WE’RE ALL COMPLICIT IN THE BREACHING OF CONSTITUTION

THE systemic breach of the national Constitution in which government and the leadership collective are in the forefront is an indictment on all of us sworn to protect and preserve this supreme law of the motherland.

Let us wind back the hands of time to Ludzidzini Royal Cattle Byre on July 26, 2005 when the constitution was presented and adopted. Etched in our memories for eternity is the momentous picture of His Majesty King Mswati III and iNgwenyama, at the end of his speech and to thunderous applause from the gathered nation (Swazi National Council), holding aloft with both hands the new constitution of the Kingdom of eSwatini at which point the Sovereign pronounced himself the number one defender of the new supreme law of the land.
By pronouncing himself the first protector and defender of the new national charter, His Majesty was making a clarion call and binding each and every one of us, including government, to follow suit.

The responsibility of preserving and protecting the Constitution is further emboldened by Section 2(2) of the Constitution, which states; “The King and iNgwenyama and all the citizens of Swaziland have the right and duty at all times to uphold and defend this Constitution.”
Section 2(3) further states; “Any person who – by himself or in concert with others by any violent or other unlawful means suspends or overthrows or abrogates this Constitution or any part of it, or attempts to do any such act; or aids and abets in any manner any person referred to in paragraph (a);
commits the offence of treason.”
The matter of the Constitution and, indeed, constitutionalism, was brought about by Prime Minister Sibusiso Barnabas Dlamini’s so-called ‘Kholwane Declaration’ wherein he announced government’s decision to ban the teaching of other religions except Christianity in schools, both public and private. Yet the Constitution protects the individual’s freedom of conscience or religion. Clearly, government’s new policy is discriminatory towards other religions and thus unconstitutional.

As I see it, while it is the responsibility of every citizen to ensure the sanctity of the Constitution, it would be presumptuous to expect the people to defend that which they do not know. As stated in the previous column, inculcating a culture of constitutionalism is not an event but a lengthy process that includes empowering the masses with knowledge.

Ignorance is not the only issue militating against the gradual and systematic inculcation of a culture of constitutionalism but the historical perspective pre-empted by the King’s Proclamation to the Nation of 1973. The import of this proclamation is that it deprived the people liberties such as freedom of speech/expression, freedom to associate, freedom to assemble, freedom to hold an opinion on anything and essentially all other freedoms incidental to a normal lifestyle. Exercising any of these freedoms outlawed by the proclamation was punishable by law, which included the draconian and much hated renewable 60-day Detention Order.

The proclamation instilled paralysing fear in the people. The psychological effects and impact on the national psyche of these deprivations occasioned by that proclamation spanning a period of over three decades before a new constitutional order was restored in 2005 is numbing, literally, to the senses and practically transformed people into zombies. As it were, 11 years since the dawn of a constitutional order there is still a perception in some quarters that the proclamation is still very much alive irrespective, hence the continued pervasive culture of silence instilled by fear. 

Like teaching a baby how to walk, it remains the responsibility of government and, indeed, leadership collective to extricate the people from their misery in the most practical of ways by not only respecting the Constitution but also enforcing it. Part of this process would include rolling out a continuous civic education campaign to familiarise the people with the Constitution and why it is so important in their day-to-day lives. This would progressively inculcate a culture of constitutionalism across the length and breadth of the nation.

But for obvious reasons, government has no motivation to empower the people with knowledge ostensibly because they would become problematic and diminish its dictatorial tendencies. This much is displayed by government’s reluctance to respect the very Constitution in its custody as ably displayed by its decision to exclude other religions from the school syllabus, a direct violation of the supreme law. 
Regrettably, leaders and followers of the Christian faith with sycophantic tendencies have come out in public to support government’s decision, instead of speaking the truth to power.

They would rather government break the supreme law of the land than to recognise the existence of other religions and by so doing standing in judgment, like God, on the legitimacy or otherwise of other faiths.
This had long manifested itself by the decision to construct a national church, by all intents and purposes a Christian one, at Lobamba at the exclusion of other religions. 
Ordinarily the Constitution should be resident in the courts where its supremacy should be constantly and regularly interrogated each time government and the leadership collective pronounce anything with the potential to be in breach of the supreme law of the land.
But until then we all stand indicted for the high crime of treason for our individual and collective failure to defend the Constitution every time government, in particular, breaches it.


 

Post your comment

Your name:

Your e-mail address:

Add your comments:

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Image:

Code: