I noticed today that someone is using my name on the Times of Swaziland website. I suppose I should be flattered, but it’s really annoying because the comment that I saw was praising the king and decrying democrats. Maybe someone wants to discredit me!
If you see any comments signed Professor Richard Rooney, they are not from me. I do leave comments on the website from time to time but I sign them Swazi Media and they come from swazimedia@yahoo.com
STATEMENT FROM ARTICLE 19
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Swaziland: Counter - terrorism not a pretext for repression
ARTICLE 19 is seriously concerned about the constricting environment the government of Swaziland is imposing on Freedom of Expression.
Under a controversial Suppression of Terrorism Act that has been passed by the Parliament in May 2008, Swazi journalists, political activists and human rights defenders have apparently become persona non-grata, battered and/or arrested.
The Swaziland Act is the latest in a series of anti-terrorism laws that have been enacted since the September 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center. Freedom of expression has been especially challenged by the adoption of these new laws which prohibit speech that is considered ‘extremist’ or supporting of terrorism.
Under the guise of the fight against terrorism, these new laws are used to suppress political and controversial speech. As recently as September [2008] at the 40-40 celebration, the Monarch’s 40th birthday and Swaziland’s 40 years of independence, King Mswati III promised his people better governance for economic renewal. ARTICLE 19 asserts that the restriction of free expression and pro-democracy activities of human rights defenders will hinder genuine economic progress.
‘Frankly, terrorism is a specious argument for repression of free expression in Swaziland. At issue in the recent crackdown are legitimate political grievances which, instead of being addressed through the democratic process, are demonized.’ said Dr. Agnes Callamard, Executive Director of ARTICLE19.
In recent weeks, political activities have been outlawed, marches and demonstrations have been banned, and television camera crews, journalists and political activists have been arrested on suspicion of making remarks in support of terrorism.
ARTICLE 19 strongly urges the government of Swaziland to reverse this course of action. Its resources would be much better used in strengthening democracy and the rule of law, and addressing Swaziland’s significant social challenges, including poverty and HIV/AIDS. “The serious imperative to fight terrorism and the use of violence against citizens must not be used as an excuse to repress dissent and undermine freedom of expression. On the contrary: the protection of human rights and freedom of expression are central to political and social change, democracy and development in Swaziland and anywhere else in the world” said Dr. Callamard.
Background:
ARTICLE 19 has noted with increasing concern the multiplication all over the world of restrictions on freedom of expression, or attempted restrictions, justified on the grounds of national security.
These restrictions have included: the development of anti-terrorist laws, which are too often vague and overly broad, leaving them open to interpretation and potential abuses; the use of Official Secrets Acts to deny access to publicly held information, including information of vital public interest, such as whether or not Al Jazeera was considered as a potential military target during the recent Iraq war; etc. All of these situations have one thing in common: the desire to bury or silence controversial voices that authorities deem to pose a potential threat to security.
A recent report published by the Council of Europe has clearly shown that the use of anti-terrorism to curtail freedom of expression is also a European problem. Nations around the globe have adopted new anti-terrorism legislation or revised old laws in response to the attack on 11 September 2001. Most of these laws or revisions have expended the powers of governments to fight terrorism and other crime. Controls on these powers are often insufficient.
For instance, new laws designed to protection national security from terrorism and other threats limit journalists’ ability to access information. There have also been increased procedural powers to obtain information through surveillance, searches, demands for disclosure and other means. At the same time, the laws are used to prosecute journalists for obtaining information from sources and justify surveillance to identify the sources so that journalists can be prosecuted under secrets acts for violating their duties to keep information secret. Too often, these are used for political rather than public safety reasons.
In 1995, international experts around the world adopted the Johannesburg Principles which set out standards on the extent to which governments may legitimately withhold information from the public and prohibit expression for reasons of national security. Amongst other things, they provide that a restriction is not legitimate unless its purpose and effect is to “protect a country’s existence or its territorial integrity against the use or threat of force, or its capacity to respond to the use or threat of force” from either an internal or an external threat. The Johannesburg Principles also identify a number of illegitimate grounds for claiming a national security interest, such as protecting the government from embarrassment or entrenching a particular ideology. These are clearly not national security interests but, at the same time, countries around the world continue to use and abuse these reasons.
ARTICLE 19 calls upon governments around the world to implement the Johannesburg principles.
FURTHER INFORMATION:
· For more information: please contact Cece Fadope, ARTICLE19: Africa Programme:
cece@article19.org +44 20 7278 9292.
· For a copy of the Johannesburg Principles, please click here:
· For a copy of the Council of Europe’s report “Speaking of Terror”, please click here:
ARTICLE 19 is an independent human rights organisation that works around the world to protect and promote the right to freedom of expression.
ARTICLE 19, 6-8 Amwell Street, London EC1R 1UQ
Tel: (+44) 20 7278 9292 / Fax: (+44) 20 7278 7660
Web: www.article19.org / Email: info@article19.org
Link http://newsfreedomofexpression.blogspot.com/2008/11/swaziland-counter-terrorism-not-pretext.html
Swaziland is now in a permanent state of emergency, following the enactment of the Suppression of Terrorism Act.
The Act has the same effect on Swaziland as King Sobhuza II’s notorious proclamation of 1973 in which he tore up the Swazi Constitution and ruled by decree.
Vusi Sibisi, writing in the Times Sunday (23 November 2008), says, ‘The stupendous paradox between the two eras—post-1973 and since the enactment of the Suppression of Terrorism Act of 2008—being that while the coup against the Westminster-styled independence constitution in 1973 was entirely an operation of the ruling class to the exclusion of the ordinary people, the same cannot be said of the anti-terrorism law yet in all honesty the objectives of these instruments remain the same—to silence the nation and retain the political playing ground as an exclusive preserve of the ruling class.
‘The King’s Proclamation to the Nation to which the people had no input, which effectively outlawed democracy and the people’s individual rights and freedoms, was dictated from the throne. And to ensure compliance with the string of decrees that made up the King’s Proclamation to the Nation was the draconian indefinite 60-Day Detention Order the fear of which inculcated the culture of silence that is permeating Swazi society even today.
‘It is the culture of silence inculcated by the King’s Proclamation and its accompanying draconian laws that the ruling class has perversely marketed to the outside world as peace and tranquillity, a trademark of the Swazi nation. Frankly there never was peace in this country, but pervasive fear of the terror of the ruling regime that engendered silence on the citizenry.
‘And from 1973 onwards it was easier to cow the nation into supplication and, therefore, silence because not so many people were as educated and enlightened as they are today. Thus an educated and enlightened elite prone to challenging anything and everything that the ruling elite stands for has replaced the generation that could accept the imposition of dictatorship in 1973 without putting up any form of challenge or resistance.’
He goes on, ‘The paradox is that when in 1973 the ruling class used naked aggression to forcefully appropriate to itself all political power not to speak of all faculties of the nation’s human resource, in 2008 it used the poverty-alleviating institution of Parliament to rubber stamp its unconstitutional and just as draconian Suppression of Terrorism Act that is the successor to the notorious 60-Day Detention Order.
‘And if anyone was in doubt about the Tinkhundla Parliament as an effective legislative institution, now that doubt has been evaporated by the facts that just about confirm its role as a rubber stamp of whatever is desired by the ruling class. For if it was not, the 8th Parliament would have refused to be party to the draconian anti-terrorism legislation that is inherently also in breach of the constitution that is supposedly the supreme law of the land.’
He goes on, ‘And that silence can never translate into peace and tranquility even with the Suppression of Terrorism Act that has essentially thrust this country into a permanent state of emergency in tow.'
To read the full article, click here.
Swaziland’s only independent daily newspaper the Times of Swaziland has blamed the kingdom’s former Prime Minister Themba Dlamini for misleading the people over the purposes of the Suppression of Terrorism Act. It also says that the Act was brought forward unconstitutionally.
The newspaper said that despite an assurance from Themba Dlamini that the Act would not be targeted at the kingdom’s political parties, the opposite has happened.
The Times pointed out last Wednesday (19 November 2008) that when Dlamini piloted the parliamentary bill that eventually became the Suppression of Terrorism Act he brought it to the House of Assembly with a certificate of urgency. A certificate of urgency means that the bill does not take the normal course but it has to be dealt with quickly.
The normal course is that the Bill is published in a government gazette for 30 days. During that time, people who might have objections get a chance to register those concerns and also try to lobby lawmakers on the issues. The Bill would then be debated in Parliament afterwards.
The Times pointed out that a number of legislators expressed reservations about the certificate of urgency action, observing that there seemed to be a sinister move behind the law as well as the fact that there was no constitutional provision for a certificate of urgency. However, these were ruled out of order and told that this was allowed in terms of the law.
A report by the then portfolio committee of the Prime Minister’s office indicates that there were concerns regarding the definition of a terrorist. The concern was that the law only defined a ‘terrorist group’ and not an individual ‘terrorist’.
The issue of political parties was brought up. The report stated, ‘there are no political parties allowed to contend for power [in Swaziland] but there are political parties, we know they exist, who are mounting pressure on the government and they have gone to the extent of saying people should boycott the forthcoming elections. Would these people be labelled terrorists under the provision of this Act?
‘…In his response to the questions raised by the House, the Prime Minister observed that it must be borne in mind that in politics an opposition is an opposition and not a terrorist.
‘This is regardless of the fact that in the country we are not a multi-party democracy. All in all this law is not to intimidate people, but to put in place the systems that will ensure that Swaziland has a conducive environment for its people.’
When asking the House to adopt the report, the committee stated that ‘this bill is not made in haste to target certain formations in Swaziland but is being enacted for the good of the country.’
Barely six months later, the new government has branded four political groups as ‘terrorist organisation’ and arrested one political leader within a month of coming into office.
The Swazi media – often cowed by censorship or self-censorship – have been vocal against the Act and the Prime Minister Barnabas Dlamini’s branding of four political formations as ‘terrorist’ organisations.
One example of this is Lucky Tsabedze, Acting Editor of the Swazi News. Writing in his own newspaper on Saturday (22 November 2008) he said, ‘What makes a terrorist? State terror has produced terrorism in our country and turned ordinary people (soldiers and police) to its paid mercenaries and legalised terrorists. What makes a terrorist is a state that rules through fear and cowardice, a state that subjects people to hunger in order to allocate all available resources to its main pre-occupation, royal security. The worst form of terrorism is subjecting people to hunger and humiliating conditions of royal slavery.
‘Those who fight such conditions cannot and can never be terrorists. They are defenders of human dignity, they act in defence of the people and their cause. They represents the best of human progress and dignity. The world would be poorer without their dedication and sacrifice for the cause and welfare of all.’
Writing about Mario Masuku, President of the People’s United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO), who was charged last week with making a public statement in favour of terrorism Tsabedze said, ‘Here is a man who sacrificed all, including his job, family and all that was within his reach, for the cause of a nation. He continued even when some of those who started with him lost confidence in the cause or chose temporal comforts to the hardships of sacrifice. He symbolises the best in a human being, humility, modesty and firmness on principle.’
To read the full article, click here.
