mswati has nothing to do with it.

This isn’t true, of course. King Mswati chooses the PM and the cabinet and sets the tone of government and parliamentary business. He also bleeds his subjects dry to pay for his 13 palaces and lavish lifestyle: he is to blame for the dire plight the Swazi people face today.

So, Barnabas is being targeted as the cause of the problem. And the solution? Get rid of Barnabas and replace him with a ‘competent’ new PM. Step forward Themba Dlamini.

And in one single move King Mswati thinks he has solved his problem. With Barnabas gone, the king, his new PM and his state-controlled media can tell the Swazi people that the crisis is over. The Big Bad Barnabas is no more and we can all rest safely in our beds.

Or at least the ruling elite can rest safely.

There is only one problem: Themba is no more able to solve the problem of Swaziland than Barnabas. It will take more than a swap of personalities at the top of government to do that. It can only be achieved by complete root-and-branch change of Swaziland and that is something the king and his hangers-on do not want to see.

The Swazi Observer, the newspaper in effect owned by King Mswati III, has told Barnabas Dlamini, Swaziland’s Prime Minister, his deputy and the Finance Minister to all resign.

‘[The] PM has allowed himself to be party to the collapse of our economy and there is no better punishment than to ask him to leave,’ Thulani Thwala, the editor of the Observer says.

Thwala, writing in his own newspaper today (29 December 2010), also calls for Majozi Sithole, the Finance Minister, and Themba Masuku, the Deputy Prime Minister (DPM), to quit.

Thwala writes, ‘Reality is; we are in trouble as a country and definitely 2011 will be such a mountain to climb for many of us. In a nutshell, we are dead walking. Who is to blame for the situation we find ourselves in as a country? Look no further than the PM, DPM and Finance Minister Majozi Sithole.’

He goes on, ‘Here are three thoroughly educated Swazi men who are letting everyone including the King down. With their education combined, we should not be swimming in financial troubles.’

He goes on, ‘Now, the reason I picked on the three is simple; the current PM has been finance minister before, the longest serving one at that. The current DPM was once finance minister, a good one, if you like. And we have Majozi who has been in the finance office for over 11 years now.’

Writing on Sithole, Thwala says, ‘He has allowed people to plunder state funds without raising a finger,’

He goes on, ‘I ask; how did Majozi (an economist by profession or birth) fail to spot that our financial standing was collapsing in the 11 years he has been minister?

‘In normal countries, Majozi should have been asked to leave. He has allowed people to plunder state funds without raising a finger. Allowed lunatics (by his own admission) to keep government’s safe keys.

Thwala writes, ‘I know Majozi would argue that he has been issuing warnings in his recycled budget speeches and people ignored to listen. To me that is not good enough. His cabinet colleagues have been flying non-stop (business class or first class) to an extent that some are now personally known to pilots of the international flights.

‘I can’t find a single record where Majozi attempted to barricade some of his colleagues from attending the many useless international conferences. It would not surprise me to learn that some ministers attended swimming and cooking workshops overseas.’

He writes, ‘It would help if Majozi resigned. I strongly feel someone like Dumsani Masilela would make a good finance minister.’

Writing on Masuku, Thwala says,‘The DPM will also have to go, simple because of his status as an accomplice, an educated one at that, to the heartless strangling of the economy.’

Thwala also accuses Dlamini, who was illegally appointed Prime Minister of Swaziland by King Mswati, sub-Saharan Africa's last absolute monarch, and cabinet colleagues of greed and feathering their own nests by buying government land for themselves at vastly discounted prices.

To read Thwala’s full denunciation, click here.

‘OBSERVER’ STILL PROPAGANDA RAG

We should not believe the recently-appointed editor of the Swazi Observer when he claims his newspaper refuses to be anyone’s lapdog.

Thulani Thwala reckons the Observer publishes ‘news and information to assist [readers to] make informed decisions’.

Writing in his own newspaper today (22 December 2010), he makes the outlandish claim that the Observer, a newspaper in effect owned by King Mswati III, is ‘getting closer and closer to our target of being the best read in the country’.

Nonsense. It is impossible to get official figures about the number of newspapers the Observer and its rival, the Times of Swaziland, the only independent daily in the kingdom, sell each day. But anyone in Swaziland with eyes to see and ears to hear knows that the Observer sells a fraction of the number of copies of the Times. And the reason for this is simple: people in Swaziland see the Observer for what it is: the mouthpiece of the king and ruling power in the kingdom.

Thwala should talk to his boss Musa Ndlangamandla, the Observer Chief Editor. Ndlangamandla was proud to state in March 2010, ‘... our collective stand as a newspaper is that the integrity of Swaziland as a democratic State and His Majesty King Mswati III as the legitimate leader of the Swazi nation, must never be compromised in any way.’

Thwala himself stated, in his article ‘We are a proud watchdog for King and country and refuse to be anyone’s lapdog.’ He is so wrong, the newspaper shouldn’t be a watchdog for the king, it should be a watchdog for the people.

If Thwala wants the Observer to be an independent newspaper that publishes ‘news and information to assist them make informed decisions’, let him publish details of the Swazi Royal Family sex scandal from August 2010 that was reported around the world but not in Swaziland.

Let him also explain to his readers how it is that King Mswati has a personal fortune, estimated by Forbes in 2009 to be US$ 2 million, when seven in ten of his subjects have to exist in abject poverty, earning less than US1 a day.

Once those reports appear in the paper we can believe the Observer is independent. Until then we should continue to see it merely as a propaganda sheet for the king.

POLICE ‘LUNATICS’ ON KILLING SPREE

The editor of one of Swaziland’s few independent newspapers has called on the kingdom’s chief of police to stop ‘lunatics’ in his force from killing civilians indiscriminately.

There has been a spate of killings by police in Swaziland making people suspicious that the Royal Swaziland Police Force has a shoot-to-kill policy.

Thulani Thwala, editor of the Swazi News, writing in his own newspaper, warned Commissioner of Police Isaac Magagula ‘against handing loaded guns to lunatics’. He called for a ‘ceasefire’ on police shooting civilians.

He goes on, ‘While I personally appreciate cops fighting crime in the country, it becomes worrying when they open fire and shoot at people indiscriminately.

‘I challenge Isaac to convince us that the lunatics within his force will be brought under control. I still fail to understand how a person (suspected criminal or not) is shot in the head. What is going on really?

‘Has the shoot to kill slogan been misinterpreted? Isaac, please do something about the dwindling morale and humanity levels. I call for cease fire.’

Meanwhile, a police constable accused of shooting a civilian who was hitch-hiking along the Mliba road has made a remand appearance at the Manzini Magistrates Court.

Sivuno Lushaba, aged 29, from Sihlutse in the Shiselweni region will appear again tomorrow (27 January 2010). He has yet to enter a plea.

The police officer is said to have shot the hitchhiker under unclear circumstances, something that led people in the community there to hold a march to the police station to demand answers.

The shooting occurred a few days after police shot and killed three alleged robbers who were attempting to break into the Valley Farm factory at Sidvokodvo.

Barnabas Dlamini, Swaziland’s illegally-appointed Prime Minister, has ordered an enquiry into the Sidvokodvo shootings.

OPPOSITION TO SWAZI TERROR ACT

Opposition to Swaziland’s Suppression of Terrorism Act (SPA) is growing in the kingdom, following a critical report from Amnesty International, published on Friday (9 January 2009).

Amnesty said the provisions of the SPA ‘threaten human rights, are inherently repressive, breach Swaziland’s obligations under international and regional human rights laws and the Swaziland Constitution, and are already leading to violations of the rights of freedom of expression, association and assembly.’

Swaziland’s independent newspapers this weekend were forthright in their criticism of the act and in particular of the response of Swaziland’s illegally-appointed Prime Minister Barnabas Dlamini to the Amnesty Report.

Dlamini dismissed the report as a neo-colonial attack on Swaziland and said that the SPA was created by copying a ‘model’ terrorism act supplied by the Commonwealth.

Times Sunday writer Vusi Sibisi, yesterday (11 January 2009) called Dlamini ‘mischievous and irresponsible’.

Sibisi wrote, ‘It now seems probable that government is starting to believe to be true its lie that the anti-terrorism law was a baby of the Unites States and the United Nations.

‘This lie must be dismissed with the contempt it deserves. After all, how long have the ruling class hidden behind sovereignty, uniqueness and consensus when defending the indefensible abhorrent Tinkhundla political system in the face of international pressure to introduce multi-party democracy?

‘Yet now we are supposed to believe that the US or the UN imposed the draconian anti-terrorism law on this country. If indeed the Prime Minister was recycled to the position on someone’s presumption that he is the brightest man alive today in this the Kingdom of eSwatini, then there is either something wrong with all of us or our society is sick. Alternatively, he was recycled for his ability to arrest lightning.’

Thulani Thwala, editor of the Swazi News, writing in his own newspaper on Saturday (10 January 2009), also criticised Prime Minister Barnabas Dlamini.

Thwala wrote, ‘To me the PM spoke out of tune when he defended the Act with his back against the wall from what I would personally define as fair criticism it attracted from Amnesty International, not being the first.’

He added, ‘To hit back in the fashion that the PM did to Amnesty highlights the underlying and glaring self-importance and oozing hate of any form of criticism.’

The editor of the Times Sunday, Mbongeni Mbingo, writing in his own newspaper yesterday (11 January 2009), said the Swazi police were out of control. ‘I am personally very terrified of the police, and what they can get up to, and believe that with the Suppression of Terrorism Act, they are becoming an even bigger threat to human rights. In fact, they are becoming more and more law unto themselves. God only knows who they are answerable to.

Mbingo adds, ‘While the Suppression of Terrorism Act is all about maintaining peace and fighting terrorism, why then do we have an Act that seeks to suppress the people of this country? Why are we becoming a nation that must not be allowed to think, talk, and freely associate among each other? What good does this do, other than to anger the masses, and quickly demand to be set free?

‘Whose brilliant idea is this?

‘If this Act is meant for the good of this country, why then is government becoming so defensive? Why are they not willing change the Act where it infringes on the rights of the people — or is this because the people do not know better?’

He added, ‘Let me get back to my point. It certainly does this country no favours that we arrested Mario Masuku and seemed to do a brilliant job at cocking his arrest and the charges. It appears we had no clue whatsoever why he was even arrested, and to continue keeping him behind bars reinforces the belief that Swaziland is now like a volcano, just waiting to explode. Can you imagine what would have happened had Mario Masuku not arrested?

So, why was he arrested—to appease certain individuals, or to give people another reason to want an end to this ‘unique democracy’ of the Swazi people?

See also

TERRORISM