AMNESTY ON SWAZI HUMAN RIGHTS

This is the Amnesty International report into the state of human rights in Swaziland. It covers the year 2009.Among the chief concerns of Amnesty are the ways that the Suppression of Terrorism Act is being used to suppress legitimate political dissent in the kingdom ruled by King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch, and the use of excessive force by the Swazi police against peaceful demonstrators.

Amnesty’s report (unsurprisingly) echoes the report on human rights in Swaziland issued by the US State Department in March 2010.

SOURCE

SWAZILAND

KINGDOM OF SWAZILAND

Head of state: King Mswati III

Head of government: Barnabas Sibusiso Dlamini

Death penalty: abolitionist in practice

Population: 1.2 million

Life expectancy: 45.3 years

Under-5 mortality (m/f): 111/92 per 1,000

Adult literacy: 79.6 per cent

The rights to freedom of association, expression and assembly continued to be repressed. Security legislation was used to violate people’s rights. Police used excessive force against peaceful demonstrators. Torture and the unjustified use of lethal force by law enforcement officials were reported. Nearly 70 per cent of Swaziland’s population lived in poverty and a quarter of the population required food aid. Women and girls continued to be disproportionately affected by violence, poverty and the country’s HIV pandemic.

Background

The new government that took office in October 2008 continued to respond to political opposition and dissent by using the 2008 Suppression of Terrorism Act (STA). In July, civil society organizations met in Manzini and called for greater protection of human rights, including rights linked to health, education, housing and security, and for an end to violence against women and the repeal of the STA. The government’s National Smart Partnership Dialogue, held in August, was criticized by political organizations and civil society for failing to be inclusive.

In September, the government announced the appointment of the Commission on Human Rights and Public Administration, which had been pending since the new Constitution came into force in 2006. However, the King appointed the Commissioners without enabling legislation and full public consultation or involvement in the nominations.

Delays in judicial appointments began to be addressed, but there were continuing concerns about effective guarantees of judicial independence.

Counter-terror and security

The media and journalists faced continuous pressure and some overt acts of intimidation. Police increasingly pressed journalists to name their sources and to refrain from publishing certain information which, under the STA, could associate them with the activities of organizations declared to be terrorist. The Times of Swaziland was pressured to stop publishing the weekly columns of a government critic, Mfomfo Nkhambule. On 21 May, the Supreme Court ruled, in a case brought by trade unions and political organizations, that there was no conflict between the right of Swazi citizens to form and join political parties under Section 25 of the Constitution, and Section 79, which allows participation in elections only on the basis of “individual merit”. A dissenting ruling, by Justice Thomas Masuku, had found that the substantive right to freedom of association protected under Section 25 was nullified by Section 79 and that this derogation could not be reasonably justified.

Torture and excessive use of force

Despite growing domestic and international criticism, the government declared it would not amend the STA. The authorities also used other security legislation to arrest and prosecute government critics.

On 3 June, human rights lawyer Thulani Maseko was arrested under the Sedition and Subversive Activities Act, allegedly for uttering words “with a subversive intention” at a public gathering. Following court appearances, he was remanded into custody at Sidwashini Maximum Security Prison. On 10 June, his lawyers obtained a High Court order to allow him confidential legal access and two days later he was released on bail. No trial date had been set by the end of the year.

In July, police arrested political activists Mphandlana Shongwe and Norman Xaba at a civil society gathering in Manzini, apparently for shouting slogans and wearing T-shirts associated with organizations proscribed as terrorist in 2008 under the STA. They were released on bail. No trial date had been set by the end of the year.

On 21 September, on the first day of the trial, the High Court acquitted Mario Masuku, President of the proscribed People’s United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO), of a charge brought against him under the STA. The court found that the state’s evidence was either inadmissible or failed to prove the case.

The trial of the remanded South African national Amos Mbedzi on subversion and other charges in connection with the attempted bombing of a bridge in 2008 was postponed until March 2010.

Police and other security officials, including informal policing groups, continued to use excessive force against criminal suspects, political activists and unarmed demonstrators. Incidents of torture and other ill-treatment were also reported. The problem of impunity for such abuses remained unaddressed. Although the new Commissioner of Police, Isaac Magagula, stressed the need to respond to the public’s concern about crime without resorting to “police brutality” and limited police use of lethal force to circumstances where the lives of police or others were at risk, victims of police abuses continued to have no access to an independent complaints investigation body.

Sixteen defendants charged in 2006 with treason in connection with bombing incidents were not brought to trial. They remained out of custody under conditional bail. The government had still not made public the report of an inquiry into their allegations of torture in pre-trial detention.

On 16 April church and labour union organizers had to call off a march for free education after violence erupted. A breakaway group damaged property and assaulted a police officer. The security forces used disproportionate force against some demonstrators, including a man whom they beat with batons, kicked, strangled and stamped on apparently because he had insulted the national flag.

Freedom of association, expression and assembly

The sweeping and imprecise provisions of the STA and associated severe penalties continued to intimidate government critics. Civil society activists and government opponents reported increased incidents of harassment, searches and seizures of materials, and monitoring of electronic communications, telephone calls and meetings, some of which were disrupted by the police.

On 4 September, Wandile Dludlu, president of SWAYOCO, the Swaziland Youth Congress, was unlawfully arrested by four police officers near the border with South Africa. He was taken to a forested area near Bhunya and interrogated about weapons while being subjected to repeated suffocation torture, with his hands and ankles tied tightly behind him. About seven hours later the police dumped him, uncharged, in Mbabane. He needed hospital treatment for injuries and psychological trauma consistent with his allegations. He lodged a criminal complaint against named police officers at Mbabane police station, but by the end of the year the investigation had not resulted in any arrests. He also lodged a civil claim for damages.

On 21 September, Correctional Services security officers, without issuing a warning to disperse, assaulted political activists who had gathered peacefully to wait for the release of Mario Masuku (see above) from Matsapha Central Correctional facility. The security officers also demanded that journalists stop filming and photographing their actions. They seized cameras and other reporting equipment and verbally abused, threatened and physically assaulted several journalists. The police investigation into the incident had not resulted in any arrests by the end of the year. In addition, no publicly known steps were taken by the authorities against the Department of Correctional Services, despite public calls for an inquiry into the violence and the intimidation of media workers.

Poverty, HIV and the right to health

Swaziland’s HIV prevalence rate remained the highest in the world. Most recent available UNAIDS statistics indicated that 42 per cent of pregnant women attending antenatal clinics in 2008 were HIV positive. Access to antiretroviral treatment for AIDS continued to increase, but lack of access to adequate daily food, particularly in rural areas, continued to impede the ability of people living with AIDS to adhere to the treatment, which must be taken with food at regular intervals daily.

An estimated 256,383 people required food aid. Fifteen per cent of households were headed by orphaned children.

In October on World Poverty Day, the UN Resident Coordinator expressed concern that there were no signs of abatement in poverty levels.

Substantial gender differences in rates of poverty and HIV infection persisted, with women disproportionately affected and infected. Women continued to experience violations of their sexual and reproductive rights through violence or threats of violence from male partners refusing to use condoms.

In November, the Campaign on Accelerated Reduction of Maternal Mortality in Swaziland was launched with official support. The maternal mortality ratio was estimated to be 370 per 100,000 live births in 2006.

Women’s and children’s rights

In March, the High Court ruled that the government was obliged, under the Constitution, to provide children with free primary school education. However, the Prime Minister stated that the ruling could only be implemented in phases from 2010.

Finalization of draft legislation affecting women’s right to equality under the law and on children’s rights continued to be delayed, despite the appointment of additional legislative drafters by the Ministry of Justice to speed up the reform of laws in conflict with the Constitution.

In October, parliament passed the People Trafficking and People Smuggling (Prohibition) Bill.

Death penalty

Although the 2006 Constitution permits the use of capital punishment, no executions have been carried out since 1983. No new death sentences were imposed in 2009. Three people remained under sentence of death.

SECURITY FORCES TARGET WORKSHOPS

Swaziland’s illegally-appointed Prime Minister Barnabas Dlamini says the kingdom’s security forces should attend workshops and other gatherings uninvited to make sure participants are not talking about democracy.

He says it is the security force’s duty to ensure that ‘under the pretence of free dialogue, there was [no] preaching of violent insurrection’.

Dlamini was speaking at the opening of a ‘mini dialogue’ in the so-called Smart Partnership that he himself set up to discuss Swaziland’s ‘national vision’.

Dlamini, who has an international reputation as an enemy of freedom and democracy, has been pursuing pro-democracy activists in Swaziland and intimidating them to stop them from spreading the word. He has been using the Suppression of Terrorism Act to brand any opposition as ‘terrorist’.

