Four pro-democracy activists were arrested in Swaziland on May Day (1 May 2010) because they are ‘unemployed’.
At least that’s the excuse the Swazi state forces gave when they stopped the four from attending a workers’ rally organised by the Swaziland Federation of Trade Unions.
Police said they arrested the four before the meeting startedbecause it was a function especially for workers and the speakers were not workers.
Police grabbed the original copy of Sikelela Dlamini’s speech and photocopied it for ‘filing purposes’.
Mphandlana Shongwe is one of the leaders of the Swaziland Democracy Campaign. He says he was subjected to house arrest after police arrested him. He said after being interrogated for two hours, he was taken to his home where he was warned to remain indoors.
He says he was ordered to make a statement in writing, explaining why he attended the Workers’ Day because he was not a worker. He said police also told him that he was not supposed to celebrate with workers because his group, the People’s United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO), was proscribed as a terrorist entity by government.
The four were taken to the Manzini Regional Police Headquarters. A police spokesperson said the four were not charged but were held for questioning.
Police were reported to be on the lookout the rally at the Salesian Sports Ground for anyone seen wearing T-shirts supporting banned organizations or who were heard shouting pro-liberation slogans.
A teenage girl who introduced a drama group by shouting VIVA was whisked away by marshals to safety. The police had wanted to apprehend her. One of the senior officers told the marshals that an offence had been committed.
Swaziland Federation of Trade Unions Secretary General, Mduduzi Gina, received a tip-off that police were planning to arrest him for praising one of the proscribed entities through a VIVA shout.
Plain clothed police confiscated a digital camera belonging to the Swaziland National Union of Teachers (SNAT) and deleted 35 pictures - they were apparently angry that they were being photographed.
Among the deleted pictures were some of police taking the four arrested political activists to a van.
Further evidence that Swaziland state forces are using the Suppression of Terrorism Act(STA) to silence political dissent came this weekend when a man was arrested for wearing a PUDEMO T-shirt.
PUDEMO – the People’s United Democratic Movement – is the main opposition group in Swaziland and has been banned under the STA.
This past weekend a 26-year-old man was arrested and charged under the STA when he was spotted wearing the T-shirt during May Day / Workers’ Day celebrations held by the Swaziland Federations of Trade Unions at the Salesian sports ground on Saturday (1 May 2010).
This is not the first time someone has been arrested under the STA for wearing a PUDEMO shirt. In July 2009 a man was arrested at the ‘people’s dialogue’meeting.
Actually, it’s not a new lie: it’s one the ruling elite tell over and over again.
Dlamini told a meeting of Swazi media editors this week that the kingdom’s constitution that came into effect in 2006 was chosen by the people.
And that is just not true. And the editors know it and they shouldn’t allow Dlamini to get away with it.
Here’s what really happened. After the first draft of the constitution was written King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch, invited the International Bar Association (IBA)to comment on it.
The IBA in a report said as clear as clear can be that the process of so-called consultation was deeply flawed.
The IBA pointed out that the judiciary and non-government organisations (NGOs) were not allowed to take part in the consultation. Also, individuals were interviewed in front of their chiefs so were not free to say what they really thought about the powers of the king and what he and his followers like to call Swaziland’s ‘unique democracy’, the Tinkhundla system.
IBA said the consultation did not allow for groups to make submissions and incomplete records were kept of the submissions that were made so, IBA says, there is no formal record of how Swazi citizens presented their views and of what in fact they said.
On top of this the IBA reports that the Swaziland media were not allowed to to report on the submissions.
‘Furthermore, information was elicited in a highly charged atmosphere. Individuals were reportedly asked, in the presence of chiefs, whether they wanted to retain the King and whether they preferred political parties,’ IBA says.
Add that lot together and there is no way you can say that the people of Swaziland were consulted properly.
IBA, using very diplomatic language, called the process ‘flawed’ and said that one critic went so far as to call it a ‘fraud’.
You can read more of what I have written on the IBA here.
For the full IBA report - Striving for Democratic Governance – click here.
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.
SDC calls for Commonwealth parliamentarians to expose tinkhundla MPs
Press Release 30 April 2010
The Swaziland Democracy Campaign notes that the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA) branches of National Parliament, KZN, Gauteng and Limpopo together with the Swaziland branch are holding a session in South Africa to deliberate on matters related to the governance systems in these countries, particularly in the branches listed herein.
We take this opportunity to reiterate our demands for the fundamental rejection of tinkhundla model of governance, which is based on exclusive and monopolistic exercise of power by the ruling royal regime and its cohorts in Swaziland. The system denies the people and their representative organs their rights and access to public policy participation, democratic election of leaders of their choice as public representatives and banning of all legitimate political and social activism. In summary, the people have no right to speak, organise and associate on the basis of shared interests and opinions related to matters of national interest and governance.
We call upon MPs from South Africa and the rest of the democratic world to expose these opportunists and isolate them for misrepresenting the facts on how the tinkhundla system has thrown the country into a state of permanent crisis.
In the same way that the Foreign Affairs Minister of Swaziland Lutfo Dlamini told lies about Swazilandin London recently, we do expect that such misinformation will continue and call upon all democracy-loving peoples of the world to refuse to be misinformed, but challenge and reject any attempt to fool them.
The unbanning of political parties, freedom of speech, rights to organise and associate freely, and unconditional return of all exiles remain our key demands and do assure the world that no change will happen unless these conditions are met.
