Home | News | KING WAS ADVISED TO APPOINT NON-DLAMINI PM

KING WAS ADVISED TO APPOINT NON-DLAMINI PM

08/01/2023 11:30:00 Welcome Dlamini

Font size:

MBABANE – In its history, the Kingdom of Eswatini has never had a prime minister (PM) whose surname is not Dlamini.

This being election year, which will also see the term of current Prime Minister Cleopas Sipho Dlamini coming to an end, His Majesty the King is expected to either re-appoint him or appoint another person. If a new PM is appointed, will the trend of a Dlamini candidate continue? The issue of whether the country’s PM should bear a particular surname was long settled by the Eswatini Nation. Thirty years ago, a majority of emaSwati submitted to the Tinkhundla Review Commission that the position of PM should not be exclusive to one surname. This submission, which was one of many pertaining to the position of PM, was agreed to by the Commission, which recommended accordingly.

According to the Commission, the recommendations it made from the diverse and often contradictory views represented by a fair assessment of what the majority of emaSwati, who made submissions wanted and what the Commission honestly believed to be in the best interest, peace, stability and progressive democratisation of Eswatini. His Majesty King Mswati III appointed the Commission in 1992 and it was chaired by Prince Mahlalengangeni. Members of the Commission included Chief Maweni Simelane (late), Arthur Khoza (late), Chief Nhloko Zwane (late), Dr. Samuel Hynd (late), Sam Mkhombe (late), Mavis Litchfield (late), Senanile Gwebu, Henry Vusumuzi Dlamini, James Majahenkhaba Dlamini (current Supreme Court Judge), Mathendele Moses Dlamini (current member of Ludzidzini Council) and Mandla Hlatshwako (PUDEMO member). It should be noted that Hlatshwako withdrew from the Commission soon after its terms of reference were made available. Hlatshwako, according to the Commission’s belief, withdrew for personal reasons.

The Commission’s purposes were to, among other things, receive written submissions and/or hear oral submissions from individual members of Eswatini Nation and to report to the King regarding ‘problems malfunctions and deficiencies in the existing process of election of members of the House of Parliament in terms of Parts II, III and VI of the Establishment of the Parliament of Swaziland Order 1978’. Under this term of reference, the subject of the Office of the PM attracted interest from those who made submissions to the Commission. This was also noted by the Commission in its report, which wrote: “The Office of the Prime Minister is one of the key offices in the Government and was the subject of strong comments by different persons who made submission to the Commission. What follows are some of the salient points raised in connection with this Office and the recommendations of the Commission.”

There were more than 10 salient submissions that were made in this regard and they had to do with the ‘appointment of pm’, ‘appointment of cabinet ministers’, and ‘government responsibility’. It was under the latter (government responsibility) that the submission on the surname of the PM was made. The submission reads: “The position of Prime Minister should not be a monopoly of one surname.” Underneath this recommendation, the Commission wrote: “The Commission agrees and recommends accordingly.” The trend before and after the Mahlalengangeni Commission has been to appoint to the PM position a person bearing the Dlamini surname.

Prince

Prince Makhosini Dlamini was the first PM from 1967 to 1976, followed by Prince Maphevu Dlamini (1976 to 1979); Prince Mabandla Dlamini (1979 to 1983); Prince Bhekimpi Dlamini (1983 to 1986); Sotsha Dlamini (1986 to 1989); Obed Dlamini (1989 to 1993); Prince Mbilini Dlamini (1993 to 1996); Sibusiso Barnabas Dlamini (1996 to 2003 and 2008 to 2018); Absalom Themba Dlamini (2003 to 2008); Ambrose Mandvulo Dlamini (2018 to 2020); and Cleopas Sipho Dlamini (2021 to present). Director of Communication in the King’s Officer, Percy Simelane, when asked about the factors that could have led to the recommendation not being implemented, first said they had no record of such a recommendation. “It would be folly of us to pretend what it was all about and where it came from or why it did not come through,” he said. A page of the Commission’s report, which shows the recommendation, was then shared with Simelane for his own reference, after which he gave a different response. He said to them, the recommendation was too shallow to give them an idea where it was coming from in terms of reasons behind, which may have come up when the recommendation was made by the masses.

“We feel the best positioned respondent to this particular one would be the Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs. This ministry houses interpreters of the law and legal advisers. We then not to dare employ our minimal understanding of the constitutionalisation of national recommendations lest we contaminate their meanings and intentions,” Simelane said. Most of the submissions made to the Mahlalenganeni Commission and the recommendations thereof, form an integral part of the country’s Constitution, which was passed in 2005. Simelane was asked if there was likelihood that this recommendation would also be included in future through amendment of the Constitution. “The Constitution was put together by the masses and amendments are constitutionally to come from the masses. It would be difficult to know what the masses will be thinking of the Constitution in the future,” he responded. Responding to a question about the significance of the Mahlalengangeni Commission in determining the country’s direction, Simelane said it was ‘as significant as the rest that followed in facilitating for the national consultations that helped the Swati people freely define their socio-economic destiny through a Constitution they could proudly call theirs’.

Meanwhile, Government Press Secretary Alpheous Nxumalo said there is no need for constitutional amendments for the appointment of a non-Dlamini PM simply because it is not a constitutional obligation or mandate to appoint a Dlamini PM. He said political democracy and advancement is not an event but a process. “European democracy, for instance, has been in place for over 200 years but they are still evolving to the ideal of what democracy should be in Europe. The United States of America is considered as one of the best and well advanced democracies in the world but guess what; they are currently failing to master the democracy to a point of at least electing a Speaker of the House, for three days running,” Nxumalo said.