Dlamini so hates the freedom activists that he has branded them all ‘terrorists’ and claims that they are seeking to violently overthrow King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch.

He told the Smart Partnership that the government ‘as the custodian of law and order, had a responsibility to provide protection where, under the pretence of free dialogue, there was the preaching of violent insurrection’.

The Swazi Observer, the newspaper in effect owned by King Mswati, quoted him saying, ‘And let us be clear that, where the law and order is at risk, it is important for our security forces to be in evidence, properly monitoring public behaviour and pre-empting the possibility of violence.’

There was ample of evidence of the police ‘pre-empting’ the possibility of violence two weeks ago when dozens of police invaded the funeral of democracy activist Sipho Jele and tore up photographs of the deceased man and confiscated banners from the banned People’s United Democratic Movement.

Police have also attended uninvited workshops and banned meetings from taking place that they didn’t like the look of.

MEDIA FREEDOM IN SWAZILAND

Monday (3 May 2010) is the UNESCO World Press Freedom Day where we stop and think about the state of the media in the world today.

This seems to me to be a good time to reflect on the past year or so in Swaziland. The Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) will soon be issuing its annual report on the lack of media freedom in Swaziland.

It will be the same old story of censorship, harassment and fear.

Here in advance of the MISA report, is an extract from the United States State Department report on human rights in Swaziland that was issued in March 2010.

I reproduce here the section on Freedom of Speech and Press ... every last depressing word.

The constitution provides for freedom of speech and of the press, but the king may waive these rights at his discretion, and the government restricted these rights during the year. Although no law bans criticism of the monarchy, the prime minister and other officials warned journalists that publishing such criticism could be construed as an act of sedition or treason, and media organizations were threatened with closure for criticizing the monarchy. The law empowers the government to ban publications if they are deemed "prejudicial or potentially prejudicial to the interests of defense, public safety, public order, public morality, or public health." Most journalists practiced self-censorship.

The king may suspend the constitutional right to free expression at his discretion, and the government severely restricted freedom of expression, especially regarding political issues or the royal family. Individuals--and family members of individuals--who criticized the monarchy risked exclusion from the traditional regiments (chiefdom-based groupings of Swazi males dedicated to serving the king) patronage system that distributed scholarships, land, and other benefits. Traditional chiefs were obliged to punish offenders when matters were brought to their attention. During the year the prime minister warned journalists against making statements that could be interpreted as seditious.

During the year the foreign minister criticized foreign diplomats for speaking publicly about political matters and warned that they were not to interfere in the internal affairs of the country.

There were two daily newspapers, the independent Times of Swaziland and the Swazi Observer, which was owned by the king's investment company, Tibiyo Taka Ngwane. Both newspapers criticized government corruption and inefficiency but generally avoided criticizing the royal family. The Ministry of Public Service and Information periodically published the Swaziland Today newspaper. Private companies and church groups owned several newsletters and magazines.

In November 2008 the attorney general warned that journalists who criticized the government could be viewed as supporting terrorists and arrested under the Suppression of Terrorism Act (see section 2.b.). Journalists continued to be threatened, harassed, and assaulted during the year.

For example, on January 12, after being pressured by police and government authorities, former cabinet minister and Times of Swaziland columnist Mfomfo Nkambule publicly apologized to the king for a series of articles that criticized the monarchy. Prime Minister Sibusiso Dlamini had threatened to charge Mfomfo Nkambule and other media commentators under the 2008 Suppression of Terrorism Act. Nkambule, who at one point had been ordered to buy between four and six cows as a fine to appease the king, reported in his newspaper column that failure to pay the fine could result in the eviction of his family from their homestead. On April 27, the Times of Swaziland stopped publishing Nkambule's articles.

Journalists were called to the offices of the king, prime minister, and senate subcommittee for their reporting on political events or the royal family.

For example, on May 12, a senate subcommittee summoned Times of Swaziland editor Mbongeni Mbingo and other journalists for reporting about a verbal exchange between Senate President Gelane Zwane and Senator Ndileka Dlamini. Senators advised journalists that internal parliamentary discussions were private and raised the possibility of charging journalists with contempt of parliament.

On June 30, at the George Tums Hotel in Manzini, organizers of an HIV/AIDS workshop ejected journalists covering the event after members of parliament (MPs) complained of the press presence. Parliamentarians cited an incident in which an MP was publicly embarrassed after papers headlined his statement that HIV/AIDS patients should be branded on their buttocks.

