Home | Feature | SOMETHING IS WRONG AND WE CONCEDE?

SOMETHING IS WRONG AND WE CONCEDE?

26/04/2018 07:26:00 By vusi Kunene

Font size:

I laughed my lungs out when I happened to eavesdrop on a conversation between two boys from a high school in the rural areas. I was also impressed that these boys were so observant in what is going on in the country.

The argument between them concerned cattle from one of the boys’ family, that was troubling the other family. The one boy was complaining to the other that his family’s cattle was a problem and they will come to his home to lay a complaint. It’s the response from the other boy that got me thinking and laughing.

He told his pal that they should not bother to come to his home because they were sovereign; they must not interfere in the affairs of his homestead. I laughed and intervened to ask where he got that because I thought it was a big term for the boys and the response was that the government spokesperson always says when other countries question our country on certain issues that our government is not comfortable to respond to.

The response got me thinking, as well and I realised that the government spokesperson always uses that term each time our country is questioned on certain violations. Instead of our spokesperson addressing the issue at hand he is quick to say other countries should not bother us as we are a sovereign State. I then asked myself what were the duties of the government spokesperson because for me he is a government defender. There is no need for government for have the office of the Attorney General to defend it because the spokesperson does that so well.

Instead of him giving information and clarifying certain issues that are not clear he always defends government and the defence is always sovereignty.
I then wondered if the spokesperson is aware that we are now living in a global world where what is happening in a neighbouring country affects countries next to it. If there are blatant human rights violations in this country, South Africa should intervene because the next thing, Swazis (or Swatis) will then run away from the human rights violations here and South Africa will be the nearest destination thus affecting it. Therefore, they need to prevent the problem from happening. So the sovereignty response will not be of assistance to South Africa after Swatis have run to that country.

Is the spokesperson aware that there are certain international forums where the country appear and answer before its peers, like the Universal Periodic Review that takes place every four and half years? What does he think of such programmes where other states discuss the human right situation in Eswatini? Should they be told to shut Mr Spokesperson because we are a sovereign State? If not, then why is he always telling them to shut up because of sovereignty? I must state that I am not saying countries must interfere willy-nilly in the affairs of the country, but there are instances where countries have to speak about human rights violations and other issue of the kingdom. Why does he not tell them to keep away from our sovereign country even when they are offering economic and technical assistance? He should remember that you cannot have your cake and eat it at the same time.

This led me to think about the recommendations that were rejected by the State during the UPR process and wondered what are we saying to the outside world. My main concern is that about six countries made recommendations that government should issue invitations to the special procedures and mandate holders to come to and assess the human rights situation in the country. To my great surprise these recommendations were noted (rejected) by the State and the question that bothers me is what are we hiding from the special procedures and mandate holders? Are we not saying they should not come to our country because the violations are so bad that government does not want the world to know that it violates people’s rights?

Some behaviours and utterances have negative interpretations and lead to wrong conclusions. If the government spokesperson is always telling other countries to shut up when they raise certain issues about the country, then the negative conclusion is that government is hiding something. The conclusion is that there are gross violations that government does not want to be exposed when experts are here.

Yet from my little knowledge, having experts come in will help the country because they will make suggestions on how the situation could be improved so that we never fear again when other countries raise the issue of human rights in the country. The spokesperson may even have other ways of responding than the song he sings which even young boys now know its tune without even thinking about it.