Wisdom

He said if one took a deep reflection of how His Majesty the King, guided by his wisdom and intelligence in the previous appointment of the PM, you could sense some movement from the past practice of how a PM of the Kingdom of Eswatini is appointed. “Certain influential people were selected to make political and campaign tailored statements during Sibaya, with a view to canvass for the appointment to the office of the PM of the Kingdom of Eswatini,” Nxumalo said. For the first time in the country’s history, during the 2018 Sibaya, candidates for the position of PM took turns to present before the nation how they could lead, were the PM to be appointed into the position. Those who made presentations included Ambrose Mandvulo Dlamini (who got the nod for PM), Cleopas Sipho Dlamini (current PM), Lutfo Dlamini (current Ndzingeni MP), Phesheya Dlamini (Supreme Court Judge), Mbuso Dlamini (former Secretary to Cabinet), David Dlamini (MTN Board Chairman), Absalom Themba Dlamini (Tibiyo MD and ex-PM) and Paul Dlamini (Liqoqo Chairman and ex-DPM). “Next time, it could be anybody, including non Dlaminis, who could be given that latitude to canvass for the position of the Kingdom’s Prime Minister,” the government spokesperson said.

Nxumalo said in any case, the person who assumes the position of PM does not implement or drive a Dlaminism government programme but an entire government programme which has no surname attached to it. He said for him, the Prince Mahlalengangeni Commission was a cut above the rest in the sense that it gave emaSwati the right to elect members of Parliament directly from constituencies (eTinkhundleni); gave them direct parliamentary elections; and created the ground for the subsequent Commissions such as the economic vusela led by Prince Guduza and the Constitutional Drafting Committee led by Prince David. He added: “Of course, recommendations remain just that – recommendations.”

The Commission said it was fully aware that its recommendations may not go far enough in certain respects rightly or wrongly believed by some to be fundamental to the question of democracy and the transparency of government. Therefore, the Commission said it believed that, in line with the nation’s political maturity, if democracy was to be firmly rooted on Eswatini soil, it must be introduced gradually, otherwise chaos might break loose. “No doubt the report of the Commission will not please everybody. It is hoped, however, that the report will meet the immediate political and developmental aspirations of a broad spectrum of the Swazi public of the 199s, and, hopefully, beyond,” said the Commission.

Besides the one surname submission, emaSwati also raised seven points on the appointment of the PM. The first one was that the PM should be appointed by the King using his own discretion. The Commission said it carefully considered this point and recommended that in accordance with Swazi practice, the PM should be appointed by the King acting in Council.
The second point was that the PM should be appointed from elected members of Parliament. To this point, the Commission said: “The Commission is unable to recommend as suggested and proposes that the prime minister be appointed from among the elected and appointed Members of the House.” The third point was that the PM should be elected by the elected Members from amongst themselves. “The Commission does not recommend as proposed herein,” wrote the Commission.

The fourth point was that the PM should be nominated by the House of Assembly and appointed by the King. To this, the Commission said it was unable to recommend as proposed. The fifth point was that three names should be nominated by both Houses out of which the appointment should be made by the King. Again, the Commission said it was unable to recommend as proposed. Point number six was that the PM should be elected by all registered voters but this proposal too was not agreed to by the Commission. The seventh point, which the Commission agreed to and recommended, accordingly, was that the PM should be appointed from among both the elected and appointed members of the House of Assembly.
This is the obtaining situation as contained in Section 67(1) of the Constitution, which states: “The King shall appoint the Prime Minister from among members of the House acting on recommendation of the King’s Advisory Council.”

The Commission then noted a view point that was expressed by a minority, which was that the prime minister should be appointed from among the elected members of the House on the basis of a short list recommended by the two Houses of Parliament acting as a College. The short list would be revealed only to the King is so deemed advisable. “The King should appoint as Prime Minister the Member of the House, who appears to him best able to command the support of the majority of the Members of Parliament,” further reads the viewpoint.
It was noted by the Commission that the consideration of this viewpoint was to democratise the position of the PM as far as it may be possible within the framework of the no party tinkhundla system of parliamentary government. “This recommendation makes it possible for the government to be truly tinkhundla based in that the prime minister, as an elected member, will have an Inkhundla to be answerable to as would be the majority of the Cabinet,” the Commission wrote.

Status

Then Commission further noted that this recommendation was meant to accord the PM a status he had been denied since the departure of Prince Makhosini, the country’s first PM. “The status is that of the respectability of the Prime Minister’s position based on the knowledge that he represents some definite or identifiable ‘constituency’, which elected him to Parliament in the first place, and that he has the confidence of his fellow Members of Parliament of which he is Team Leader, and that this confidence has been endorsed by the King who has appointed him to the Office,” wrote the Commission. Additionally, this minority view stated that it was otherwise difficult to imagine how an unelected PM could confidently exercise discipline and control over a Cabinet whose majority is elected.

It said there was likely to be some resentment or conflict of interest in such an arrangement in which the PM – even if he advised on the appointment of the Cabinet – would be seen by some ministers and even Members of Parliament as an outsider, holding his position just because he was favoured by the King. Eswatini’s current political crisis stemmed from one fundamental issue – the criteria used to choose the PM. This was after calls by some MPs to have the PM appointed by the electorate as opposed to being appointed by the King. However, government has insisted that this can only be done through amendment of the Constitution, which has a number of processes that have to be followed.