WE NEED A CONSTITUTIONAL COURT
Sir,
Swaziland will have to review its democracy so that it is line with the democracy practiced internationally.
If our democracy is not reviewed with immediate effect, the country is likely to be isolated by SADC, EU and the African Union.
It is also likely to lose the benefits we have from the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA).
The country needs to establish a Constitutional Court which will deal with issues pertaining to the current Constitution of the country.
The High Court of Swaziland is not a suitable platform to deal with issues pertaining to the Constitution of the country.
The High Court cannot hear a case on the April 12, 1973 decree since it is not a Constitutional Court. Therefore, issues should be tried in a Constitutional Court.
When the King Sobhuza II banned political parties, he forgot that politics kept on changing because it is driven by that society of that time.
Today, if a country wants to trade with other countries, it must improve its democracy.
The system was a vision or version of the King Sobhuza II.
If it was a version or vision of a political nature, there would be no need for Swazis to condemn its existence. Political parties want the 1973 decree to be removed because it is an obstruction to the progress of Swaziland.
Some Swazis have labelled the Tinkhundla system as if it was a project of the royal family, yet it should be for the people. The king or president does not have a government but government belongs to people.
My request to His Majesty King Mswati III is that he consider unbanning political parties in Swaziland.
It has been observed that the Tinkhundla system has failed to bring peace and stability.
People are crying about the system of government but can’t be heard. If King Sobhuza II could rise from death, he would advise the authorities to change because the whole world has changed.
He would speak the truth.
As the president of SNPP, I have a hope that the king will unban PUDEMO so that the process of dialogue and consultation is arranged as soon as possible.
Swazis should not label PUDEMO a destructive party. It was the same PUDEMO that fought hard for royalty during the Liqoqo days.
Instead of thanking PUDEMO for the act, members were arrested and charged with treason.
We also request government to revoke all the old laws quoted in our courts.
Wilson Magadeyiwile Mdluli
NHLANGANO
del.icio.us |
Digg
Post your comment 
COLANI VILAKATI
on
19/05/2016 07:25:09
maphalala george
on
17/05/2016 10:36:53
Xolani Simphiwe Mkhatshwa
on
17/05/2016 10:22:56
Xolani Simphiwe Mkhatshwa
on
17/05/2016 10:09:04
Concerned woman
on
17/05/2016 10:08:05
Comments (2 posted):
Swaziland's 'Monarchical
Democracy' [opinion]
(AllAfrica Via Acquire Media NewsEdge)
Swaziland is a country that many people
know little about.
The small, landlocked nation is too-often
reduced by international media to being
home to the young, flamboyant King Mswati
III - Africa's last absolute monarch - and his
fourteen wives.
Occasionally, too, foreign press will write
about the country's astoundingly high
incidence rate of HIV, with approximately
one quarter of the adult population
currently infected with the virus.
But stories about the King's lavish lifestyle
and the population's dire health situation
often lack local context and critical analysis.
Perhaps, because, as Vuyisile Hlatshwayo -
director of the Media Institute of Southern
Africa-Swaziland notes - media in Swaziland
are highly controlled by the government.
The sole independent newspaper "is
censored so as to ensure its own survival,"
while the editor of the only independent
magazine, The Nation "is on trial for
offending the chief justice." Any form of
political dissent is also repressed. Political
parties have been banned since the 1970s,
and peaceful protests are often dispersed by
police.
So when King Mswati III changed the name
of Swaziland's political system to a
"monarchical democracy" shortly before the
parliamentary elections on 20 September
2013, the international community began to
wonder what kind of change - if any - this
would signify for Swaziland.
IFEX too, wondered if this new "marriage
between the traditional monarchy" - as King
Mwatsi III described it - would really effect
any change on Swazi's rights, particularly
media freedom.
IFEX conducted virtual interviews with
representatives from MISA-Swaziland,
Freedom House and Reporters Without
Borders on the subject. Here are some
notable excerpts from the conversations.
