Home | Letters | Prime Minister and his deputy are ministers

Prime Minister and his deputy are ministers

15/03/2009 00:00:00 The Editor

Font size:

Sir,

What is the Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Swaziland doing—or trying hard to prove—on the clauses of the Constitution? Is he punching holes on the Constitution or revealing that the Constitution has no meaning to the authorities of the kingdom?

In some documents, the Cabinet Ministers are referred to as the Ministers of the Crown. Is the Prime Minister suggesting that the Constitution should have listed the meanings of ‘Prime’, ‘Minister’, ‘Cabinet’, ‘Crown’ and when these are used together?

Chapter VI of the Constitution has the subtitle for Clause 64, ‘Executive Authority of Swaziland’ and Clause 64(1) says ‘The Executive Authority of Swaziland vests in the King as Head of State ...’ and Clause 64(2) says ‘The King shall protect and defend this Constitution ...’

Are these Constitutional conditions observed? The word Cabinet is used in a collective manner; the Cabinet or Cabinet Ministers. Is the subtitle for Clause 66, ‘The Cabinet of Ministers’ the source of the misunderstanding? Clause 66(1) says ‘There shall be a Cabinet which shall consist of the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and such number of Ministers as the King ...’

The subtitle suggests that the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister are in fact ministers. But the missing word ‘other’ between (of) and (Ministers) may have caused this minor misunderstanding. Let us now look at subtitle for Clause 67, ‘Appointment of Prime Minister and other Ministers’ and Clause 67(1) says ‘The King shall appoint the Prime Minister from among members of the House ...’

It must be noted that when the Prime Minister was appointed, he was not a member of the House. The appointment subtitle and the use of other, shows that being Prime Minister is a title, otherwise, he is a minister. Now, if the Deputy Prime Minister is not a minister, according to the Prime Minister’s understanding of these Constitutional clauses, how was he then appointed? What instrument was used to appoint him?

Therefore, Clause 67(3) of the Constitution was violated by the recent appointment. Then, is the Prime Minister fighting back with the drafters of the Constitution or busy digging the resting places for the Tinkhundla? Time will soon tell.

Mbho Shongwe
Via email