Home | News | BACEDE’S CHILDREN WANT TO SEE FATHER

BACEDE’S CHILDREN WANT TO SEE FATHER

23/10/2023 09:06:00 Mbongiseni Ndzimandze

Font size:

MBABANE – “We are worried about our father in prison as we are unreasonably and cruelly denied access to him.”

This submission was made by all the children of incarcerated former Hosea Member of Parliament (MP) Mduduzi Bacede Mabuza, who have now joined hands in seeking an order to be allowed access to him. They claimed that ever since their father was incarcerated, they had been allowed to have access to him at least not more than five times. The former legislator is currently detained at the Matsapha Maximum Prison with his co-accused, former Ngwempisi MP Mthandeni Dube. Bacede was recently found guilty of terrorism and murder, among other charges, together with his co-accused, and they are still to make their submissions on why they feel the court should not impose a stiff sentence.

Access

Bacede’s children have taken the commissioner general of His Majesty Correctional Services (HMCS) to the High Court, where they implored it to direct and order the latter to grant them reasonable access to their father. In their application, the siblings brought it to the attention of the court that their father had been in custody for a period exceeding two years at Matsapha Maximum Correctional facility. Respondents in the matter are the commissioner general of HMCS and the attorney general (AG). Some of the children who are applicants in the matter are Phumlani, Phumelela and Ayabonga. It was stated in the application that some of the children were minors and could not depose to affidavits. The applicants submitted that, the circumstances around the incarceration of their father were in the public domain and the matter continued to be debated in most spheres. “It is important to mention that on occasion where I have seen my father it has been with my siblings, owing to the unfair, unreasonable and intimidating treatment we are exposed to. We have opted to visit him as group,”contended Phumlani.

He alleged that this was usually in addition to the fact that their father made a request to the prison authorities to allow them to see him. “Our last attempt to visit our father was on October 6, 2023, we were denied access to see him. We were informed by the officer at the gate that there was an indefinite position and/or at least a status that would prevail until otherwise advised,” submitted the children. The applicants argued that the visit was occasioned by the fact that as children of the former MP and like most children, they discussed developments in their lives with their parents for guidance. These, according to the applicants, included current school progress, furthering studies, business interests and social development, all which they were currently denied. The siblings went on to submit that, what was more frustrating was the fact that it recently became public that their father had been allegedly attacked and seriously assaulted again in prison.

“This was very troubling to us and we wanted to see our father, if anything just to lay our minds to rest that he is well. It is important to restate that our request was denied despite our determined plea,” contended the applicants. They went on to highlight that, while their access to their father had always been unreasonably restricted, they were at the very least, been receiving calls from him whenever that was permitted by the institution, but they had not received same for a long period.

Suspended

The children said they were again informed by the prison authorities that this too was suspended until further notice. In his affidavit, Phumlani stated that it was not their intention to delve into the nature of their father’s arrest or the politics and alleged gamesmanship that occasioned their father’s imprisonment. One of the children, in the affidavit, stated that he was old enough to appreciate that the Kingdom of Eswatini, like much his family, held the sacrosanct nature of the institution of family in very high esteem. He said he had been advised and verily believed that the institution was so revered in Eswatini, such that it was protected in both the Constitution and the Children’s Protection and Welfare Act. “I am advised that children have a right to be raised by their parents and where the situation arise that they do not live with them, they should have reasonable access to them. What is more, is the fact that the world over laments the development of children who grow up without fathers playing an active role in their lives, Eswatini in no exception,” argued one of the applicants.

The applicant averred that it did not escape their minds that their father’s arrest was nothing but the current politics of the country. They informed the court that in their application, they sought to vindicate the promotion and protection of their rights and further stated that this was the lens their application should be viewed from. “It is my siblings’ and my intention to assert our right not to be denied access to our father in the midst of political gamesmanship,” submitted Phumalani. He stated that it was incumbent upon the commissioner general of HMCS to encourage and assist inmates to establish and/or maintain family relationships as stated in Regulation 84 of the Correctional Services Regulations of 2022.

The deponent argued that no law should prevail over the protection of the rights of children in terms of the law of the country. “I submit that we are young children desirous to have reasonable access to our incarcerated father. It is in our best interest to maintain father and children relations with our father, no matter the circumstances as provided by the Children Protection and Welfare Act of 2012, read together with the Constitution of the Kingdom of Eswatini,” submitted the applicants. The applicants informed the court that as things stood, they were losing out on proper parental bonding as they were allegedly unreasonably and unjustifiably denied access to their father.

They pointed out that they were at various stages in their lives and they required talking to their father for guidance. The aggrieved children submitted that they had strong and reasonable apprehension of harm in that, the respondents would continue for no justiciable reason deprive them reasonable access to their father as they had purportedly continued to do so. The matter is pending in court and appearing for the applicants is Senior Lawyer Ben J Simelane of Ben J Simelane and Associates. The respondents are yet to file their papers.