The Interviewees: Jennifer Dunham is a
Senior Research Analyst for Freedom
House's annual Freedom of the Press report.
Along with writing analytical reports on
press freedom in several southern African
countries, she has engaged with
representatives of various governments on
potential media reforms, spoken at
conferences and to the media about the
state of press freedom in Africa and around
the world, and briefed U.S. government
officials about trends in the global media
environment.
Vuyisile Hlatshwayo has been the director of
the Swazi chapter of the Media Institute of
Southern Africa (MISA) since August 2012.
He co-founded The Nation and still sits as a
director at the magazine. He's also a
freelance journalist and lectures part-time
at the University of Swaziland (Uniswa).
Cléa Kahn-Sriber is the Head of the Africa
Desk at Reporters Without Borders. She has
worked on human rights and rule of law
issues in Africa and the Caribbean.
On whether the name change signals real
change CKS: According to information
related by the Prime Minister of Swaziland,
the King's decision to change his country's
regime to a "monarchical democracy" came
from a vision from God he had during a
thunderstorm. Clearly this mystical
revelation does not constitute a sound basis
for an efficient regime change. There is no
clear definition of any Constitutional changes
and one can estimate that this is a change
only in name.
Reporters without Borders thinks this
declaration might be a way for the King to
save face in regards to some international
criticism of his authoritarian regime,
especially with elections coming up and the
undemocratic electoral system of the
country was under scrutiny.
VH: The name change signals no change. It is
window-dressing -- an attempt to please
locals and appease foreigners. Political
parties remain banned. Many people are
still fearful to speak their minds. The
constitution... is still not respected, let alone
enforced, by judges and parliamentarians.
The king and his mother, the Queen Mother,
and the government remain above the law.
Citizens still have no say in who will be their
head of state and prime minister. The king
appoints the prime minister and cabinet
members, as well as appointing ten
members of the 65-seat House of Assembly
and 20 of the 30-seat Senate. Citizens have
no say over the Senate, as the remaining ten
Senate seats are appointed by the House of
Assembly. There is also a suggestion that the
current king has forgotten the meaning of
his role. However, to even allude to this in
public inside Swaziland you could be charged
under the Sedition and Subversive Activities
Act 1938.
A good case to watch is that of Bheki
Makhubu, editor of The Nation, a monthly
magazine that arguably offers the most
reliable journalism in the country. In April
2013 Makhubu was ordered by the High
Court to pay a fine of E200,000 (US$ 20,000)
within three days or else go to jail for two
years. His crime? Writing two articles that
criticised a corrupt and disrespectful
judiciary. Makhubu lodged an appeal within
the three days before jail-time kicked in. For
the meanwhile he continues to work and
publish. His appeal is expected to be heard
by the Court of Appeal in November 2013,
however this is yet to be confirmed.
On the state of media freedom now VH:
Several of the election observers who
recently came to Swaziland to watch the
elections noted and agreed with many
Swazis that Swaziland, indeed, has a "unique"
system. There is no community radio here.
There is one national radio station,
controlled by the state. There is one TV
station, controlled by the state. There is a
private radio station that airs religious
content. There is an on-again-off-again
private TV station, Channel Swazi, that
outdoes the 'public' broadcaster in
propagating for the monarchy. There are
two newspapers. One is owned by the king's
company. The other is censored so as to
ensure its own survival.
JD: The media freedom environment in
Swaziland--similar to the general political
climate--has been stagnant for several years,
with the monarchy continuing to exert strict
control over the press. This is achieved
through numerous restrictive laws, such as
harsh defamation laws and the Suppression
of Terrorism Act, as well as a high level of
official censorship, self-censorship, and state
control over the media.
On what stories the media don't cover... and
why JD: Authorities...routinely restrict or
punish coverage of government corruption,
and recently attempted to restrict coverage
of pro-democracy protests and public-sector
strikes.
VH: Stories that too stridently question or
criticise the current political arrangement...
Stories that mention how much money the
monarchy is spending are particularly
sensitive. Also stories that mention (not
even detail) how much is being spent on cars
and trips for the king's wives and entourage.
These stories, nearly always, go unreported.
In 2008 The Nation magazine did publish
details of how much the king spent and how
much his family takes from the country's
budget. In 2011, The Nation again published
details of the king's finances. Apart from the
perception of this being un-Swazi or
unpatriotic, The Nation did not face any
significant backlash for publishing these
stories. This has led to some question if
some of the censorship and suppression
comes from within. People may not say
things or write things for fear of what may
happen, or for the fear of losing business
because they have upset the monarchy.
However these thoughts can be somewhat
punctured when you look at the current case
involving The Nation, where the editor is on
trial for criticising the judiciary and, by
implication, questioning the wisdom of the
king - who appoints the chief judge.
Stories that may criticise certain business
interests also go unreported. In 2012 there
were reports that a local construction site in
Mbabane, the capital, was unsafe and
workers and pedestrians were being injured
unnecessarily. A local journalist told MISA
that before even raising this as a story idea
at the morning meeting, it was known it was
a "no go area". The reporter self-censored
because they knew the owner of the
construction site was friends with the owner
of the newspaper.
On whether people are aware of the
limitations JD: The fact that the government
finds it necessary to employ such harsh
measures--including high fines for criticizing
public officials, suspending the editors of the
Swazi Observer for allegedly printing
negative articles about the king, and
threatening to impose sanctions on those
who criticize the king on Facebook or
Twitter--shows that there is an active
community in the country who are aware of
the limits and are willing to push for change.
VH: This is a difficult question. The better-
educated Swazis, usually in the urban areas
of Mbabane and Manzini, are undoubtedly
aware - even if they don't talk about
censorship all that much. And despite
advocacy papers by international human
rights groups, which often sensationalise the
already-dire situation of many Swazis,
international newspapers and magazines are
readily available in Swazi shops.
Swazis who are not as well educated, usually
in rural areas, who are poorer and therefore
have less access to outside media, may not
be too aware of the lack of media freedom.
While there is likely a sense that something
is amiss, that certain pieces of the jigsaw
may be missing, so to speak, when the
current media landscape is all one has
known then it's hard to imagine something
drastically different, something markedly
freer. Even university students who live in
urban areas struggle to afford - or simply
cannot afford - a copy of the South Africa
weekly newspaper Mail & Guardian. When
these students do read articles in the Mail &
Guardian, they instantly are aware of the
extent of the censorship that exists in their
country.
On getting around government controls JD:
As in many repressive countries, the
Internet and satellite dishes are two
important ways that the population can
access and share information; however,
given the poor state of Swaziland's economy,
these are unfortunately limited to Swazis
who are more affluent.
"The Internet and satellite dishes are two
important ways that the population can
access and share information; however...
these are unfortunately limited to Swazis
who are more affluent." Those with satellite
dishes can receive signals from independent
South African and international news media,
and the 21 percent of Swazis who can afford
the Internet can access a broad range of
news and information. An increase in access
to the Internet and mobile technology are
perhaps the best chances for Swazis to get
around the controls placed on traditional
media.
VH: Social media is becoming more popular,
particularly in urban areas where the
Internet is a bit better than in rural areas -
where it is almost non-existent or very poor
and slow. According to
internetworldstats.com, Swaziland had
95,000 Internet users in 2011. This figure
has likely risen in the last few years;
however the Internet connection in most
places remains often slow, expensive, and
unreliable.
Facebook is very popular with younger
people. It is viewed with more suspicion by
older people, as it seen more as a threat
than an opportunity. It is often viewed
simply as a tool to disrespect and cause
offence and slander, and therefore it needs
to be controlled and regulated or even shut
down. There is a basic misunderstanding of
the benefits Facebook could bring to the
country - in terms of business, connectivity,
sharing knowledge, and helping with
organisation and planning.
In a more traditional tactic to overcome
censorship, the managing editor of the Swazi
Observer - a newspaper owned by the king's
company - published a 'blank page' opinion
piece in support of embattled Nation editor
Bheki Makhubu.
It is next to impossible to get past the
censorship controls at the radio and TV
stations. The ministry of ICT issued Public
Service Announcement Guidelines
stipulating that citizens must seek approval
from your chief before making an
announcement on radio or TV. Members of
parliament are also banned from making
announcements on TV and radio.
On what increased media freedom might do
VH: This answer depends on what is
happening in the wider politics and other
societal forces. For instance, if media
freedom is improved but other freedoms
are not respected, or other institutions are
still stifled, then editors and journalists may
face more challenges. If media freedom is
respected and more people are allowed a
voice, not just reporters but also citizens and
more dissenting voices, then the country will
improve. The more information the better.
MISA believes that good arguments need to
compete against bad arguments.
"An opening up of the media would help
with an opening up of the mind." In short,
with more media freedom, more respect
and enforcement of the constitution, and a
more reliable business climate, progress
would appear. An opening up of the media
would help with an opening up of the mind.
It would help with critical thinking; help with
education, help with business. It would
actually help those in power, if they could
see the long-term benefits.
Copyright International Freedom of
Expression Exchange Clearing House.
Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media
(allAfrica.com).
Swaziland's 'Monarchical
Democracy' [opinion]
(AllAfrica Via Acquire Media NewsEdge)
Swaziland is a country that many people
know little about.
The small, landlocked nation is too-often
reduced by international media to being
home to the young, flamboyant King Mswati
III - Africa's last absolute monarch - and his
fourteen wives.
Occasionally, too, foreign press will write
about the country's astoundingly high
incidence rate of HIV, with approximately
one quarter of the adult population
currently infected with the virus.
But stories about the King's lavish lifestyle
and the population's dire health situation
often lack local context and critical analysis.
Perhaps, because, as Vuyisile Hlatshwayo -
director of the Media Institute of Southern
Africa-Swaziland notes - media in Swaziland
are highly controlled by the government.
The sole independent newspaper "is
censored so as to ensure its own survival,"
while the editor of the only independent
magazine, The Nation "is on trial for
offending the chief justice." Any form of
political dissent is also repressed. Political
parties have been banned since the 1970s,
and peaceful protests are often dispersed by
police.
So when King Mswati III changed the name
of Swaziland's political system to a
"monarchical democracy" shortly before the
parliamentary elections on 20 September
2013, the international community began to
wonder what kind of change - if any - this
would signify for Swaziland.
IFEX too, wondered if this new "marriage
between the traditional monarchy" - as King
Mwatsi III described it - would really effect
any change on Swazi's rights, particularly
media freedom.
IFEX conducted virtual interviews with
representatives from MISA-Swaziland,
Freedom House and Reporters Without
Borders on the subject. Here are some
notable excerpts from the conversations.
The Interviewees: Jennifer Dunham is a
Senior Research Analyst for Freedom
House's annual Freedom of the Press report.
Along with writing analytical reports on
press freedom in several southern African
countries, she has engaged with
representatives of various governments on
potential media reforms, spoken at
conferences and to the media about the
state of press freedom in Africa and around
the world, and briefed U.S. government
officials about trends in the global media
environment.
Vuyisile Hlatshwayo has been the director of
the Swazi chapter of the Media Institute of
Southern Africa (MISA) since August 2012.
He co-founded The Nation and still sits as a
director at the magazine. He's also a
freelance journalist and lectures part-time
at the University of Swaziland (Uniswa).
Cléa Kahn-Sriber is the Head of the Africa
Desk at Reporters Without Borders. She has
worked on human rights and rule of law
issues in Africa and the Caribbean.
On whether the name change signals real
change CKS: According to information
related by the Prime Minister of Swaziland,
the King's decision to change his country's
regime to a "monarchical democracy" came
from a vision from God he had during a
thunderstorm. Clearly this mystical
revelation does not constitute a sound basis
for an efficient regime change. There is no
clear definition of any Constitutional changes
and one can estimate that this is a change
only in name.
Reporters without Borders thinks this
declaration might be a way for the King to
save face in regards to some international
criticism of his authoritarian regime,
especially with elections coming up and the
undemocratic electoral system of the
country was under scrutiny.
VH: The name change signals no change. It is
window-dressing -- an attempt to please
locals and appease foreigners. Political
parties remain banned. Many people are
still fearful to speak their minds. The
constitution... is still not respected, let alone
enforced, by judges and parliamentarians.
The king and his mother, the Queen Mother,
and the government remain above the law.
Citizens still have no say in who will be their
head of state and prime minister. The king
appoints the prime minister and cabinet
members, as well as appointing ten
members of the 65-seat House of Assembly
and 20 of the 30-seat Senate. Citizens have
no say over the Senate, as the remaining ten
Senate seats are appointed by the House of
Assembly. There is also a suggestion that the
current king has forgotten the meaning of
his role. However, to even allude to this in
public inside Swaziland you could be charged
under the Sedition and Subversive Activities
Act 1938.
A good case to watch is that of Bheki
Makhubu, editor of The Nation, a monthly
magazine that arguably offers the most
reliable journalism in the country. In April
2013 Makhubu was ordered by the High
Court to pay a fine of E200,000 (US$ 20,000)
within three days or else go to jail for two
years. His crime? Writing two articles that
criticised a corrupt and disrespectful
judiciary. Makhubu lodged an appeal within
the three days before jail-time kicked in. For
the meanwhile he continues to work and
publish. His appeal is expected to be heard
by the Court of Appeal in November 2013,
however this is yet to be confirmed.
On the state of media freedom now VH:
Several of the election observers who
recently came to Swaziland to watch the
elections noted and agreed with many
Swazis that Swaziland, indeed, has a "unique"
system. There is no community radio here.
There is one national radio station,
controlled by the state. There is one TV
station, controlled by the state. There is a
private radio station that airs religious
content. There is an on-again-off-again
private TV station, Channel Swazi, that
outdoes the 'public' broadcaster in
propagating for the monarchy. There are
two newspapers. One is owned by the king's
company. The other is censored so as to
ensure its own survival.
JD: The media freedom environment in
Swaziland--similar to the general political
climate--has been stagnant for several years,
with the monarchy continuing to exert strict
control over the press. This is achieved
through numerous restrictive laws, such as
harsh defamation laws and the Suppression
of Terrorism Act, as well as a high level of
official censorship, self-censorship, and state
control over the media.
On what stories the media don't cover... and
why JD: Authorities...routinely restrict or
punish coverage of government corruption,
and recently attempted to restrict coverage
of pro-democracy protests and public-sector
strikes.
VH: Stories that too stridently question or
criticise the current political arrangement...
Stories that mention how much money the
monarchy is spending are particularly
sensitive. Also stories that mention (not
even detail) how much is being spent on cars
and trips for the king's wives and entourage.
These stories, nearly always, go unreported.
In 2008 The Nation magazine did publish
details of how much the king spent and how
much his family takes from the country's
budget. In 2011, The Nation again published
details of the king's finances. Apart from the
perception of this being un-Swazi or
unpatriotic, The Nation did not face any
significant backlash for publishing these
stories. This has led to some question if
some of the censorship and suppression
comes from within. People may not say
things or write things for fear of what may
happen, or for the fear of losing business
because they have upset the monarchy.
However these thoughts can be somewhat
punctured when you look at the current case
involving The Nation, where the editor is on
trial for criticising the judiciary and, by
implication, questioning the wisdom of the
king - who appoints the chief judge.
Stories that may criticise certain business
interests also go unreported. In 2012 there
were reports that a local construction site in
Mbabane, the capital, was unsafe and
workers and pedestrians were being injured
unnecessarily. A local journalist told MISA
that before even raising this as a story idea
at the morning meeting, it was known it was
a "no go area". The reporter self-censored
because they knew the owner of the
construction site was friends with the owner
of the newspaper.
On whether people are aware of the
limitations JD: The fact that the government
finds it necessary to employ such harsh
measures--including high fines for criticizing
public officials, suspending the editors of the
Swazi Observer for allegedly printing
negative articles about the king, and
threatening to impose sanctions on those
who criticize the king on Facebook or
Twitter--shows that there is an active
community in the country who are aware of
the limits and are willing to push for change.
VH: This is a difficult question. The better-
educated Swazis, usually in the urban areas
of Mbabane and Manzini, are undoubtedly
aware - even if they don't talk about
censorship all that much. And despite
advocacy papers by international human
rights groups, which often sensationalise the
already-dire situation of many Swazis,
international newspapers and magazines are
readily available in Swazi shops.
Swazis who are not as well educated, usually
in rural areas, who are poorer and therefore
have less access to outside media, may not
be too aware of the lack of media freedom.
While there is likely a sense that something
is amiss, that certain pieces of the jigsaw
may be missing, so to speak, when the
current media landscape is all one has
known then it's hard to imagine something
drastically different, something markedly
freer. Even university students who live in
urban areas struggle to afford - or simply
cannot afford - a copy of the South Africa
weekly newspaper Mail & Guardian. When
these students do read articles in the Mail &
Guardian, they instantly are aware of the
extent of the censorship that exists in their
country.
On getting around government controls JD:
As in many repressive countries, the
Internet and satellite dishes are two
important ways that the population can
access and share information; however,
given the poor state of Swaziland's economy,
these are unfortunately limited to Swazis
who are more affluent.
"The Internet and satellite dishes are two
important ways that the population can
access and share information; however...
these are unfortunately limited to Swazis
who are more affluent." Those with satellite
dishes can receive signals from independent
South African and international news media,
and the 21 percent of Swazis who can afford
the Internet can access a broad range of
news and information. An increase in access
to the Internet and mobile technology are
perhaps the best chances for Swazis to get
around the controls placed on traditional
media.
VH: Social media is becoming more popular,
particularly in urban areas where the
Internet is a bit better than in rural areas -
where it is almost non-existent or very poor
and slow. According to
internetworldstats.com, Swaziland had
95,000 Internet users in 2011. This figure
has likely risen in the last few years;
however the Internet connection in most
places remains often slow, expensive, and
unreliable.
Facebook is very popular with younger
people. It is viewed with more suspicion by
older people, as it seen more as a threat
than an opportunity. It is often viewed
simply as a tool to disrespect and cause
offence and slander, and therefore it needs
to be controlled and regulated or even shut
down. There is a basic misunderstanding of
the benefits Facebook could bring to the
country - in terms of business, connectivity,
sharing knowledge, and helping with
organisation and planning.
In a more traditional tactic to overcome
censorship, the managing editor of the Swazi
Observer - a newspaper owned by the king's
company - published a 'blank page' opinion
piece in support of embattled Nation editor
Bheki Makhubu.
It is next to impossible to get past the
censorship controls at the radio and TV
stations. The ministry of ICT issued Public
Service Announcement Guidelines
stipulating that citizens must seek approval
from your chief before making an
announcement on radio or TV. Members of
parliament are also banned from making
announcements on TV and radio.
On what increased media freedom might do
VH: This answer depends on what is
happening in the wider politics and other
societal forces. For instance, if media
freedom is improved but other freedoms
are not respected, or other institutions are
still stifled, then editors and journalists may
face more challenges. If media freedom is
respected and more people are allowed a
voice, not just reporters but also citizens and
more dissenting voices, then the country will
improve. The more information the better.
MISA believes that good arguments need to
compete against bad arguments.
"An opening up of the media would help
with an opening up of the mind." In short,
with more media freedom, more respect
and enforcement of the constitution, and a
more reliable business climate, progress
would appear. An opening up of the media
would help with an opening up of the mind.
It would help with critical thinking; help with
education, help with business. It would
actually help those in power, if they could
see the long-term benefits.
Copyright International Freedom of
Expression Exchange Clearing House.
Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media
(allAfrica.com).