In August Prime Minister Dlamini reportedly threatened to close media outlets if they reported on an August royal trip abroad; there was no domestic coverage of the event. In August 2008 USDF soldiers assaulted Times of Swaziland journalists who were at the airport to cover the return of nine of the king's wives and their entourage from a lavish shopping spree abroad; soldiers also seized the journalists' cameras.

Journalists received anonymous telephone calls advising them not to pursue particular stories, and many of them complied. For example, freelance journalist and Times of Swaziland columnist Vusi Sibisi reported that he stopped writing after being told that a warrant for his arrest had been issued due to his articles that criticized the government and the monarchy.

Unlike in previous years, defamation laws were not used to restrict the press.

In March 2008 Speaker of the House Guduza, a brother of the king, sued the Times of Swaziland for two million emalangeni ($270,000) for articles it published about his involvement with a company that allegedly illegally imported cigarettes worth 17 million emalangeni (approximately $2.3 million). The case had not gone to trial by year's end.

In February 2008 the High Court awarded MP Marwick Khumalo a default judgment of 120,000 emalangeni ($16,200); in July 2007 Khumalo had sued Bheki Makhubu, the editor of the private Nation magazine, for defamation after Makhubu wrote an article accusing Khumalo of corruption. However, on February 22, the High Court granted the Nation magazine an order for stay of execution, and the case remained pending at year's end.

The March 2007 defamation suit filed by MP Maqhawe Mavuso against the Swazi Observer newspaper remained pending at year's end; the Observer had included Mavuso's name in an article about an alleged assault.

There was one government-owned radio station and one independent radio station that broadcast religious programs and public information programs on issues such as HIV/AIDS; however, the government generally restricted media content, especially on government television and radio. There was one privately owned television station; however, the owner's mother was a daughter of the previous king, Sobhuza II, and the station's reporting favored the monarchy. The government-owned Swaziland Television Authority and radio stations were the most influential media in reaching the public, but neither generally broadcast news about antigovernment demonstrations or criticism by "progressives." Government broadcast facilities retransmitted some Voice of America and BBC news programs in their entirety.

Consumers freely purchased and used satellite dishes to receive signals and programming from independent South African and other international service providers.

Internet Freedom

There were no government restrictions on access to the Internet or reports that the government monitored e-mail or Internet chatrooms. Individuals and groups could engage in the peaceful expression of views via the Internet, including by e-mail. Internet cafes existed in larger urban areas, but most citizens lived in rural areas. An estimated 4.1 percent of inhabitants used the Internet, according to International Telecommunication Union statistics for 2008.

MISA ATTACKS SWAZILAND CENSORSHIP

Swaziland’s main media rights organisation has condemned the Swazi Government for bullying an independent newspaper the Times Sunday into dropping a regular column written by Mario Masuku, a human rights activist.

The Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) called it a ‘blatant act by the government to censor both Masuku and the Times newspaper’.

As I reported earlier this month (January 2010) Majahenkhaba Dlamini, the Attorney General, told Innocent Maphalala, the editor of the Times Sunday, he will face jail time for supporting Masuku (who the Swazi state has branded a terrorist) if he doesn’t stop publishing the articles.

Even though Masuku was acquitted of a trumped up terrorism charge in September 2009, Dlamini says the People’s United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO), the organisation he leads, is a terrorist organisation.

In a letter to Maphalala the Attorney General accused him of dealing with a terrorist and in doing so ‘you and your newspaper cannot avoid being identified with the entity or its member (s).’

This is a reference to the Suppression of Terrorism Act which makes it illegal for anyone to offer any kind of support to terrorist organisations. If charged and found guilty of such an offence the editor could face up to 25 years in jail.

The MISA Swaziland chapter in a statement said it ‘strongly condemns the act by the government, and notes with great concern that the government action not only perpetuates the state of fear and censorship in the Swazi media, but also violates the basic principles of freedom of expression, a fundamental human right also guaranteed in the Swaziland constitution. The government action also greatly interferes with the editorial independence of the newspaper.

‘MISA-Swaziland has therefore appealed to the government to allow Masuku and any other Swazi citizen to exercise their right to free expression and further allow the Times newspaper to exercise its editorial independence without undue interference and threats. ‘

MISA commended the Times Sunday ‘for coming out to expose the government for its bullying action to censor the newspaper and not choose to suffer in silence’.