ACTING PM’S VALIDITY CHALLENGED IN COURT

MBABANE – The continuity of Themba Masuku’s as acting prime minister is being challenged in court.

It is being argued that his incessant sitting as acting prime minister was allegedly treasonous and any decisions taken by him were reportedly of no force and effect. This challenge is contained in the application which has been filed by the Institute for Democracy and Leadership (IDEAL), a non-profit making organisation whose offices were situated at Swazi Plaza in Mbabane. Other applicants in the matter are Inhlanse Institute of Investigative Journalism, Bongumenzi Dlamini and Thoba Gupta Dlamini.
The acting prime minister is the second respondent in the matter where the applicants are among other things seeking an order interdicting him and the army commander from deploying military personnel on the streets, residences, business or any other places occupied by civilians. In their application, the applicants averred that Masuku’s holding of the position of acting prime minister was unconstitutional.

Invalid

According to the applicants, all decisions and acts by Masuku and his Cabinet were invalid and of no force and effect as he was allegedly unlawfully in office. In his founding affidavit, IDEAL Chairman Barnes Dlamini contended that in terms of Section 71 of the Constitution, Masuku should hold the position of the acting prime minister for a period not exceeding three months. Section 71 stipulates that: “Where the  prime minister is absent from Eswatini or is by reason of illness or any other cause unable to exercise the functions conferred on the prime minister  by the Constitution or any other law, those functions shall be exercised by the  deputy prime minister or where the deputy is for any reason unable to exercise the functions of the office of the prime minister, by such other minister as the King may authorise in writing for a maximum period not exceeding three months.”

“I humbly state that Masuku has been acting prime minister since January 2021 to date hereof. The three months maximum period has been exceeded and any further hold to power by him as acting prime minister is treasonous,” contended the applicants.
These are allegations whose veracity is still to be tested in court and government, through lawyers from the chamber of the attorney general, is yet to file its papers. Barnes contended that in the alternative, Masuku was allegedly not eligible for the position of acting prime minister as he was a senator. “It therefore cannot be gainsaid that any person who holds the position of prime minister must be a member of the House of Assembly. Masuku is not such a member,” argued the applicants. They submitted that in terms of Section 67 (1) of the Constitution, the prime minister should be appointed from the House of Assembly.  “In terms of Section  68 (1(c), once the prime minister including an acting prime minister ceases to be a member of the House of Assembly, the office of the prime minister becomes vacant by the operation of the law. No further processes are required to remove the prime minister from such office,” argued the applicants.

Post your comment

Your name:

Your e-mail address:

Add your comments:

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Image:

Code: