Unheard Voices, Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland - Richard Rooney

As seen through the pages of Swazi Media Commentary

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland

By Richard Rooney


Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland By Richard Rooney Published by Excelsior, London, UK. 2011.

© Richard Rooney.

Permission is granted to copy and distribute this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; Free Software Foundation, Inc.51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 021101301 USA.

1


About the Author Richard Rooney was associate professor at the University of Swaziland 2005 – 2008, where he was also head of the Journalism and Mass Communication Department. He has taught in universities in Africa, Europe and the Pacific. His academic research has appeared in books and journals across the world. He specialises in media and democracy, governance, ethics and human rights. He was a full-time journalist in his native United Kingdom for 10 years, before becoming an academic. His journalism has appeared in newspapers and magazines across the world. He has published the blog Swazi media Commentary since 2007 and also has other social network sites that concentrate on human rights issues in Swaziland. He holds a Ph.D in Communication from the University of Westminster, London, UK. He presently teaches at the University of Botswana, Gaborone.

Other Publications from the Author The following publications about media in Swaziland are available online. 2008. The New Swaziland Constitution and its Impact on Media Freedom, Global Media Journal, Africa Edition, Vol. 2. (Stellenbosch University, South Africa).

http://globalmedia.journals.ac.za/pub/article/view/34 2008. Swazi Newspapers and the ‗Muslim Threat‘. Lwati: A Journal of Contemporary Research, Vol. 5. http://www.sz.misa.org/images/stories/downloads/swazi%20journalism%20and%20muslims%20%20rooney.pdf 2008. The Existence of Censorship in Newsrooms in Swaziland, report prepared for Media Institute of Southern Africa. http://www.sz.misa.org/images/stories/downloads/censorship.pdf 2007. Suffer The Children – Reporting of Minors by the Swazi Press. Lwati: A Journal of Contemporary Research (Swaziland), Vol. 4. http://www.sz.misa.org/images/stories/downloads/children%20and%20the%20swazi%20press%20%20rooney.pdf 2007. The Swazi Press and its Contribution to Good Governance, Global Media Journal – African Edition, Vol. 1. (Stellenbosch University, South Africa). http://globalmedia.journals.ac.za/pub/article/view/47

2


Foreword When I arrived at the University of Swaziland in 2005 to teach journalism and mass communication I made a quick discovery: there was hardly anything written about the Swazi media for students. At worst, my students had to make do with media books from the United States or Europe: at best, they could find material about South Africa. But writings about Swaziland there were nearly none. A notable exception to this observation is the Media Institute of Southern Africa. Its Swaziland chapter has produced (and continues to produce) some fine work about journalism in Swaziland, but their publications are few and far between.1 So there was a gap and as a professional academic and educator, I realised that it was probably up to me to fill it – or at least some of it. So I researched and I wrote. But, academic publishing is a slow process. It can take several years to research and write a book and then get it published. Even academic journals will often take a year or more to publish your article. I needed something that would move a bit less slowly: the Internet. At first I thought I would design and write an Internet site devoted to the media in Swaziland. It was a fine idea, but more complicated than I realised, especially in Swaziland where Internet support services are lacking and connection speeds are woeful. Enter the blogsite. It needs no technical expertise to set one up and if you keep the design simple you can connect to it, even from Swaziland. So, Swazi Media Commentary2 was born and since 2007 I have been uploading ‗blogposts‘ about the media. Today, there are nearly 3,000 posts on the site. From the start I wanted to concentrate on the ethical principles of the media and journalism and the role they can play in supporting freedom and democracy. This gave me plenty to write about because Swaziland is no democracy and if King Mswati and his boys get their way it won‘t be. Before too long Swazi Media Commentary expanded its interests and focused on human rights and democracy in Swaziland in general, rather than just the role the media can have in supporting these. Peter Kenworthy wrote an article about Swazi Media Commentary for Pambuzuka News that you can read online if you wish.3 1

Find them here http://www.sz.misa.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=58&Itemid=72 www.swazimedia.blogsite.com 3 http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/features/70617 2

3


This present volume of pages from Swazi Media Commentary focuses on media freedom and censorship. It starts with some overview articles that set out the general terrain (and a depressing read it is), moving on to look at repressive media laws. Other sections of this book relate the daily threats journalists in Swaziland face when they want to report, but are not allowed to. These threats come from politicians, the police, King Mswati III and government ministers, among others. The blogposts were written on a daily basis, often at some considerable speed. I have not edited them in any significant way for this volume, so they do not benefit from hindsight. For this book I have chosen some that still have relevance today. I hope they will be of interest to media students, to journalists, and those who have a general interest in journalism, a free media and the scourge of censorship. I take full responsibility for all errors of fact and of judgement.

Richard Rooney November 2011

4


Contents

Chapter 1

Swazi Media Freedom: Overview

6

2

Repressive Media Laws

21

3

Access to Free Information

29

4

History of State Attacks on the Press

37

5

Harassment and Threats

41

6

Political Repression

50

7

The King and the Royal family

75

8

Police Harassment and censorship

87

9

Internet Censorship

92

10

Case Study 1: Mfomfo Nkhambule

101

11

Case Study 2: Swazi Observer

133

12

Case Study 3: Without the King

138

13

Case Study 4: MISA Research

144

5


1. Swazi Media Freedom: Overview Unreality Of Swazi Media Freedom 16 January 2008 There is an air of unreality about media freedom in Swaziland at the moment. On the one hand a new Swazi Constitution enacted in 2006 enshrines freedom of expression and freedom of the press, while on the other hand independent news media continue to be hounded by the kingdom‘s authorities whenever they publish material the ruling elites do not like. The most striking example of this harassment happened in March 20074 when the Times of Swaziland Group of Newspapers was forced into publishing an abject apology5 to Swaziland‘s King Mwasti III after the Times Sunday ran a news commentary sourced from the international news agency Afrol News in which the following appeared. ‗Swaziland is increasingly paralysed by poor governance, corruption and the private spending of authoritarian King Mswati III and his large royal family. The growing social crisis in the country and the lessening interest of donors to support King Mswati‘s regime has also created escalating needs for social services beyond the scale of national budgets.‘ Such open criticism of the king is not allowed in Swaziland (not even in so-called independent newspapers like the Times Sunday). The publisher was summoned to the Royal Palace and told to issue a public apology or his newspapers would be closed down. The apology was swiftly forthcoming. This is not an isolated incident of censorship by the king. In February 2007, the king‘s chief executive officer Bheki Dlamini barred journalists at a press conference from asking the king questions relating to the recently-formed Swaziland Police Union, whose formation had shaken the Swazi establishment. In the recent past the king also banned newspapers from writing about his wives without his permission, even while covering official events. This happened after the Times Sunday interviewed one of his wives (with her consent) while she was sick in hospital. The power of the king is so great in Swaziland that news media in the kingdom enforce selfcensorship when opportunities to report critically about him occur. In August 2007, the world‘s media6 reported a survey from Forbes in New York that placed King Mswati III among one of the top 15 richest monarchs in the world. He was revealed as the richest monarch in sub-Saharan Africa and the youngest (at age 39) among the monarchs in the top 15. The king‘s wealth was estimated at US$200 million (approx. E1.4 billion). Foreign news reports noted that more than 70 per cent of Swazis lived on less than US$1 a day and that more than half the population relied on food aid donated by international agencies to survive. The Swazi media mentioned none of this.

4

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2007/11/closure-threat-to-times.html http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2007/11/closure-threat-to-times.html 6 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2007/09/story-swazi-media-missed.html 5

6

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland Broadcasting The air of unreality about media freedom extends further than the newspapers. In June 2007 MISA Swaziland organized a workshop to advocate for the kingdom‘s state controlled television and radio stations to adopt a system of public service broadcasting (PSB) which would provide greater access to the airwaves to a wide range of people to share information and ideas. At present broadcasting in Swaziland is strictly controlled and only news and information that supports the monarchy and government can be aired. The workshop was told by the Ministry of Information and Public Service that the kingdom‘s radio stations were close to implementing a PSB model. The truth is that the ruling elites have nothing to gain by giving up their control of the airwaves and will therefore not do so willingly. Instead, they placate media freedom advocates with fine words and promises of good intentions. Legislation The Swazi government is keen to give the impression that it is committed to reforming the 30-plus restrictive media laws in the kingdom, but media stakeholders doubt its sincerity. In 2007 the government introduced seven parliamentary bills, including the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Bill, Swaziland Media Commission Bill, Swaziland Public Broadcasting Corporation Bill, Swaziland Broadcasting Bill and the Books and Newspapers Bill. What all these bills have in common is that they purport to place the interests of the media at their centres and they have not originated from within Swaziland. A Commonwealth Secretariat consultant was engaged to draft the bills, relying for inspiration on bills that presently exist in democratic countries. The fact that Swaziland is not a democracy was apparently overlooked. In Swaziland, customary law, which has equal status with the Roman Dutch Common Law and statutes, continues to restrict freedom of the media and freedom of expression. For instance, there are cultural dictates that prevent people from criticising or questioning those in authority. Although, in theory, the Constitution is supreme over all other laws, unwritten customary law wields enormous power in practice and because Swazi Law and Custom is not codified, it cannot be tested against the Constitution. Members of a workshop held for media stakeholders to discuss the bills before they were piloted in Parliament saw the unreality of the approach taken by the consultant and concluded that their own input was irrelevant because ‗traditional authorities‘ in the kingdom had not been consulted on the bills‘ contents. Since nothing happened in Swaziland without the consent of these ‗traditional authorities‘ the bills as presently written had no value, they said. Harassment The introduction of the new bills may be a smokescreen to obscure the fact that there are no real changes in media freedom on offer. This was evident when the Swazi House of Assembly set up a select committee to investigate Mbongeni Mbingo, the editor of the Times Sunday, following a comment piece he wrote in

7

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland his newspaper criticising the House Speaker for not allowing a debate to take place on possible amendments to the kingdom‘s constitution. The House of Assembly said the editor was in contempt of Parliament. In October 2007, the select committee cleared the editor, citing his rights under the constitution to freedom of expression. But at the same time the committee showed it had no real commitment to freedom of expression when it recommended two measures that would further restrict press freedom in Swaziland. The first measure was a recommendation that all journalists who cover Parliament should be accredited; effectively meaning that the government would choose which journalists should be allowed to cover and which should not. It also means the government can decide to withdraw accreditation from anyone whose reporting upsets it. It could also mean that journalists who cover Parliament would be intimidated against reporting critical stories for fear of losing accreditation and maybe their jobs as a result. The second measure was a recommendation from the select committee for the hated Media Council Bill to be reintroduced by Parliament. The Media Council Bill is designed to force statutory regulation on the media. This move ignores work that the media houses themselves have made to form a Media Complaints Commission (MCC) to monitor standards. The Swaziland National Association of Journalists, with the support of MISA Swaziland, launched the MCC in March but it was not until November 2007 that media owners agreed to fund the commission‘s operations and also fund setting up the MCC as a Trust. The attack on the Times Sunday editor should not be seen in isolation. Earlier in the year the Swazi parliament had turned up the heat on dissenting journalists by increasing fines on journalists and media houses who publish articles deemed to be critical of or offending against Parliament or MPs. MISA Swaziland called these measures blatant discrimination ‗likely to scare the already docile Swazi press which cannot freely report on issues due to a litany of restrictions, laws and constant intimidation from authorities.‘ The Swazi government also attacked the free press generally. In June 2007, the Minister for Health and Social Welfare, Njabulo Mabuza, banned health workers from talking to the media in response to a number of stories that had been published highlighting the impact in the kingdom of a critical drug shortage. Workers were forbidden to have any type of communication, including interviews and casual or ‗indiscreet‘ conversations, whether at clubs, hotels, bars or private parties with journalists. Journalists were also barred from Mbabane Government Hospital, the kingdom‘s key medical facility, whose problems had been highlighted in the newspapers. Death Threats On June 23, the Times of Swaziland experienced the effects of the minister‘s censorship order when its photographer, Albert Masango, was denied access to the hospital. Hospital security harassed and pulled Masango out of the premises and carried him out to the gate.

8


One of the more bizarre examples of media harassment in 2007 involved a controversial TV repairman turned church pastor called Justice Dlamini who threatened two journalists with death through divine intervention. Dlamini (who incidentally writes a regular column in the Weekend Observer newspaper and makes many appearances on Swazi television and radio) shocked a church gathering, which also included cabinet ministers, when he declared from the pulpit that he was praying for the death of two journalists, Times of Swaziland Managing Editor Martin Dlamini and reporter Nhlanhla Mathunjwa, whom he claimed wrote badly about him. This followed a story published by the Times of Swaziland in March 2007 in which the pastor was said to have been involved a squabble over a church vehicle with one of his subordinate pastors. The death threat caused much concern among the media fraternity in Swaziland, but both men remain alive. Of interest to media observers is not that the pastor made the threat, but that the media had so little confidence in themselves that they took the pastor seriously.

Swaziland Media Freedom Put On Hold 5 May 2008 Media freedom is not improving in Swaziland. That will come as no surprise to observers of the media scene in the kingdom, but this is the only conclusion that can be reached after reading a new report officially launched on Saturday (3 May 2008) to coincide with World Press Freedom Day details the state of media freedom in Swaziland. So This Is Democracy 2007? The State of Media Freedom in Southern Africa, published by the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) looks at media freedom throughout the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) region. The section on Swaziland identifies ‗an air of unreality surrounds media freedom in Swaziland. Here are some extracts from the report (which I wrote for MISA). Defamation People in prominent positions, including Parliamentarians, continue to use the law courts as a way to harass journalists. Often, after the initial threat, no court case actually takes place. However, the threat of action is often enough to quieten troublesome journalists. In 2007 the Times of Swaziland had one lawsuit from the Minister of Education dismissed by the High Court on a technicality only to be sued by the Minister of Health and Social Welfare over an article about HIV/AIDS. The Swazi Observer was sued by an MP over a report of an alleged assault. What is common to all the defamation cases is the unrealistically high damages that are claimed.

9

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland Access to Information Information continues to be restricted in Swaziland, although in 2007 a draft Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Bill was published as one of seven new media-related bills. The Times of Swaziland drew a blank in October 2007 when it tried to discover the cost of a trip funded by the Swazi taxpayer the Swaziland Prime Minister and his wife had made to the Bahamas in the Caribbean. The Times was told that the information was ‗classified‘. The Times has also been trying without success to get information about how government tenders are awarded. It is estimated that about 40 million Rand is lost each month to corruption in Swaziland. Media Diversity The media environment in Swaziland remains static. The media market is small with broadcasting dominated by the government. There are two newspaper publishers. The African Echo group owns the Times of Swaziland and its companion newspapers. Tibiyo TakaNgwane, a conglomerate effectively controlled by the Swazi Royal family, owns the rest. There is one independently owned national magazine. Circulation figures for newspapers are not publicly available but it is estimated that the Times of Swaziland sells about 35 000 copies per day and the Swazi Observer between 5 000 and 15 000 per day. Media fraternity Media fraternity remains weak in Swaziland. The Swaziland National Association of Journalists is not well respected (even by its members) and its main contribution to Swazi journalism, its code of ethical conduct,7 remains largely ignored. The new trade union Media Workers Union of Swaziland made some headway but its membership split over the conduct of a proposed strike at the Times group of newspapers. By the end of the year it was difficult to see whether this union would be able to establish itself as a credible force in the kingdom. MISA and other NGOs continued to hold workshops to help develop the skills and knowledge of working journalists, but there remains a general lack of commitment by media houses to training.

Swaziland Media Freedom Woes 1 May 2009 Sunday 3 May is World Press Freedom Day,8 a Unesco supported annual event to draw attention to the role of news media in democratic societies. The day is also used as an opportunity to highlight media freedom violations across the world. There will be a number of events in Africa to mark the day.

7 8

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2007/07/code-of-ethics.html http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_ID=28440&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

10

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland In Swaziland it is an opportunity to reflect on how media freedom has been under attack during the past year. Here are some of the major low lights in Swaziland since May 2008. You might like to get a hot drink before you read on: it‘s a very long list. Swazi senators get select committee to charge newspapers with contempt of parliament after reports appear of a fight in public between two senators.9 Barnabas Dlamini, Swaziland‘s illegally-appointed Prime Minister, told the Swazi House of Assembly that his government supports free speech, ‗But where such speech corrupts or incites violence or civil disorder, our government will act to stop it.‘10 Former Swazi cabinet minister Mfomfo Nkhambule, who writes a weekly column for the Times of Swaziland, the kingdom‘s only independent daily newspaper, is threatened by police, and expelled from his local regiment for writing articles deemed by the ruling elite to be critical of King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa‘s last absolute monarchy.11 The Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) Swaziland chapter reports that Swaziland‘s media freedom is under attack like never before. It issued 15 ‗alerts‘ about violations of media freedom in the first two months of this year (2009). Usually, MISA doesn‘t expect to issue 15 alerts in a whole year. The violations were mainly around harassment of journalists, censorship, intimidation and assault of media persons.12 The US State Department in its annual Country Report on Swaziland reported that during the past year the Swaziland attorney general and the prime minister warned journalists and diplomats against making statements that could be interpreted as seditious. It noted that journalists were threatened, harassed, assaulted, and detained during the year.13 Reporters Without Borders places Swaziland in 147th place in the world when it comes to freedom of the press. Swaziland Government spokesperson Macanjana Motsa tries to rubbish the report in the same week that the Prime Minister Barnabas Dlamini told journalists that if they criticise King Mswati III‘s recent speech to parliament they will face sedition charges. 14 A journalist was harassed and barred from reporting the speech of King Mswati III at the opening of the Swaziland Parliament because she is a woman.15 Swaziland‘s Prime Minister, tells Swazi journalists they have nothing to fear from him and they will enjoy media freedom while he is PM. But, as Newswatch India noted, ‗in the same breath, the prime minister banned the media from writing about political parties which the government does not recognise. These parties include the Peoples United Democratic

9

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/04/swazi-senate-media-freedom-fight.html http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2009-04-05T15%3A35%3A00%2B01%3A00&maxresults=7 11 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/03/regiment-expels-swazi-dissident.html 12 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/03/swazi-media-freedom-under-attack.html 13 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/03/swaziland-restricts-press-freedom.html 14 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/02/swaziland-lies-on-press-freedom.html 15 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/02/swazi-woman-reporter-barred.html 10

11

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland Movement (PUDEMO) whose leader Mario Masuku is currently in jail for allegedly supporting terrorism.‘16 Two new magazines published in Swaziland are threatened with closure because they have not been registered by the government.17 Swaziland‘s Prime Minister has said it was all right for Swazi police to haul in dissident Mfomof Nkhambule and make him stop writing newspaper articles that criticised King Mswati III.18 The Swazi Government wants to extend its censorship of the media to the Internet. Already newspapers and broadcast media are subject to censorship (and self-censorship) by government and other organs of the ruling elite. Now the Swaziland Attorney General Majahenkhaba Dlamini is looking to get a website from the People‘s United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO) closed down.19 The Times of Swaziland, the kingdom‘s only independent daily newspaper, in an editorial comment says ‗Constitution or no constitution, the days of the little freedom of speech we have left in this country are numbered,‘ after its columnist Mfomfo Nkhambule was told to watch his mouth. Police say his writing is now bordering on Subversive acts. In short, he has been warned against expressing his opinion on how this country ought to be governed.20 A Swazi journalist was attacked and cut with a knife by a man who was angry about something that had been written about him in a newspaper.21 Swaziland police are accused of torturing and detaining two television reporters. The journalists, who work for Swaziland‘s only independent television station Channel S, say they were arrested by police while they were following a story about a crime syndicate.22 Journalists covering a traditional ceremony in Swaziland were harassed, banned and had their equipment confiscated by the police while trying to cover the event.23 Swazi state police storm a workshop organised for media personnel by the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) and threatened to disrupt it if they were not allowed to monitor it.24 Freedom advocates Article 19 report serious concerns about the way the Swazi Government is restricting freedom of expression in Swaziland following the introduction of the Suppression of Terrorism Act. It says Swazi journalists, political activists and human rights defenders have apparently become persona non-grata, battered and/or arrested.25

16

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/02/swazi-press-freedom-lies-exposed.html http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/02/swaziland-has-no-free-speech.html 18 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/01/pm-backs-attack-on-swazi-dissident.html 19 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/01/government-attacks-internet.html 20 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/01/attack-on-swazi-press-freedom.html 21 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/01/swazi-journalist-attacked.html 22 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2008/12/swazi-police-torutre-journalists.html 23 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2008/12/swazi-police-harass-journalists.html 24 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2008/12/swazi-cops-storm-media-workshop.html 25 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2008/11/article-19-and-swazi-repression.html 17

12

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland People in Swaziland are banned from talking about King Mswati III and the war he has declared against his own people. Jim Gama, who is known as the ‗traditional‘ prime minister and has more influence over Swaziland than the real PM, issued an edict to say that the king‘s subjects must not refer to the king‘s speech ever again. The speech in question was made when King Mswati illegally-appointed Barnabas Dlamini as prime minister. Introducing Dlamini to his subjects, the king told Dlamini to get the terrorists and all who support them.26 Reporters Without Borders condemns the Swazi attorney general‘s ‗threatening remarks to journalists on 17 November 2008. He said journalists who criticise the government could be arrested under a new anti-terrorism law that has just been used to crack down on opposition groups.‘27 Swaziland‘s attorney general, Majahenkhaba Dlamini, tells journalists, ‗If you appear to be supporting terrorists in your reporting, woe unto you.‘ He says journalists who are critical of the government ‗would be viewed as supporting ―terrorists‖ and arrested‘.28 Swazi government officials heavily censored journalists as they prepared to interview King Mswati on his return from a trip abroad. Journalists were told what to ask and that each journalist would be allowed only one question. This came amid anticipation that the king was going to be asked about government's extravagant spending on the country's 40/40 celebrations held in September 2008.29 30 31 More than 90 percent of the people questioned say they want the state-controlled monopoly of radio in Swaziland abolished. They want to have radio stations that are independent of government, but under the control of ordinary people. They also want radio to present impartial news and not concentrate on news about the Swazi Government or King Mswati.32 Research published by the Media Institute of Southern Africa into censorship and selfcensorship of the media in Swaziland concludes that according to journalists and editors the biggest problem with censorship in Swaziland was the position taken by King Mswati. Journalists are afraid to upset him for fear of retribution.33 34 Journalists in Swaziland were illegally stopped from reporting on the kingdom‘s national election. News emerged of widespread intimidation and harassment of reporters as they tried to cover the election registration process that ended in July 2008.35 Swaziland‘s traditional prime minister Jim Gama calls for a Swazi journalist to face serious punishment or even death for writing an article that was ‗disrespectful‘ to King Mswati. He

26

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2008/11/talk-about-swaziland-king-banned.html http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2008/11/global-reporters-back-swazi-media.html 28 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2008/11/swazi-journalists-terrorists.html 29 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2008/09/swazi-gvt-muzzles-media-update.html 30 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2008/08/swazi-government-muzzles-media.html 31 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2008/06/swazi-media-gagged-by-kings-man.html 32 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2008/08/swazis-want-independent-radio.html 33 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2008/07/swazi-censorship-media-reaction.html 34 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2008/06/swazi-king-threat-to-media-freedom.html 35 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2008/07/election-ban-on-swazi-journalists.html 27

13

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland said the report about the financial cost to the kingdom of holding a three-day ‗people‘s parliament‘ had been ‗very disrespectful to royalty and the king‘.36

US State Department On Swaziland Media Freedom in 2010 . . . 1 May 2010 Monday (3 May 2010) is the UNESCO World Press Freedom Day where we stop and think about the state of the media in the world today. This seems to me to be a good time to reflect on the past year or so in Swaziland. Here is an extract from the United States State Department report on human rights in Swaziland that was issued in March 2010.37 I reproduce here the section on Freedom of Speech and Press ... every last depressing word. The constitution provides for freedom of speech and of the press, but the king may waive these rights at his discretion, and the government restricted these rights during the year. Although no law bans criticism of the monarchy, the prime minister and other officials warned journalists that publishing such criticism could be construed as an act of sedition or treason, and media organizations were threatened with closure for criticizing the monarchy. The law empowers the government to ban publications if they are deemed "prejudicial or potentially prejudicial to the interests of defense, public safety, public order, public morality, or public health." Most journalists practiced self-censorship. The king may suspend the constitutional right to free expression at his discretion, and the government severely restricted freedom of expression, especially regarding political issues or the royal family. Individuals--and family members of individuals--who criticized the monarchy risked exclusion from the traditional regiments (chiefdom-based groupings of Swazi males dedicated to serving the king) patronage system that distributed scholarships, land, and other benefits. Traditional chiefs were obliged to punish offenders when matters were brought to their attention. During the year the prime minister warned journalists against making statements that could be interpreted as seditious. During the year the foreign minister criticized foreign diplomats for speaking publicly about political matters and warned that they were not to interfere in the internal affairs of the country. There were two daily newspapers, the independent Times of Swaziland and the Swazi Observer, which was owned by the king's investment company, Tibiyo Taka Ngwane. Both newspapers criticized government corruption and inefficiency but generally avoided criticizing the royal family. The Ministry of Public Service and Information periodically published the Swaziland Today newspaper. Private companies and church groups owned several newsletters and magazines. In November 2008 the attorney general warned that journalists who criticized the government could be viewed as supporting terrorists and arrested under the Suppression of Terrorism Act 36 37

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2008/06/disrespect-swazi-king-and-die-trad-pm.html http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2010/04/swazi-democracy-telling-it-as-it-is.html

14

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland (see section 2.b.). Journalists continued to be threatened, harassed, and assaulted during the year. For example, on January 12, after being pressured by police and government authorities, former cabinet minister and Times of Swaziland columnist Mfomfo Nkambule publicly apologized to the king for a series of articles that criticized the monarchy. Prime Minister Sibusiso Dlamini had threatened to charge Mfomfo Nkambule and other media commentators under the 2008 Suppression of Terrorism Act. Nkambule, who at one point had been ordered to buy between four and six cows as a fine to appease the king, reported in his newspaper column that failure to pay the fine could result in the eviction of his family from their homestead. On April 27, the Times of Swaziland stopped publishing Nkambule's articles. Journalists were called to the offices of the king, prime minister, and senate subcommittee for their reporting on political events or the royal family. For example, on May 12, a senate subcommittee summoned Times of Swaziland editor Mbongeni Mbingo and other journalists for reporting about a verbal exchange between Senate President Gelane Zwane and Senator Ndileka Dlamini. Senators advised journalists that internal parliamentary discussions were private and raised the possibility of charging journalists with contempt of parliament. On June 30, at the George Tums Hotel in Manzini, organizers of an HIV/AIDS workshop ejected journalists covering the event after members of parliament (MPs) complained of the press presence. Parliamentarians cited an incident in which an MP was publicly embarrassed after papers headlined his statement that HIV/AIDS patients should be branded on their buttocks. In August Prime Minister Dlamini reportedly threatened to close media outlets if they reported on an August royal trip abroad; there was no domestic coverage of the event. In August 2008 USDF soldiers assaulted Times of Swaziland journalists who were at the airport to cover the return of nine of the king's wives and their entourage from a lavish shopping spree abroad; soldiers also seized the journalists' cameras. Journalists received anonymous telephone calls advising them not to pursue particular stories, and many of them complied. For example, freelance journalist and Times of Swaziland columnist Vusi Sibisi reported that he stopped writing after being told that a warrant for his arrest had been issued due to his articles that criticized the government and the monarchy. Unlike in previous years, defamation laws were not used to restrict the press. In March 2008 Speaker of the House Guduza, a brother of the king, sued the Times of Swaziland for two million emalangeni ($270,000) for articles it published about his involvement with a company that allegedly illegally imported cigarettes worth 17 million emalangeni (approximately $2.3 million). The case had not gone to trial by year's end. In February 2008 the High Court awarded MP Marwick Khumalo a default judgment of 120,000 emalangeni ($16,200); in July 2007 Khumalo had sued Bheki Makhubu, the editor of the private Nation magazine, for defamation after Makhubu wrote an article accusing Khumalo of corruption. However, on February 22, the High Court granted the Nation magazine an order for stay of execution, and the case remained pending at year's end.

15

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland The March 2007 defamation suit filed by MP Maqhawe Mavuso against the Swazi Observer newspaper remained pending at year's end; the Observer had included Mavuso's name in an article about an alleged assault. There was one government-owned radio station and one independent radio station that broadcast religious programs and public information programs on issues such as HIV/AIDS; however, the government generally restricted media content, especially on government television and radio. There was one privately owned television station; however, the owner's mother was a daughter of the previous king, Sobhuza II, and the station's reporting favored the monarchy. The government-owned Swaziland Television Authority and radio stations were the most influential media in reaching the public, but neither generally broadcast news about antigovernment demonstrations or criticism by "progressives." Government broadcast facilities retransmitted some Voice of America and BBC news programs in their entirety. Consumers freely purchased and used satellite dishes to receive signals and programming from independent South African and other international service providers. Internet Freedom There were no government restrictions on access to the Internet or reports that the government monitored e-mail or Internet chatrooms. Individuals and groups could engage in the peaceful expression of views via the Internet, including by e-mail. Internet cafes existed in larger urban areas, but most citizens lived in rural areas. An estimated 4.1 percent of inhabitants used the Internet, according to International Telecommunication Union statistics for 2008.

... And Again In 2011 3 May 2011 Today (3 May 2011) is World Press Freedom Day. It is traditional at this time to review the state of media freedom in countries across the world. Swaziland is no exception. As even the most casual observer can see the press is not free in Swaziland, where King Mswati III rules as sub-Saharan Africa‘s last absolute monarch. What follows a part of an annual report from the United States State Department on human rights in Swaziland that deals with press censorship in Swaziland.38 The report covers the year 2010 and was released on 8 April 2011. The full report includes sections on the use of torture, Prison and Detention Center Conditions, Arbitrary Arrest or Detention, Role of the Police and Security Apparatus, Denial of Fair Public Trial, and other areas of human rights. Section 2 Respect for Civil Liberties, Including Freedom of Speech and Press The constitution provides for freedom of speech and of the press, but the king may waive these rights at his discretion, and the government restricted these rights during the year. Although no law bans criticism of the monarchy, the prime minister and other officials warned journalists that publishing such criticism could be construed as an act of sedition or 38

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2010/af/154372.htm

16

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland treason, and media organizations were threatened with closure for criticizing the monarchy. The law empowers the government to ban publications if they are deemed "prejudicial or potentially prejudicial to the interests of defense, public safety, public order, public morality, or public health." Most journalists practiced self-censorship. The king may suspend the constitutional right to free expression at his discretion, and the government severely restricted freedom of expression, especially regarding political issues or the royal family. For example, Justice Minister Ndumiso resigned in August amidst allegations of a romantic relationship between the minister and King Mswati III's 12th wife, Queen Nothando Dube. Despite intense local and regional interest, no Swazi media outlet reported on why the minister resigned. Individuals and their family members who criticized the monarchy risked exclusion from the traditional regiments' (chiefdom-based groupings of Swazi males dedicated to serving the king) patronage system that distributed scholarships, land, and other benefits. Traditional chiefs were obliged to punish offenders when matters were brought to their attention. During the year the prime minister warned journalists against making statements that could be interpreted as seditious. Daily newspapers criticized government corruption and inefficiency, but generally avoided criticizing the royal family. In December 2009 the attorney general told newspaper editors that promoting or giving support to terrorists remained a serious crime. In 2008 the attorney general warned that journalists who criticized the government could be viewed as supporting terrorists and arrested under the Suppression of Terrorism Act. Journalists continued to be threatened, harassed, and assaulted during the year. For example, on February 12, during the official opening of parliament, photographers from the Times of Swaziland were harassed for taking pictures of the traditional marula brew that was kept in some offices in parliament. One of the journalists, Walter Dlamini, was detained by police and forced to delete the photographs before being able to attend the rest of the celebration. On March 22, Swazi Observer newspaper editor Sifiso Dhlamini resigned after a Mbabane City Council board member advised him not to publish an article about former Mbabane City Council CEO Gideon Mhlongo; he later withdrew his resignation. On September 6, a Times of Swaziland journalist was harassed and detained by police while covering a meeting organized by the Swaziland Democracy Campaign. Police confiscated his camera and briefly kept it at the Manzini police station. On September 8, a female journalist from the Swazi Observer was harassed by paramilitary police for recording a riot scene during a workers' protest march. During the year the Swaziland Broadcasting Information Services banned trade unions from airing announcements at radio stations unless they had permission from the police. Defamation laws were used to restrict the press.

17


Internet Freedom There were no government restrictions on access to the Internet or reports that the government monitored e-mail or Internet chat rooms. Individuals and groups could engage in the peaceful expression of views via the Internet, including by e-mail. Internet cafes existed in cities, but most citizens lived in rural areas. An estimated 4.2 percent of inhabitants used the Internet, according to International Telecommunication Union statistics for 2008.

MISA Sees Some Positive Developments 25 January 2008 The rights to freedom of expression and media freedom are severely restricted in Swaziland. That was the unsurprising conclusion of an extensive examination of the Swazi media published on Wednesday (23 January 2008). However unsurprising the conclusion, the report offers one of the most comprehensive analyses of the media in Swaziland in recent years. The report, called African Media Barometer – Swaziland 2007, reveals that the media environment in Swaziland is still characterised by self-censorship, lack of independence from government, little diversity and competition, no transparent and independent broadcasting regulation, no self-regulation and a lack of professionalism among media practitioners. The report was produced by the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) Swaziland chapter in conjunction with Frederich Ebert Stiftung. Eight panellists from the media and civil society in Swaziland met for two days in July 2007 to discuss the state of the media in Swaziland. The panel‘s conclusions were overwhelming negative and regular readers of this blog will be aware39 that I share much of the pessimism of the panellists. There is too much in the 48-page report for me to discuss in one post, but (for a change?) I would like to share with you some of the positive developments the panellists were able to identify over the past two years in Swaziland. Positive developments - The adoption of the Constitution, which guarantees both freedom of expression and media freedom. - Increased public consciousness of the right to freedom of expression and increased efforts by the media to enable people to exercise their right to freedom of expression. - The drafting of six new media bills, designed to introduce freedom of information legislation, legislation establishing a public broadcasting corporation and an independent 39

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2008/01/unreality-of-swazi-media-freedom.html

18

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland broadcasting regulator, amend the Books and Newspaper Act and replace the outdated Cinematography Act. - Increased editorial freedom and independence at the state broadcasters, spearheaded by journalists willing to challenge the status quo. - The resurrection of the media union with the launch of the Media Workers‘ Union of Swaziland (MWUS). - Increased salaries for media practitioners. Main drivers for positive change - Government‘s change in attitude, making it more open to free media activity, has been an important catalysts for change and is evidenced, for example, by government‘s efforts to reform some media laws and provide funds to train journalists. - Media managers who are determined to bring about industry reform and development. - MISA Swaziland has been instrumental in many different areas of media development, e.g. facilitating exchange programmes and in-house training for journalists, assisting with the launch of the Media Complaints Commission and voicing opposition to statutory regulation, critiquing the six media bills and conducting media content research. The Ministry of Public Service and Information (in particular the Director of Information), which is tasked with implementing the Information and Media Policy and is overseeing the drafting of new media legislation. Journalists who are willing to take risks by resisting self-censorship and censorship from the authorities. Activities needed over the next few years Despite these ‗positive‘ aspects of the Swaziland media landscape, the report remains overwhelmingly negative in its findings. To try to improve the situation the African Media Barometer report suggested the following activities that could happen over the next few years. - A skills audit should be conducted in all media houses to assess the existing capacity of media practitioners at all levels. - Skills development opportunities for working journalists should be increased, both in-house training as well as enrolment in external part-time and full-time courses. - On-the-job training and mentorship programmes need to be established in all media houses to ensure entry-level reporters are given sufficient direction and guidance. - Civic education on freedom of expression, access to information and media freedom needs to be conducted by the media and civil society organisations.

19

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland - The law reform process needs to be launched to ensure all media unfriendly laws are repealed or amended to conform to the Constitution. The establishment of a law reform commission should be fast-tracked. - A national conference on law reform should be conducted to produce an action plan and way forward on the law reform process. - The consultation process on the six draft bills needs to continue with a new consultant and should include a broader base of stakeholders.

20


2. Restrictive Media Laws Swaziland’s Oppressive Media Laws 27 March 2008 I raised a few eyebrows yesterday40 (26 March 2008) when I suggested that being in possession of a copy of the Without the King documentary was an act of sedition under Swaziland‘s oppressive laws. I think the people who were surprised and even a little bit shocked were those who had never stopped to examine the legal situation Swaziland. Some people in the international community have been misled by the Swazi Constitution41 that came into effect in 2006. When you look at what it has to say about freedom of the press, freedom of expression and freedom of association, it reads like a model constitution. The problem is the Constitution is a confidence trick because the laws that existed before it was published have not been repealed, nor does there seem to be any move in the near future to do so. The ruling elite in Swaziland like it just fine that they can restrict people in what they say, who they say it to, and where they say it. Some media commentators have said there are about 30 laws in Swaziland that restrict the media. I‘m not so sure there really are that many (if someone knows them all please send me a list) but here courtesy of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation and Article 19 are the main ones. The Official Secrets Act, 1968 prohibits any person who possesses or has been entrusted, ‗by any person holding office under the Government‘, with any code, password, sketch, plan, model, article, note, document or information, from communicating it to any unauthorized person, retaining it, failing to take proper care of it or using it ‗in any manner or for any purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of Swaziland‘. The Sedition and Subversive Activities Act, 1938 makes a speech or publication seditious if it is intended to bring the King, his heirs, successors, or government into contempt or encourage hatred of them. The Act defines ‗publication‘ to include ‗all written or printed matter and everything, whether or not of a nature similar to written or printed matter, containing any visible representation or by its form, shape, or in any manner capable of suggesting words or ideas, and every copy and reproduction of any publication‘. Also seditious are publications or speeches that intend to encourage hatred or contempt of, or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Swaziland, to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different classes of the population of Swaziland. The Cape Libel Act, 1882 makes it an offence punishable by two years‘ imprisonment or a fine, or both, to ‗publish a defamatory libel‘: that is to injure the reputation of a person and expose him or her to hatred, ridicule and contempt.

40 41

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2008/03/swazi-king-documentary-seditious.html http://www.scribd.com/doc/26185252/Swaziland-Constitution

21

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland The Ndlovukati Act, 1968 protects the person of the Ndlovukati (Queen Mother). ‗A person who does or attempts to do, or makes preparation, or conspires with any other person, to do, an act with the intention of bringing into hatred or contempt, or of inciting disaffection or ill will or hostility against, the person of Ndlovukati, shall be guilty of an offence.‘ The Obscene Publications Act, 1927 prohibits the importation, making, manufacture, production, sale, distribution, or public exposure of indecent or obscene material. No exemption is granted to material of an artistic, literary or scientific nature. The penalties are a fine, or a prison sentence of up to six months, or both. The Act does not define what it means by the terms ‗indecent‘ and ‗obscene‘. (Presumably this is meant to refer primarily to pornographic material.) The Magistrate’s Courts Act, 1939 grants magistrates the power to hold trials in camera or to exclude females, minors and the public generally ‗in the interest of good order or public morals‘. The Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act of the same year extends this power of the magistrate to the preparatory examination phase of a case. The Act adds a further reason which may justify in camera proceedings. A magistrate may decide it is in the interests of ―the administration of justice‖. The Proscribed Publications Act, 1968 empowers the Minister for Public Service and Information to ban publications ‗if the publication is prejudicial or potentially prejudicial to the interests of defence, public safety, public order, public morality or public health.‘ The Books and Newspaper Act, 1963 prohibits anyone from printing or publishing a newspaper in Swaziland unless the editor of the newspaper is resident within Swaziland and without a registration certificate issued by the Registrar of Books and Newspapers. Where a newspaper has more than one editor, the chief editor has to be resident in Swaziland. The effect of this is that newspapers have to be locally controlled and registered in order to be disseminated in Swaziland. The Cinematograph Act, 1920 controls the making and public dissemination of films, and of pictures and placards relating to the films. It is prohibited for anyone to make a film showing African gatherings or African life without the prior permission of the Minister for Public Service and Information. The Act further prohibits films to be made of certain Swazi cultural occasions and celebrations namely the Incwala Day, the King‘s Birthday, the Umhlanga (Reed Dance) and the Somhlolo (Independence Day) without the Minister‘s written consent. The Minister has an unlimited discretion to grant or to refuse consent. A particularly draconian aspect of the legislation is that section 6 empowers the Minister to declare any picture to be objectionable (within his complete discretion) if he believes that the picture represents scenes holding up to ridicule or contempt any member of the King‘s naval, military or air forces; - scenes tending to ‗disparage public characters‘; scenes calculated to ‗affect the religious convictions or feelings of any section of the public‘; - scenes ‗suggestive‘ of immorality or indecency; - executions, murders and ‗other revolting scenes‘; - scenes of ‗debauchery, drunkenness, brawling, or of any other habit of life not in accordance with good morals and decency‘ scenes depicting ‗successful‘ crime or violence; and - scenes which are ‗in any way prejudicial to the peace, order or good government of

22

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland Swaziland‘. Protection of sources There are no laws, which specifically refer to the protection of the confidentiality of journalistic sources. The principle of the right of a journalist to protect their sources, which is a crucial element of media freedom and of freedom of expression and information generally, is certainly not respected in Swaziland. Freedom of Information Swaziland has no freedom of information legislation. The Official Secrets Act and other restrictive practices restrict the media in their efforts to obtain information and report freely on the activities of government. Access to information from the government and officials depends on goodwill and contacts rather than on any clearly established rules. A Freedom of Information Act is urgently needed in Swaziland.

The full list There are at least 33 restrictive media laws in Swaziland, according to the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA). They are: 1. 1973 King‘s Proclamation 2. Proclamation No.1 of 1981 3. Public Order Act 1963 4. Proscribed Publications Act 1968 5. Official Secrets Act 6. Sedition and Subversive Act 1968 7. Protected Places and Areas Act 1966 8. Obscene Publications Act 1927 9. Cinematography Act 1968 10. Swaziland Post and Telecommunications Act 11. Books and Newspapers Act 1963 12. Swaziland Television Authority Act 1983 13. Parliamentary Privileges Act 14. Internal Security Bill 15. Public Accounts Committee Order 1974 16. Patents, Design and Trade Marks Act 17. Magistrates Court Act 1938 18. High Court Act 1954 19. Judicial Services Commission Act 20. Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act 1939 21. Electoral Act 22. Standing Orders of Senate Relating to Public Business 23. Emergency Powers Act 1968 24. Prevention of Corruption Order 1993 25. Control of Supplies Order 1973 (later referred to as an Act??) 26. Statistics Act 1967 27. Regulation of Advertisements Act 1953 28. Aviation Act 1968 29. Cotton Act 1967 30. Dairy Act 1968

23

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland 31. Citrus Act 1967 32. Identification Order 1998 33. Public Health Act 1969

Swazi Constitution Does Not Work 31 March 2008 Doubts have been raised about whether Swaziland‘s 33 restrictive media laws are still in force. There is a thought that the Swazi Constitution42 that came into effect in 2006 wipes them all away. The discussion started after I wrote43 that watching the documentary Without The King which claims it ‗captures the birth of a nation‘s revolution‘ is an act of sedition under the Sedition and Subversive Activities Act, 1938.44 I later wrote45 that there were 33 legal restrictions on the media presently in operation in Swaziland. This may not be so, according to a correspondent who has a finer legal mind than mine. He says the Constitution can overrule all the laws that went before it. He writes, ‗In judicial interpretation there is a doctrine of implied repeal. Where two laws contradict one and other the later one repeals the earlier one to the extent of contradiction or inconsistency. Also s 2 (1) of the Constitution contains this doctrine. ‗Now the argument becomes whether the position of the king is so special that it would be inconceivable that the Constitutional provisions on freedom of expression would include sedition. The monarchy does not get any special mentions in the limitations in the Bill of Rights. However, it would take a particularly courageous judge to interpret the Constitution so‘. He goes on to suggest that we need a test case on whether or not viewing Without The King would be a seditious act. Maybe he‘s right because although I don‘t think the police are going to come knocking on my door if I sit at home watching the documentary, I am not so sure that if I showed it to a public gathering, they wouldn‘t close us down and arrest us. Or knowing the Swazi police beat the daylights out of us. The legal nicety about the Constitution ‗repealing‘ the repressive acts doesn‘t hold water in Swaziland. The US State Department noted in its report46 of Human Rights in Swaziland published in March 2008, that in Swaziland, ‗Government agents continued to commit or condone serious abuses [of human rights]. Human rights problems included: inability of citizens to change their government; unlawful killings by security forces; police use of torture, beatings, and excessive force; police 42

http://www.scribd.com/doc/26185252/Swaziland-Constitution http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2008/03/swaziland-revolution-doco-on-dvd.html 44 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2008/03/swazi-king-documentary-seditious.html 45 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2008/03/swazilands-oppressive-media-laws.html 46 http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2007/100507.htm 43

24

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland impunity; arbitrary arrests and lengthy pretrial detention; infringement on citizens‘ privacy rights; limits on freedom of speech and of the press; restrictions on freedom of assembly and association; prohibitions on political activity and harassment of political activists; restrictions on freedom of movement; discrimination and violence against women; poor enforcement of women's rights; child abuse; trafficking in persons; societal discrimination against mixed race and white citizens; antiunion discrimination and child labor.‘ None of the above suggests Swaziland has a ruling elite that respects the Constitution. If we look at media in particular, we can see that under section 24 of the Constitution, ‗a person has a right of freedom of expression and opinion.‘ It goes on to state that a person enjoys ‗freedom of expression, which includes the freedom of the press and other media, that is to say freedom to hold opinions without interference; freedom to receive ideas and information without interference; freedom to communicate ideas and information without interference (whether the communication be to the public generally or to any person or class of persons); and freedom of interference with the correspondence of that person.‘ Section 24 of the Constitution is not working. You only need to look at how media in Swaziland continues to be harassed to see this. In March 2007, for example, (a full year after the Constitution came into effect) the Times of Swaziland newspaper group was threatened with closure47 because it published an article (sourced from abroad) that criticised King Mswati III I have been collecting examples of the way the freedom of expression in Constitution is being ignored. I think the list proves conclusively that there is no guarantee of freedom of expression in Swaziland. May 2006 King Mswati III banned newspapers from writing about his wives without his permission, even while covering official events, after the Times Sunday interviewed one of his wives (with her consent) while she was sick in hospital. This was the second time in 12 months that the Swazi king gagged the media from reporting about royalty. It should be noted that this ban was not reported within Swaziland. This banning by the king simply continued a trend that had been operating since before the new constitution, for example, in 2005, the king ordered the media to stop writing about his lavish spending after newspapers published that he had purchased US$500,000 worth of luxurious vehicles for his 13 wives. October 2006 Parliament ordered the Times of Swaziland to apologise for an opinion expressed in the newspaper that referred to a select committee that investigated the operations of the Swaziland Broadcasting and Information Service as a ‗kangaroo court‘. In an editorial the Times declined to apologize. November 2006 The Public Services and Information Minister S‘gayoyo Magongo instructed Swazi TV to reinstate an employee the station wished to dismiss (Swazi TV complied with the instruction). In Parliament the minister said Section 75 of the constitution empowered him to do this as it charges ministers with responsibility ‗for the policy and general direction and control‘ over their departments. 47

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2007/11/closure-threat-to-times.html

25


December 2006 The Times of Swaziland came under attack a by a committee that was putting together a case to demand the return from neighbouring South Africa of land that Swaziland claimed belonged to it. At a press conference members of the committee including the chair Prince Khuzulwandle, a member of the Royal Family, criticised the newspaper for collecting views on the issue from members of the public. The response the newspaper received was hostile to the demand for restoration prompting the committee to question why the newspaper asked ordinary people instead of people who were knowledgeable on the subject. The Times’ response (in an editorial in the newspaper) was to reassert its readers‘ constitutional rights to freedom of speech. February 2007 The king‘s chief executive officer Bheki Dlamini barred journalists at a press conference from asking the king questions relating to the recently-formed Swaziland Police Union, whose formation had shaken the Swazi establishment. June 2007 The Minister for Health and Social Welfare, Njabulo Mabuza, banned health workers from talking to the media in response to a number of stories highlighting the impact of a critical drug shortage. Workers were forbidden to have any type of communication, including interviews and casual or ―indiscreet‖ conversations, whether at clubs, hotels, bars or private parties. Journalists were also barred from Mbabane Government Hospital, the country's key medical facility, whose problems have been highlighted in the press. These problems were considered by the press to be typical of the wider crisis afflicting the healthcare system. In fact, it turned out that the ban had been in position for some years previously but was only being enforced now following a series of news reports in newspapers about deaths in government hospitals. October 2007 The Times of Swaziland tried to find out how much it cost taxpayers to send the Prime Minister A T Dlamini on a trip from Swaziland to the Bahamas. The newspaper was told it could not have the information because it was ‗classified‘ information. The newspaper had also been trying without success to get government to disclose the names of companies which won tenders for government business. November 2007 The Swazi House of Assembly set up a select committee to investigate the editor of the Times Sunday Mbongeni Mbingo following a comment piece the newspaper ran criticising the House Speaker for not allowing a debate to take place on possible amendments to the kingdom‘s constitution. The select committee exonerated the editor stating his rights to freedom of expression under the Constitution. However, what seemed like a victory for the free press was illusionary because the select committee decided it wanted Parliament to accredit journalists who covered the proceedings of parliament, in effect giving the government control over who could report and who could not. The committee also called for the reintroduction of the defunct Media Council Bill (that had originally been tabled in 1997), which, among other things, would require journalists to be qualified and registered with some central body.

26


Bugging The Swazi Cell Phones 21 August 2009 I laughed like a drain when I read that MTN Swaziland, the kingdom‘s only provider of cell phone services, claimed that it offered its customers ‗absolute privacy‘ when they made calls. Tebogo Mogapi, MTN chief executive went so far as to say, ‗Bugging of people‘s phones is not happening on the MTN network and it is not possible for someone to bug a phone on our network.‘ Sorry, but bugging a cell phone is comparatively easy and Mogapi must know that. If he doesn‘t he shouldn‘t be chief executive of a phone service provider. If, as I suspect, he does know this why is he trying to mislead his customers? Part of the answer is found in the new Electronics Bill presently making its way through the Swaziland Parliament. The bill would allow Swazi security services to tap phones if it can get a court order. The Swazi Observer, the newspaper in effect owned by King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa‘s last absolute monarch, was at pains to reassure readers their liberties were not under threat.48 It quoted Mogapi saying MTN had ‗streamlined how the police can access information if they were investigating a serious matter‘. However, he said MTN would allow police access, but only if they had a court order. So, not much of a protection there then. The court order is irrelevant. In the modern age, you don‘t need permission to bug someone‘s cell phone; the technology is there for people to do it quite easily. Mogapi, who remember is chief executive of MTN, doesn‘t seem to have heard about this. He told the Observer, ‗We understand that there‘s software available that could go into your number and duplicate messages, but it hasn‘t been demonstrated to me yet.‘ Where has he been hiding? There are numerous accounts of cell phone tapping from across the world. In 2007 a UK newspaper journalist Clive Goodman made international news when he was jailed for reporting the private phone calls of Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles.49

Fury at New Swazi Media Commission Bill 5 May 2010 Even the Swazi Observer, the newspaper in effect owned by King Mswati III, is enraged by the Swazi government‘s latest attempt to muzzle the media.50 48

http://www.observer.org.sz/index.php?news=6734 http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/jan/26/newsoftheworld.pressandpublishing1 50 http://www.observer.org.sz/index.php?news=12825 49

27

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland Cabinet has approved a Media Commission Bill that the newspaper says, ‗seeks to regulate or even censor media practitioners if found to have criticised some operations of the state‘. Three cheers for the Observer in voicing its concern, but it is not alone. Many local media houses feel betrayed because they have been ignored by the government led by Barnabas Dlamini, the illegally-appointed Prime Minister of Swaziland. Dlamini has a long history as an enemy of freedom. The Media Institute of Southern Africa Swaziland Chapter director Comfort Mabuza called the Ministry of Information, Communication and Technology, ‗double-faced‘ because it had not been honest in negotiations with media houses. The government had said negotiations were continuing even though the Cabinet was set to discuss the final Bill. Mabuza said the new Media Commission Bill was similar to oppressive laws of the former apartheid regime in South Africa, ‗where publications were closed at whim and such would draw the eyes of the international community to the country unnecessarily‘. The Secretary of the Swaziland Editors Forum Jabu Matsebula also expressed his dismay over the move. ‗This is nothing but censorship. That journalists must have licences before they could practice is a flagrant disrespect of democratic norms. If they give you the licence, what can stop them from revoking it if you criticise certain actions of the status quo?‘ he said.

28


3. Access To Free Information Right To Know Day 28 September 2007 Today (28 September 2007) is International Right to Know Day and this will be marked by a march and speeches in a hotel in Manzini. The event will be jointly organized by the Media Institute for Southern Africa – Swaziland Chapter (MISA) and the Southern African Journalists Association (SAJA). This year marks the 5th International Right to Know Day, a day which was established to mark the founding on 28 September 2002 of the global Freedom of Information Advocates Network. This is the second year that International Right to Know Day has been marked in Swaziland. The aim of International Right to Know Day is to raise awareness of every individual's right of access to government-held information: the right to know how elected officials are exercising power and how taxpayers‘ money is being spent. Freedom of information advocates have used the day to share ideas, strategies and success stories about the development of freedom of information laws and the goals of open government. Reading the above aim of the International Right to Know Day makes sad reading for us in Swaziland because it reminds us of how far we have to go before we can meet the International Right to Know Day standards. To begin with, of course, we are not a democracy and as subjects of King Mswati III we have no rights to information. The Swazi Constitution that came into force in 2006 allows for freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, but in practice we have none of these things. The media in Swaziland is mostly controlled by the government and the king, through the government, can decide what is broadcast on air and what is not. Freedom of assembly doesn‘t exist. Political parties are banned and it is difficult to form meaningful trade unions. Elections will take place next year, but if they are anything like the last elections that took place in 2003 they will be bogus. Last time around the international community didn‘t even bother to send election observers to Swaziland as monitors to ensure the elections were free and fair: nobody outside Swaziland expected them to be so there was no point. At first glance there is a glimmer of hope on the freedom of information front here in Swaziland. Earlier this year a draft Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Bill was published. This was one of a raft of bills concerning media that was published at the same time. A Commonwealth consultant and Swazi ‗stakeholders‘ met to discuss the finer details of the bill earlier this year. The bill says its first objective is to ‗encourage a culture of openness, transparency and accountability in public bodies by providing for access to information held by these bodies in

29

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland order to enable every citizen to fully exercise and protect their constitutional right of freedom of expression.‘ As I said above this seems a positive move ‗at first glance‘ but if you look more closely you can see how bogus the operation is. To begin with the bill was not created within Swaziland and pays no attention to the dual legal system of formal and traditional laws we have here. In fact, the consultant seems to have taken a look at some bills that already exist in South Africa and copied parts of them out into this new Swazi bill. Calling Swaziland a ‗republic‘ (as in ‗Republic of South Africa‘) as the consultant does at one point in the bill (when as we know Swaziland is an autocratic monarchy) rather gave the game away. The stakeholders‘ meetings that were scheduled to discuss the bill were not successful. At one three-day meeting in March 2007, so few interested parties turned up they spent some time discussing whether to abandon the meeting altogether. Most conspicuous by their absence at the meeting were the traditionalists. One stakeholder even went so far as to say without the traditionalists present the whole meeting was ‗useless‘. In Swaziland nothing will change without the approval of the traditionalists and if you want proof of this just look at the way the implementation of the 2006 constitution has been stalled by them. So, Swaziland has a long way to go. If you want to learn more about freedom of information, here are 10 principles as set out by the Open Society Justice Initiative.

1. Access to information is a right of everyone. Anyone may request information, regardless of nationality or profession. There should be no citizenship requirements and no need to justify why the information is being sought. 2. Access is the rule – secrecy is the exception! All information held by government bodies is public in principle. Information can be withheld only for a narrow set of legitimate reasons set forth in international law and also codified in national law. 3. The right applies to all public bodies The public has a right to receive information in the possession of any institution funded by the public and private bodies performing public functions, such as water and electricity providers. 4. Making requests should be simple, speedy, and free. Making a request should be simple. The only requirements should be to supply a name, address and description of the information sought. Requestors should be able to file requests in writing or orally. Information should be provided immediately or within a short timeframe. The cost should not be greater than the reproduction of documents. 5. Officials have a duty to assist requestors Public officials should assist requestors in making their requests. If a request is submitted to the wrong public body, officials should transfer the request to the appropriate body. 6. Refusals must be justified. Governments may only withhold information from public access if disclosure would cause demonstrable harm to legitimate interests, such as national security or privacy. These exceptions must be clearly and specifically defined by law. Any refusal must clearly state the reasons for withholding the information.

30

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland 7. The public interest takes precedence over secrecy. Information must be released when the public interest outweighs any harm in releasing it. There is a strong presumption that information about threats to the environment, health, or human rights, and information revealing corruption, should be released, given the high public interest in such information. 8. Everyone has the right to appeal an adverse decision. All requestors have the right to a prompt and effective judicial review of a public body’s refusal or failure to disclose information. 9. Public bodies should proactively publish core information. Every public body should make readily available information about its functions and responsibilities, without need for a request. This information should be current, clear, and in plain language.

10. The right should be guaranteed by an independent body. An independent agency, such as an ombudsperson or commissioner, should be established to review refusals, promote awareness, and advance the right to access information.

Swaziland Needs Free Information 13 June 2008 Activists for democracy in Swaziland want to put freedom of information in the kingdom back on the agenda. And they are considering writing their own draft parliamentary bill on the subject if the Swazi Government doesn‘t put forward its own bill. This emerged at the end of a week in which US-based lawyer Kevin Goldberg was in Swaziland advocating for freedom of information. Goldberg, who was invited by the US Embassy in Swaziland, held a series of meetings in the kingdom to talk about the benefits that would come with a freedom of information law. Talks about freedom of information legislation in Swaziland are not new. In 2007 a draft bill was drawn up at the invitation of the Swaziland Government by a consultant sent by the Commonwealth. A stakeholders‘ meeting was held in March 2007 to discuss the bill, but no progress has been made since. I have written before that there is no real commitment to freedom of information by the Swaziland Government.51 Swaziland is not a democracy and the kingdom‘s rulers prefer to tell people as little as they can get away with. The culture in Swaziland is one of deference and generally people do not question those in authority over them, so there has been very little impetus from the grassroots for change. The fact that there has been no progress on freedom of information legislation since March 2007 would come as no surprise to observers of Swaziland. This is a kingdom where those in authority like to pretend to the international community that democratic change is on the way. When the time comes for action, not much happens. You only need to remember that it took about 10 years for the Swaziland Constitution to be written – and even then the Swazi ruling elite had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the drafting table. Once enacted, the ruling elite has largely ignored the provisions of the constitution. 51

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2007/09/right-to-know-day.html

31


At one meeting that I attended with Goldberg and others this week a lot of time was taken up discussing whether the draft that the stakeholders discussed in March 2007 was a ‗bill‘ or merely a ‗consultation paper‘. The fact that the document clearly had ‗BILL‘ written on it did not seem to matter. It probably doesn‘t matter much to you and me either, but in the bureaucratic swamp that is Swaziland such things matter a great deal. There would be a number of benefits to people in Swaziland if the kingdom had freedom of information legislation that required the government to level with the people and tell them what is going on. In the recent past the press in Swaziland – largely the Nation magazine and the Times of Swaziland group – have been pressing to find out information from government. Among the topics that interest them are the scandal over awarding of government tenders, the ‗heifer scandal‘ in which beasts were bought by government at hugely inflated prices, the cost of drugs for hospitals in Swaziland, the costs of the 40/40 celebrations later this year (2008), the expense to the taxpayer of running the Swazi Royal Family, the E30 million (more than US$4 million) that is in the private bank account of an unnamed cabinet minister and the inflated costs of military equipment that is being purchased ahead of the 40/40 celebrations. It is highly unlikely that we shall get to the bottom of these scandals without a freedom of information law. And it is precisely because those in power don‘t want us to know the answers that the government will not truly support such a law. Which brings me back to the democracy activists. Their frustration at the lack of progress by government has forced them to consider writing their own bill and perhaps presenting it to parliament as a private members bill. Some people are already saying this is too difficult a task. I don‘t think so, but to be done successfully there needs to be a change of mindset. The previous ‗bill‘ was foisted on Swaziland by a consultant. She came to the kingdom with the document already written and simply asked ‗stakeholders‘ what they thought about it. Not surprisingly the general answer she got was, ‗not much‘. To be successful the bill must be written from the ground up. We need to find out from all interested parties (not only media houses) what they think needs to be in a freedom of information bill. Only then should a document be written. This requires a fully participatory approach, something that is unheard of in Swaziland where ‗consultation‘ consists of somebody in power saying ‗this is what we are going to do, what do you think about it?‘ At the moment the activists are worried that to bring people together would be difficult and costly to organise. There is probably some truth in this, but if we really want to make some progress on this legislation, this has to be done. As a first step I suggest that all those organisations that are interested in the possibility of a new bill should go out and talk about it. The media houses, NGOs, the US Embassy and others should (in NGO-speak) ‗sensitise their constituencies‘ to the benefits of freedom of information. Once it can be demonstrated that there is genuine interest in getting legislation, I‘m sure a donor organisation can be persuaded to put up the cash.

32


Times of Swaziland Freedom Of Information Fight 26 October 2007 The Times of Swaziland is fighting the kingdom‘s government to find out how much it cost the taxpayer to send the Prime Minister on an all expenses trip to the Bahamas. The Prime Minister went on a trip to receive an award. But before he left nobody, not even the PM himself, knew what the award was for. So, off the PM went with his wife for a luxury holiday. Well, we assume it was a luxury, noexpenses-spared, trip because he is the PM after all. But the problem is, as the Times explained in an editorial on Tuesday (23 October 2007), we cannot be told how much the trip cost because this information is ‗classified‘. This is not the only setback the Times has had in its pursuit of information on behalf of its readers. The Times editorial explains, ‗For months now we have been trying, without success, to get the list of winners for government tenders. ‗The tender board has always been very cooperative in doing the hard part, that of providing us with the tender openings, inclusive of prices. But when it comes to giving us only one company name, suddenly everybody is too engaged to attend to us. ‗Why? Why would the board want us to believe that this is a highly-guarded secret?‘ The answer is obvious, of course. Swaziland is not a democracy and those in ruling positions can do what they like. That‘s why the PM goes half way across the world to the Bahamas to collect an award he knew nothing about. And he does this at the Swazi taxpayers‘ expense because he knows he can get away with it. It‘s the same with the tenders. We know that corruption is rife in Swaziland and it is estimated that it is costing ordinary honest Swazi people E40 million (about US$6 million) each and every month. So will we ever be able to find out what the Swazi Government is spending the Swazi people‘s money on? Earlier this year Parliament issued a draft bill on freedom of information. The first objective of this bill is to ‗Encourage a culture of openness, transparency and accountability in public bodies by providing for access to information held by these bodies in order to enable every citizen to fully exercise and protect their constitutional right of freedom of expression.‘ If such a bill was in place now and people in government respected the bill, the Times could get its information and all of us would be able to find out a lot more about where the money government is entrusted with by the Swazi people is going.

33

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland But, like the Swaziland Constitution (which allows freedom of assembly but bans political parties or public meetings unless the local chief agrees)52, even if the Freedom of Information bill becomes law, the ruling elite will simply ignore it and the ordinary Swazi can go whistle for the information

Unesco, Swaziland And Free Access To Information 8 May 2008 The need for freedom of information is one of the themes of this year‘s World Press Freedom Day that is marked on Saturday (3 May 2008). And nowhere is this more needed than in Swaziland. Swaziland is not a free country and even though the kingdom has a new constitution that enshrines freedom of expression, people are not able to discuss openly many topics. Nor are people able to hold their government to account. One reason for this is that the people are not entitled to get information from government, public bodies and suchlike institutions. The Times of Swaziland53 has tried several times over the past months to force the Swazi government to reveal information about how it awards its contracts. There is a suspicion that the way tenders for goods or services are awarded is not above board. The dreaded C-word ‗Corruption‘ is everywhere to be seen. The Times’ efforts have been rebuffed by the government that believes that information is ‗classified‘. Or to put it in plain language: ‗secret‘. The government doesn‘t want to tell the people what it is doing, because, I suspect to do so would expose that it is corrupt, but also expose the general incompetence of government that many people suspect lies at the heart of Swaziland‘s many problems. In 2007, the Swazi Parliament issued a draft bill on freedom of information. The first objective of this bill is to ‗Encourage a culture of openness, transparency and accountability in public bodies by providing for access to information held by these bodies in order to enable every citizen to fully exercise and protect their constitutional right of freedom of expression.‘ There are, however, major flaws with the draft bill. One is that it doesn‘t require governments to disclose information as a matter of routine. Instead, it wants people who seek information to jump through a number of hoops before the information will be released. This is not only time consuming, it is costly. The effect of the bill if it became law would be to in theory make information available, but in practice it would make very little difference because people would find it nearly impossible to get at the information because of the huge bureaucratic wall that will be built to stop them. I notice that there has been very little public discussion on the draft bill since a stakeholders‘ workshop took place in March 2007 – more than a year ago. I suspect like so many ‗reforms‘ in Swaziland, this one has been quietly shelved because the ruling elite don‘t really have a commitment to it. Who knows it may never see the light of day again. 52 53

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2007/10/swazi-constitution-is-useless.html http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2007/10/freedom-of-information-fight.html

34


In Swaziland it is easy to bury unwanted change. Remember, the Swazi Constitution took 10 years to write so that in the end the traditionalists got their way and no real change has been forthcoming. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (Unesco) which drives the World Press Freedom Day has published some ‗background‘ information on the main issues of the event. This is what Unesco says about access to information. Access to information Information can change the way we see the world around us, our place in it, and how to adjust our lives in order to maximize the benefits available through our local resources. Fact driven decision-making can significantly alter our political, social and economic perspectives. The right to access information can be interpreted within the legal frameworks that support Freedom of Information as it applies to information held by public bodies, or in a wider sense to encompass both access and circulation of information held by other actors, where it becomes intrinsically linked to Freedom of Expression. Freedom of Information and the transparency it promotes, has a direct consequence on fighting corruption, which in turn has a tangible impact on development. Former World Bank president James Wolfensohn often identified government corruption as the primary hindrance to development and an independent media sector as the number one tool to fight public corruption. The Basis of informed decision-making Information is power. Freedom of Information and Freedom of Expression work against the concentration of information within the hands of a few. Of course, all information is subject to interpretation. For this reason, the clearinghouse function of an open and pluralistic media sector is critical to a better understanding of any issue. In terms of encouraging the empowerment of citizens, Freedom Of Information is at the heart of a participatory democracy. Consider the consequences of an uninformed electorate going to the polls; consider the consequences when information flows are curbed or manipulated in times of political crisis or ethnic strife. Freedom of Information promotes a true sense of ownership within society and therefore gives meaning to the concept of citizenship. The practicalities of access Freedom of Information does not guarantee access. Even if governments were to become models of disclosure through e-governance by putting their information online, without a means to access that information people would not be more empowered. Internet connectivity and IT resources have become crucial to unhindered access to information. This is also true for accessing national or international news or even simply to provide a plurality of media options. If the absence of connectivity or equipment can highlight the digital divide and the ensuing knowledge gap that separates developing and developed countries, groups within a country can also become further marginalized by their inability to access information on the Internet. We must not underestimate the importance of access to technologies and infrastructure,

35

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland which are still cruelly lacking in many parts of the world. What can the concepts of ―digital revolution‖ or ―information society‖ effectively mean to 80% of the world‘s population who still have no access to basic telecommunication facilities, or to approximately 860 million illiterate individuals, or to the 2 billion inhabitants of the planet who still have no electricity? The priority given to narrowing the digital divide in every respect is therefore fully justified. Learning to use new technologies or, in other words, building media and information literacy must be a primary objective as these advancements are coming in the area of information access and sharing. Conclusion Ensuring freedom for the media around the world is a priority. Independent, free and pluralistic media are central to good governance in democracies that are young and old. Free media can ensure transparency, accountability and the rule of law; they promote participation in public and political discourse, and contribute to the fight against poverty. An independent media sector draws its power from the community it serves and in return empowers that community to be full a partner in the democratic process. Freedom of Information and Freedom of Expression are the founding principles for open and informed debate. New technology will continue to evolve and allow citizens to further shape their media environments as well as access a plurality of sources. The combination of access to information and citizen participation in media can only contribute to an increased sense of ownership and empowerment. .

36


4. History Of State Attacks On Press Swaziland Police Raid Nation Magazine 29 November 2007 When I reported last week that the Times of Swaziland had been threatened with closure earlier this year unless it retracted a story it had published about King Mswati III, it reminded us all that free speech is not allowed in Swaziland (no matter what the Constitution says).54 Newspapers and magazines have been attacked by the ruling powers in Swaziland before and the police forces (acting on their behalf) take no notice if the courts rule against them. Here‘s a little history lesson, courtesy of Afrol news agency55 – the same agency that supplied the report about King Mswati III that sparked the problem at the Times this year. In May 2001, Afrol reported how Swaziland police raided the kingdom‘s only independent news magazine, the Nation, in defiance of the country's High Court. The Nation, which had been banned by the government earlier that month, had received the court's approval to return to publishing. Afrol reported, ‗The uniformed policemen insisted that the outspoken magazine was still technically banned and said they had instructions to confiscate all copies of its June edition. Policemen also reportedly confiscated over 5,000 copies of the publication from street vendors in the capital Mbabane and other major centres such as Manzini and Piggs Peak.‘ Afrol added, ‗The Nation is one of two independent publications banned by Swaziland Public Service and Information Minister Mtonzima Dlamini on World Press Freedom Day on May 3 in an apparent clampdown on journalists critical of the kingdom‘s monarchist system of government. ‗Dlamini banned the Nation and weekly newspaper Swazi Guardian in an extraordinary gazette, citing Section 3 of the Proscribed Publications Act of 1968, which gives his office unlimited powers to ban or suspend publications that do not conform with ―Swazi morality and ideals‖.‘ Afrol reported, ‗Both the Guardian and the Nation are known to support the multi-party democracy movement and have both been critical of King Mswati III‘s decision to govern by decree. All political parties have been banned in Swaziland since the suspension of the kingdom's constitution in 1973. ‗Mswati‘s handpicked Parliament has also recently demanded that a proposed Media Council Bill be tabled for adoption. The Media Bill was deferred five years ago following international condemnation for allegedly seeking to gag and control journalists by requiring them to register with a government controlled media council.‘

54 55

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2007/11/closure-threat-to-times.html http://www.afrol.com/News2001/swa004_nation_raided.html

37

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland In a later report56 Afrol gave more details of the manner in which the banning was implemented. ‗The initial banning, published in Extraordinary Government Gazette 63, sparked police blockades and raids against retail outlets selling the publications,‘ Afrol reported. ‗Nation editor Bheki Makhubu confirmed that uniformed policemen raided his offices on Tuesday evening and attempted to confiscate all copies of the magazine‘s June edition. Police also reportedly harassed magazine vendors and retailers in Mbabane and the commercial city of Manzini, before confiscating early copies of the magazine.‘ The banning saw police impounded the Guardian as its delivery trucks crossed into Swaziland from its printers in South Africa. Afrol continued, ‗The Guardian has meanwhile ceased publication of its weekly newspaper, but is updating its daily Internet with details of its struggle for media freedom. Both the Guardian and the Nation are known to support Swaziland's banned multi-party democracy movement and have both been critical of King Mswati III's decision to govern by royal decree.‘ In an earlier report57 Afrol told how police had arrested the Guardian’s editor, Thulani Mthethwa, and drove him to police headquarters in Mbabane where he was interrogated at length over stories in his newspaper about activities in King Mswati III's palace. He was released after several hours. The Guardian had reported on King Mswati III's health, as well as on rumours that he was poisoned by his first wife. The Guardian had earlier published a photograph of the queen crying at the Mbabane airport as she prepared to board a plane for London, allegedly because King Mswati III had expelled her from the royal palace. The claims58 were that Queen Mngomezulu was ‗driven to the Lozitha Palace and questioned about her role in the suspected food poisoning‘ of King Mswati III. Palace insiders had said ‗that Mswati complained of stomach cramps immediately after eating a special breakfast prepared by Mngomezulu‘. Afrol went on to report that senior journalists at both publications had previously been detained and questioned by police, who demanded that they reveal their sources on reports critical of the kingdom's ban on free political activity. King’s Own Newspaper Closed Down 30 November 2007 Censorship in Swaziland has a long and rich history. Yesterday, I wrote about how two independent voices were silenced after they upset the ruling elite.

56

http://www.afrol.com/News2001/swa005_ban_papers2.html http://www.afrol.com/News2001/swa003_ban_condemned.htm 58 http://www.afrol.com/News2001/swa001_poison_queen.htm 57

38

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland Today, here‘s a reminder that even the king‘s own newspaper is not immune from victimisation. The Swazi Observer was closed in 2000 after it published a series of stories critical of the then Prime Minister and the Police Commissioner. Mandla Magagula, writing in the Nation magazine in April 2000, said, ‗The events which led to the sudden closure of the Swazi Observer tell a tale of high drama which could easily have come from a movie script. As the newspaper tried to live up to the principles of good journalism, political figures came down on the editorial team like the wrath of God and when they reached a deadlock closed it down.‘ According to Magagula, the main characters in the drama were the then Swaziland Prime Minister, Sibusiso Dlamini; the Commissioner of Police, Edgar Hillary; the managing director of Tibiyo Taka Ngwane (the company effectively owned by the Swazi King, which publishes the Observer), A. T. Dlamini; and the Attorney General, Phesheya Dlamini. (Observant readers will note there are a lot of Dlaminis in that cast of characters. In Swaziland, the Dlamini dynasty is the ruing elite. It is impossible to become Prime Minister in Swaziland if you are not a Dlamini. A. T. Dlamini, in 2000 the managing director of Tibiyo, is the present Prime Minister.) But I digress. The problem for the Observer started when the newspaper‘s managing editor and his reporters refused to divulge the sources for stories the Observer had published. The first was when the newspaper carried a story about the bombings of the Deputy Prime Minister‘s office and the Mahlanya Inkhundla, saying that police were poised for a breakthrough arrest. When the story appeared the police commissioner claimed the Observer had interfered with a police investigation. The second was a report based on a letter written by Edgar Hillary who was seeking the assistance of the South African Special Police Squad in the investigation of a millionaire from Manzini, who was on the run in South Africa. The International Press Institute (IPI) at the time reported, ‗On the day the article appeared, [the managing editor] was summoned to Hillary‘s offices where the journalist was once again reprimanded for the article and asked again to reveal his source. ‗The following day, [the managing editor] was summoned yet again to Hillary‘s office for a meeting with Hillary and two other policemen. Speaking to MISA-Swaziland, [the managing editor] said that the second meeting amounted to a mini court session. He was called names such as a ―bullying‖ and ―irresponsible‖ journalist and was warned not to write any ―rubbish‖ that could be published at a later date. He was also asked for the letter and for him to reveal his source, which he declined to do. At the end of the meeting he was warned that he could face criminal charges or face a High Court order because of his actions and his refusal to disclose his source. ‗[The managing editor] along with his news editor were summoned to the offices of the Attorney General, where they were once again pressured to give in to the demands of the police commissioner. The two were again asked to hand over the letter in question.‘

39

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland The third story was when the Observer called the Prime Minister ‗a liar‘ after he said he had left the Foreign Affairs and Trade Minister out of a delegation to open the new embassy of the Republic of China because government had no money. The Observer discovered that China had funded the trip. The fourth was a story about cow dung that involved the Speaker of the House of Assembly. The fifth was a story that an influential millionaire had plotted to have the prime Minister sacked. The Swazi High Court turned down an urgent appeal from the Attorney General to force the newspaper to divulge its sources. Magagula reported that the ‗Attorney General personally went to Observer House [the offices of the Observer] and delivered the documents relating to the application with the dire warning that the newspaper would either divulge its sources or [the managing editor] and his two reporters would be locked up.‘ A source told Magagula, ‗The Attorney General was all pomp and majesty until [the managing editor] brought him back to earth with the warning that this brazen harassment could attract unpleasant international repercussions. The AG stormed out of the newspaper offices without another word.‘ After the police commissioner, Edgar Hillary had failed to get the newspaper to disclose his sources, A. T. Dlamini, the managing director of Tibiyo intervened on behalf of Hillary. According to Magagula, the role of A. T. Dlamini ‗is particularly reprehensible because he showed himself to be a double-talker‘. He had previously encouraged staff at the Observer to report ‗without fear or favour because he believed in editorial independence. But here he was harassing his top editorial executive.‘ When the journalists refused to divulge their sources, King Mswati III was consulted and, according to Magagula, he was ‗seemingly persuaded that the only way out of the quagmire was to close the newspaper‘. The IPI reported at the time, ‗The board of directors of the entire Swazi Observer group of papers announced on 17 February that the paper was being shut down. Chairman of the Board Timothy Nhleko called in the entire staff and in a one-minute address announced that the paper was being closed immediately and that everyone should vacate the premises. ‗In a written statement, the management said the closure was due to restructuring and financial reorganisation. However, MISA sources said that at a strategic planning meeting sponsored by the board and shareholders in the previous week, a five-year plan had been drawn up for the paper. According to the source, there was no indication of financial difficulties at the paper. Reliable sources in Swaziland claim that the order to close the newspaper came verbally from the King.‘

40


5. Harassment and Threats ‘Disrespect The Swazi King And You Die’, Warns Traditional Prime Minister 16 June 2008 Swaziland‘s traditional prime minister has called for a Swazi journalist to face serious punishment or even death for writing an article that was ‗disrespectful‘ to King Mswati III. Jim Gama said a report published in a newspaper (it was the Times of Swaziland but he never said this out loud) about the financial cost to the kingdom of holding a three-day ‗people‘s parliament‘ had been ‗very disrespectful to royalty and the king‘. The Times Sunday reported yesterday (15 June 2008) that Gama told a crowd at the ‗people‘s parliament‘ that he was disgusted at the way the story was handled. According to the Times Sunday, Gama said, ‗Whoever wrote the report should be punished using ―umphini‖ which in Swazi terms means a serious punishment or even death‘. Gama is the Ludzidzini governor and is recognised in Swaziland as the leader of the traditionalists in the kingdom. His word carries more weight in Swaziland than that of the official Prime Minister, Themba Dlamini. The Times Sunday reported Gama saying, ‗Your Majesty, you gave them [the media] the freedom to write and with that freedom they are disrespecting you.‘ Gama went on to say that the newspapers should have reported that the ‗people‘s parliament‘ was filled to the brim ‗and that Swazis loved their king instead of writing negative reports‘. The day before publication a reporter from the Times of Swaziland telephoned me to ask for my comment on Gama‘s statement. I said that the Swazi press should not let Gama intimidate them and the duty of the media was to support the people of Swaziland and not the ruling elite. None of this appeared in the paper and who can be surprised when Gama holds the threat of death over the heads of journalists? The report that so offended Gama appeared in the Times of Swaziland (13 June2008) and said that the cost of the three-day ‗people‘s parliament‘ would be E15 million (just over US$2 million). The newspaper also reported that people at the parliament said they were fed up with government corruption. The Times Sunday (15 June 2008) ran an apology saying that the story about the E15 million budget ‗gave the impression that the expenses for the People‘s Parliament would cost E15m. This is not the case, and we would like to apologise to all those who might have been misled. The article, however was correct.‘ How‘s that for a non-apology apology? Do you think there was some arm-twisting going on?

41


Police Harass Swazi Journalists At Border Blockade 28 October 2008 South African police harassed Swazi journalists as they tried to cover a boycott of goods coming into Swaziland. According to today‘s Swazi Observer59 (28 October 2008), the police were ‗heavily armed and uncompromising‘. Journalists from the newspaper were at the Ngwenya border post to observer the first day of a week-long boycott on the transportation of goods from South Africa to Swaziland. The newspaper reported that police on the South African side of the border objected to being photographed. ‗They demanded answers from the photographer as to why he was taking their pictures,‘ the Observer said. Explanations by the pressmen fell on deaf ears as the cops claimed that only South African journalists are allowed to take pictures in SA. The Observer continued, ‗―You are a Swazi and you should take picture on the Swaziland side, not here. Why are you taking our pictures wena Mswazi? Do you know that you can get into some serious trouble for taking our pictures? Only South African journalists are supposed to take our pictures?‖ roared one of the cops, with 10 others nodding in approval.‘ The questioning was undertaken next to a police caspir fully loaded with other officers. One of the officers then forcefully grabbed this newspaper's digital camera and threatened to take it away. However, after several pleas, the Observer said, the seemingly uncompromising cops demanded that all pictures of them be deleted before the camera could be handed back. The pictures were deleted and that was when the photo-journalist was released and told to return to the Swazi side without taking any pictures on the South African side.

Swazi Journalist Attacked With Knife 6 January 2009 A Swazi journalist was attacked and cut with a knife by a man who was angry about something that had been written about him in a newspaper. Ackel Zwane, news editor at the Swazi Observer, was attacked while he was out shopping.

59

http://www.observer.org.sz/main.php?id=48070§ion=main

42

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland According to the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA), Zwane was verbally abused, punched three times in the face and cut with a knife. Zwane said as the man charged at him he shouted obscenities about the news editor for writing negatively about his father. Zwane escaped with a cut above the ear. The journalist was pelted with stones as onlookers helped him into a car. MISA Swaziland issued a statement60 condemning the attack on the journalist and has been giving support to Zwane.

Swazi Traditional Authorities Threaten Journalist 17 July 2009 Journalists working for the Swazi Observer, the newspaper in effect owned by King Mswati III, are being harassed by traditional authorities after reporting that the son of one of the king‘s advisors had been arrested on assault and damage charges. The story involves Bishop Nash Shongwe who is a member of King Mswati‘s advisory committee Liqoqo, also known as the Swazi National Council (SNC). The Observer reported61 that the bishop‘s son Sikhumbuzo had been arrested following an incident at a club in which he allegedly attacked patrons‘ cars with a bush-knife and assaulted some of them. He is charged with two counts of malicious damage to property and assault. Sikhumbuzo is also awaiting trial62 for allegedly assaulting63 Observer news editor Ackel Zwane, in December 2008. In January 2009 the Swazi News reported that Sikhumbuzo had been arrested for assaulting his wife with a bottle causing a wound that needed seven stitches. The Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) Swaziland Chapter reports that following the publication of the most recent story, ‗One journalist who declined to be identified for fear of victimization‘ told MISA that they have received ‗disturbing‘ calls from traditional authorities ‗who have warned them against the continued publication of stories about the bishop‘s son‘. MISA says it is thought the bishop might have complained to the traditional authorities against the newspaper, which is owned by the King, to influence the censoring of the newspaper. ‗Soon after the stories, we received calls, mostly from members of the SNC, warning us against further publishing of the stories about the bishop‘s son,‘ MISA reports the journalist saying. 60

http://allafrica.com/stories/200901060134.html http://www.observer.org.sz/index.php?news=5577 62 http://www.observer.org.sz/index.php?news=2297 63 http://allafrica.com/stories/200901060134.html 61

43


‗We are not happy. The traditional authorities have no right to censor us on stories which are of public interest. Moreover, this man has proved to be a public nuisance and does not deserve to be protected,‘ he added. Prison Wardens in ‘Worst Violence Against Journalists 24 September 2009 Journalists from two of Swaziland‘s newspapers were attacked and assaulted by prison warders in what is being described as one of the worst incidents of violence against journalists in the kingdom. Four journalists from the Swazi Observer, the newspaper in effect owned by King Mswati III, and the Times of Swaziland, the kingdom‘s only independent daily newspaper, were ‗attacked and assaulted by a battalion of Correctional Services warder recruits as they covered a political demonstration,‘ according to the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA). MISA reports the journalists ‗were not only assaulted but also had their cameras taken and destroyed in one of the worst incidents of violence against journalists in Swaziland‘. MISA cites a report in the Observer64 newspaper that said a battalion of about 200 warder recruits pounced on the journalists, assaulted them, pulled a female journalist by the hair and confiscated the cameras. The officers then tried to delete the photos from the cameras and when they failed they then destroyed the expensive gadgets. This was during a political demonstration in which members of the banned Peoples United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO) celebrated the acquittal of their President, Mario Masuku, who had earlier on in the day appeared in the High Court on charges of terrorism.65 During the incident, PUDEMO activists were also heavily assaulted by the warders and the President of the party‘s youth wing Wandile Dludlu was severely assaulted and had to be admitted in hospital.66 The MISA Swaziland chapter has condemned the attack and assault of the journalists and has called on authorities to investigate the matter with a view of taking action against the offending officers. ‗Attacking and assaulting journalists is not only a criminal offence but is also serious media violation that constitutes an attack on press freedom,‘ MISA said in a statement. ‘Murder Journalists’, Say Pastors 10 March 2010 A group of Christian leaders in Swaziland have hired a ‗hitman‘ to murder journalists who exposed them as devil worshippers. 64

http://www.observer.org.sz/index.php?news=7522 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/09/swazi-state-stands-humiliated.html 66 http://www.observer.org.sz/index.php?news=7522 65

44


Three reporters have been targeted because they reported that a group of pastors had been worshipping the devil as a way to raise money. According to a media report in Swaziland, the pastors have ‗enlisted the services of hitmen from South Africa to eliminate three journalists who apparently blew the whistle on them‘. The journalists are reported to be Channel Swazi News Editor Mhlonishwa Motsa, Ingwazi News Editor Lucky Ndzimandze and reporter Zweli Dlamini, also from Ingwazi. According to the Weekend Observer,67 the a newspaper in effect owned by King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa‘s last absolute monarch, the pastors were exposed on a talk show broadcast on Channel S. The newspaper reports that the pastors ‗met behind closed doors‘ and they decided ‗that the journalists be assassinated for ―meddling into our business‖‘. This is not the first time Christian leaders in Swaziland have called for journalists they do not like to die. In 2007 Pastor Justice Dlamini, a well known pastor and media figure, said he was praying for the death of two journalists from the Times of Swaziland after that newspaper published a report about Dlamini and an argument he had with another pastor about a clapped out car owned by Dlamini‘s church.68 I am happy to report that Pastor Justice‘s prayers did not work and he just made a complete fool of himself. I hope this latest case of Pastor Power proves to be just as ridiculous.

Swazi Court Forces Journalist To Hand Over Photographs 11 May 2010 A journalist with the Times of Swaziland, the kingdom‘s only independent daily newspaper, was forced to hand over photographs he had taken at the scene of an alleged attempted murder to the High Court - if he failed to turn up he was warned he could get three months jail time with hard labour Musa Nhleko went to the court and handed over his photographs. He was later ordered back to the court where further evidence was collected from him. The Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) has condemned the court‘s action calling it ‗harassment‘.69 MISA says when journalists write stories, they write not to be accountable to the courts, but as a professional obligation and in the public interest. Any material the journalist uses as a source of information cannot be collected from them by force. 67

http://www.observer.org.sz/index.php?news=11700 http://barthsnotes.wordpress.com/2007/03/08/swazi-pastor-wants-journalists-dead/ 69 http://en.afrik.com/article17422.html 68

45

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland ‗The action by the court will pose threats to the operation of journalists and freedom of expression in case a trend emerges where journalists would be compelled to reveal the proofs and sources of their stories,‘ MISA says.

Swazi Prince Death Threat To Reporters 23 July 2010 Another member of Swaziland‘s ruling elite has said journalists face death if they continue to criticise the kingdom‘s leadership. Prince Mahlaba, a member, Liqoqo, a shady body that advises King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch, said some sections of the media were trying to undermine the kingdom’s system of governance. According to the Times of Swaziland, the kingdom’s only independent daily newspaper, Prince Mahlaba, told a meeting of the Smart Partnership that he thought there were ‘clandestine manoeuvres in the media that sought to undermine the country‘s leadership and system of governance and said that for prolonged periods of time he has been silent, hoping that people would come to their senses and stop the wrong they were doing.‘ The Times quoted Prince Mahlaba saying, ‘It‘s a fact that journalists earn their living by writing lies and if they do not write the lies then their source of livelihood is threatened and this is fact and beyond debate.‘ He added, ‗I want to warn the media to bury things that have the potential of undermining the country, rather than publish all and everything even when such reports are harmful to the country‘s international image. ‗Journalists who write bad things about the country will die.‘ Prince Mahlaba is not the only member of Swaziland’s ruling elite to threaten journalists with death. In June 2008, Jim Gama, the ‘traditional prime minister’ of Swaziland (who has more real influence in the kingdom than Barnabas Dlamini, the man King Mswati illegally appointed70 as the official prime minister) said that a journalist who had written a report critical of King Mswati should face serious punishment, including death.71 ‘Death Threat’ Prince Condemned 24 July 2010 Media freedom advocates in Swaziland have called on Prince Mahlaba to be censured after he said journalists who criticise the Swazi elite will die.72 The Media Institute of Southern Africa Swaziland Chapter (MISA)73 has called on Barnabas Dlamini, the kingdom‘s illegally-appointed Prime Minister, to call Prince Mahlaba to order. 70

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2008/10/swazi-king-appoints-illegal-pm.html http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2008/06/disrespect-swazi-king-and-die-trad-pm.html 72 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2010/07/elite-death-threat-to-reporters.html 71

46

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland MISA strongly condemned the threat from the prince and now calls on him to publicly withdraw it. MISA said the prince‘s statement at the Smart Partnership meeting this week was ‗not only dangerous and uncalled for, but also completely out of place and seriously undermines press freedom. ‗Coming from a prince and a senior advisor to the King, the threat has the potential to intimidate the media and instil further fear in the newsrooms. Already the Swazi media is operating under a hostile environment characterized by imposed and self-censorship. Such statements by the prince only worsen the situation.‘ MISA is demanding that the Prime Minister publicly call the prince to order ‗as his statement not only instigates violence against journalists but is also against the spirit of the constitution which encourages freedom of expression and the media‘. CPJ Attacks ‘Death Threat’ Prince 27 July 2010 World opinion continues to turn against King Mswati III‘s regime. The latest organisation to condemn the lack of press freedom in Swaziland is the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) which yesterday (26 July 2010) attacked74 Prince Mahlaba, the brother of King Mswati, sub-Saharan Africa‘s last absolute monarch, for threatening with death journalists who reported critically about Swaziland‘s ruling elite.75 CPJ has rallied behind the media in Swaziland, most of which is either state-controlled or in effect owned by King Mswati. CPJ reported Mbongeni Mbingo, managing editor of the Times of Swaziland, the kingdom‘s only independent daily newspaper, saying the threats were ‗dangerous‘ and could not be taken lightly since the prince was a member of a highly influential royal advisory council, Liqoqo (also known as the Swaziland National Council – SNC). Comfort Mabuza, the National Director of the Swaziland chapter of the Media Institute of Southern Africa condemned the threats and feared they could incite the public against the journalists. ‗We are in big trouble because his view may be representing that of SNC, which advises the king,‘ Mabuza told CPJ. ‗The council is yet to call him to order and we are really concerned about their continued silence.‘ CPJ Africa Advocacy Coordinator Mohamed Keita said, ‗The government of Swaziland must immediately reject the death threats against journalists by a leading member of the ruling family.‘

73

http://appablog.wordpress.com/2010/07/23/swazi-journalists-threatened-with-death/ http://cpj.org/2010/07/swazi-prince-threatens-journalists-who-write-bad-t.php 75 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2010/07/elite-death-threat-to-reporters.html 74

47

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland He said. ‗We call on the government to issue a clear and unequivocal statement condemning this murderous outburst and ensuring the international community that Swaziland is committed to the protection of all journalists.‘ Prince Mahlaba had told a meeting of the Smart Partnership, ‗I want to warn the media to bury things that have the potential of undermining the country rather than publish all and everything even when such reports are harmful to the country's international image. Journalists who continue to write bad things about the country will die.‘ Swazi Prince Condemns ‘Lying Media’ 16 August 2010 Prince Mahlaba, who received worldwide condemnation with his statement that journalists who criticise the Swaziland state should die, has once again called journalists liars. Prince Mahlaba, a brother of King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa‘s last absolute monarch, and member of the shady group Liqoqo that advises the king, says that he never made a death threat and journalist are lying about him. The death threat statement was made in public at the so-called Smart Partnership public gathering last month (July 2010). Then he was reported saying, ‗I want to warn the media to bury things that have the potential of undermining the country, rather than publish all and everything even when such reports are harmful to the country‘s international image. ‗Journalists who write bad things about the country will die.‘ He also said at the time, ‘It‘s a fact that journalists earn their living by writing lies and if they do not write the lies then their source of livelihood is threatened and this is fact and beyond debate.‘ Now, in an interview with the Weekend Observer,76 a newspaper in effect owned by King Mswati, he says he never made a death threat against journalists and those who say that he did, wrote ‗nothing but lies‘. He went on, ‗Is it then not true that reporters tell lies in order to earn a living? They changed my story.‘ There were many journalists and members of the public present when the prince made his original statement, but none of them have come forward to say he was misquoted, even though his remarks gained international attention and he was roundly condemned for making them.77 Prince Mahlaba wondered why journalists who were present have not disputed the lies that he said journalists would die. Now, he wants the Swaziland nation to defend him. 76 77

http://www.observer.org.sz/index.php?news=15408 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2010/07/cpj-attacks-death-threat-prince.html

48


Over to you Swazi nation. Dlamini said he heard gun shots and later realised that police were shooting tear gas at some protesters who gathered close to the taxi rank. He said that they would continue protests until a democratic dispensation is installed in Swaziland.

49


6. Political Repression Danger: Censors At Work 12 October 2007 Swaziland‘s government wants to choose which journalists should be allowed to cover proceedings in Parliament and which should not. The move follows criticism that the editor of the Times Sunday was ignorant of Parliamentary procedures. The decision to require journalists who cover Parliament to be accredited was announced as part of a House of Assembly Select Committee report into the behaviour of Mbongeni Mbingo. Mbingo was charged with contempt of parliament following an article criticising the House Speaker that Mbingo wrote in the Times Sunday newspaper. In its report published this week the Select Committee found Mbingo not guilty of contempt of Parliament and in an unprecedented move, confirmed his right to freedom of speech. But the committee found that Mbingo lacked basic understanding of Parliamentary practice and procedure. The committee also said he had failed to observe journalism ethics of objectivity and accuracy. The committee further recommended that journalists should attend workshops on the importance of ethics in journalism. We should applaud the committee for seeing sense in dismissing charges of contempt against Mbingo and regular readers of this blog will know that the Swazi media continually fails to uphold journalism ethics, so it is difficult to argue against the committee‘s recommendation for a workshop. We should, however, be suspicious of the motives behind accreditation of journalists who cover Parliament. What accreditation means is that only some journalists will be allowed to observe and report on what goes on in Parliament. The Swazi government (or its representatives) will decide who is and who is not allowed into Parliament. It also means they can decide to withdraw accreditation from anyone whose reporting upsets them. We should remember that the Select Committee sat and judged Mbingo because MPs were angry about what he had written. If accreditation had been in place the angry MPs could have found it easier to punish him. They simply had to remove his accreditation and he could no longer do his job. It could also mean that journalists who cover Parliament would be intimidated against reporting critical stories for fear of losing accreditation and maybe their jobs as a result.

50


The decision by the Select Committee comes after it accused Mbingo of being ignorant of Parliamentary procedures. Does it mean that now journalists will need to take a test set by the government before they are allowed to report on Parliament? The committee said mechanisms to accredit journalists should be put in place within eight weeks. There is still time to mount a protest to get the decision overturned. Swaziland ‘Shames Africa’ 21 November 2007 Swaziland shames the rest of Africa when it comes to violating the rights of journalists. That was the first public declaration made by a new African journalist‘ organisation formed this month (November 2007). The Federation of African Journalists was launched at a congress in Abuja, Nigeria, on the theme of Building a Strong and United Voice for African Journalists. Participants from 20 countries in Africa attended the congress. The Federation‘s first public statement78 was to issue a strong protest over African governments that jail journalists and encourage a culture of impunity by failing to investigate violent attacks on media staff. ‗These governments shame Africa and make a mockery of commitments to pluralism and democracy,‘ said the Federation, in a media statement issued on 15 November 2007. The Federation called on the African Union and the United Nations Human Rights Commissioners to investigate, expose, and take appropriate action against states violating the fundamental rights of the people of Africa. In particular, the Federation called on the African Union to investigate the actions of Swaziland and other governments including Somalia, Mali, Burkina Faso, Democratic Republic of Congo, Guinea Bissau, Senegal, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, Niger, Gambia, Tunisia and Egypt where there have been credible reports of serious violations of journalists‘ rights. The Federation of African Journalists is part of the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ), which represents more than 600,000 journalists in 120 countries worldwide. Jim Boumelha, IFJ President, who was present at the conference hosted by the Nigeria National Union of Journalists, the continent‘s largest journalists‘ group, said, ‗Journalists are angry at the way governments and authorities abuse media. They are determined to fight for their rights and they want a single, unified Federation that will speak for all African journalists and that will ensure actions to support African journalism are led and driven by African journalists themselves.‘

78

http://www.ifj.org/default.asp?Index=5505&Language=EN

51

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland Swaziland Election Board Bans Reporters 13 April 2008 Journalists were banned from a meeting held by the Swaziland Elections and Boundaries Commission (EBC) because its chairman doesn‘t like the way the media are reporting its activities. Police, including at least one from the intelligence branch, were called to eject any reporters who tried to get into the meeting. In another twist in the long-running controversy over the way members of the EBC were chosen and the Commission‘s activities since then, the announcement of the date of the election has been postponed. Chief Gija Dlamini told the Times Sunday today (13 April 2008) that the reason the meeting was held behind closed doors was because ‗the media had failed to report truthfully about their previous meeting at Siteki‘.79 The Times Sunday reported that the meeting at a hotel was with traditional leaders from the Hhohho Region of Swaziland and was part of ongoing ‗civic education‘ being undertaken by the EBC. The Times Sunday reported that more than 40 chiefs from different areas of the region ‗were given the special privilege of meeting the EBC behind closed doors and protected by the presence of the police. ‗Police officers, who were deployed at the hotel, were told that journalists were not welcome to cover the meeting.‘ The Times Sunday continued, ‗Apparently, Chief Gija was not happy with one of the dailies [Swazi Observer] after it quoted him saying political parties were not allowed in the upcoming elections. ‗He said they were now careful with who participates in these meetings as they do not want to expose themselves to ―manufactured‖ stories in the media.‘ The Times Sunday reported that the EBC had already met privately with chiefs in other regions of Swaziland. Dlamini went on (unwittingly, I suspect) to admit that not all people in Swaziland were to be afforded the same opportunities to learn about the election. Chiefs were to be given special privileges. The Times Sunday reported, ‗Chief Gija said their meeting with the Chiefs was meant to respect traditional protocols before they can start the process of civic education to the ordinary masses.

79

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2008/04/parties-banned-from-swazi-election.html

52

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland ―You will know that Swazi culture dictates that we respect chiefs as heads of communities and we could not therefore be seen to be doing something without the knowledge of the chiefs,‖ Gija said.‘ The Times Sunday in an editorial comment said, ‗By holding such secret meetings, for a process that determines who will govern us for the next five years, the EBC has compromised the transparency that should encompass such an important election process. ‗To cut a long story short, the Commission has indicted to all that the elections, or selection, will not be independent.‘ The EBC is under attack on several fronts at the moment. During the past week it was announced that civic organisations are going to court to get the appointment of the EBC members ruled unconstitutional. The Swazi Constitution states that members should be judges, but none of the people appointed are. The chairman himself is variously described in the media as an ‗electrician‘ or ‗an electrical engineer.‘ Whatever his formal job title is one thing is for sure: he has no legal training. Following Chief Gija‘s statement that political parties remain banned, the African Union Democratic Party announced it had petitioned the Swaziland House of Assembly to make a law allowing political parties to operate. According to a report in the Swazi Observer (10 April 2008), ‗The petition alternatively states that the House of Assembly should amend provisions of the Constitution which prohibit political parties from standing for local and or general elections and from managing and directing public affairs at government level.‘ Meanwhile, there is mystery about the actual date of the election. Recently, Chief Gija called a press conference to say that a date would be announced last week.80 The date for the announcement has come and gone but we still do not know when the election will be held.

Election Ban On Swazi Journalists 3 July 2008 Journalists in Swaziland have been illegally stopped from reporting on the kingdom‘s national election. News is emerging of widespread intimidation and harassment of reporters as they tried to cover the election registration process that ended this week. The Elections and Boundaries Commission (EBC), which is running the voting process, has ordered journalists to present identification when covering the election. The EBC, which has no legal powers to make the order, says it wants to be able to tell the real journalists from the ‗fakes‘. Just what a ‗fake‘ journalist is not explained. In fact, what seems to be happening is that the EBC wants to control who is allowed to report and who is not. 80

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2008/04/swazi-election-like-alice-in-wonderland.html

53


The EBC has been under mounting criticism for its running of the election. There is still a High Court case pending to determine whether the EBC board members were appointed legally. There is increasing concern that EBC chair, Chief Gija Dlamini is unqualified for the job. The Swazi Constitution states that the EBC chair should be a senior judge, whereas Chief Gija is variously described as ‗an electrician‘ or ‗an electrical engineer‘. The Nation magazine reports this month (July 2008) that for the first time in history journalists covering elections have been told to carry an identity card and present it to ‗anyone who might ask for it‘. The Nation reports that journalists have been harassed by police and traditional authorities at voting registration centres. The Nation also reports that EBC deputy chair Mzwandile Fakudze said that IDs had to be introduced this year ‗for security reasons‘. The Nation quotes Fakudze saying, ‗Although we uphold the freedom of the press, we also have to ensure that we identify the genuine journalists from the fakes.‘ Sihle Mavuso, president of the Swaziland National Association of Journalists (SNAJ), said it had received no official instruction that ID cards had to be held. This was even though journalists had been attending workshops and press conferences organised by the EBC without having to produce ID cards. Mavuso said that it was a pity that people were suspicious about the elections ‗thus physically and emotionally harassing‘ journalists. ‗This is very unfortunate because it compromises press freedom, said Mavuso, adding, ‗It gets worse when powerful bodies such as the police and traditional authorities infringe on the right of journalists to access to information.‘ Mavuso told the Nation magazine that the fact that journalists were told to produce their IDs whenever they were asked by ‗anyone‘ made members of the media vulnerable to any form of harassment by anybody. The banning of journalists from the voting registration is not the first time the EBC has banned reporters during the present elections. In April 2008, journalists were banned from a meeting in the Hhohho region, held by the EBC because the EBC chair didn‘t like the way the media were reporting the commission‘s activities.

Swazi PM Attacked on Press Freedom 11 May 2008 Swazi Prime Minister Themba Dlamini has apparently ‗expressed shock‘ that Swaziland is ranked among the worst nations in the world when it comes to press freedom.

54

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland He is reported to have asked a meeting of media editors, ‗Where does this come from, I wonder?‘ According to a report in the Swazi Observer (9 May 2008), the PM was addressing the Swaziland Editor‘s Forum at a monthly breakfast meeting he holds with its members. Welile Dlamini of the Swaziland Broadcast and Information Service (SBIS) radio was reported to have told him that such information didn‘t come from the Editor‘s Forum. One can forgive Welile Dlamini his comments. He does after all work for the government propaganda machine and he is expected to support the Prime Minister and his government whatever nonsense they may sprout. But, how can the Prime Minister really not understand the state of media freedom in Swaziland? I suggest that he reads the publication So This Is democracy? The State of Media Freedom in Southern Africa 2007 that was published by the Media Institute of Southern Africa last Saturday (3 May 2008).81 In that he can be reminded that a entire newspaper publishing house (The Times of Swaziland) was threatened with closure by King Mswati III last year because he objected to a report it had written on how the International Monetary Fund (IMF) believed that the king‘s lavish lifestyle was deterring overseas‘ investors from supporting Swaziland. The Prime Minister came in for a kicking on his views on media freedom and the new Swazi Constitution at a conference of human rights activists being held in Swaziland. The Observer reported (9 May 2008) that the Lawyers for Human Rights told the conference, ‗We regret with sadness to inform you and all the participants in this gathering, all that the Prime Minister said was totally incorrect and devoid of any truth and honesty.‘ The Observer continued, ‗They [the Lawyers for Human Rights] argued that the premier conveniently omitted to mention that the constitution was a product of a flawed process in that not all citizens were allowed to participate in its formulation, conception and adoption. ‗They claimed the constitution was written under a state of emergency that had been imposed on the people since 12 April 1973. ‗They said the decree was announced through a King‘s Proclamation that repealed the 1968 independence constitution, banned political parties and any form of political activity.‘ The Observer reported the lawyers saying that the new Swazi Constitution had some good points, but ‗people still do not have the sovereign power to elect a government of their own choice … because they do not have the right to assembly and associate peacefully to form and join political parties‘. The Observer added, ‗On upcoming elections they said people were not allowed to elect representatives of their choice through political parties as they remain unlawful.‘

81

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2008/05/swazi-media-freedom-on-hold.html

55

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland This is pretty strong criticism of the government and I am sure many people will be surprised to see it published in the Swazi Observer, which is considered to be very loyal to the status quo in Swaziland. Only last week I attended a meeting to commemorate World Press Freedom Day82 at which the Observer was criticised for being ‗a government newspaper‘. Maybe the Observer is trying to shake off that label. If it continues to tell the Swazi people the truth about the government, the Swazi Constitution and the forthcoming elections it will deserve to be known as an independent newspaper.

Swazi Government Muzzles Media 30 August 2008 It used to be in Swaziland that every time King Mswati III returned from a foreign trip he would hold a media conference and journalists would be able to ask him questions. More recently the rules of the game have changed. The conference still goes ahead but the media are warned in advance that they can‘t ask the king questions about this or that. And so it happened again this week. The King came back from a trip to the Middle East (he had met up with his eight wives who went on a US$4 million shopping trip) but came home without them. On his return to Swaziland the Swazi media were ‗muzzled‘ (to use the words of the Times of Swaziland) from asking him questions. King Mswati is embroiled in all kinds of controversy at the moment. With only a couple of weeks to go until the 40/40 celebrations to mark his 40th birthday and the 40th anniversary of Swaziland‘s independence, the Swazi and international media have been carrying highly critical articles about the event, and more generally, in the case of the foreign press, about Swaziland. Much of this has been about the enormous sums of money being spent on the 40/40 celebrations. As well as the Queens‘ shopping trip, 20 top of the range BMW cars have been bought and another 19 have been rented for the birthday bash. There is also an outcry about the voting that took place in Swaziland last weekend which had to be postponed half way through election day because of numerous irregularities. We still aren‘t clear who has won and who hasn‘t. I suspect the courts are going to be busy for weeks to come on this one. On top of this there is King Mswati‘s role in ‗mediations‘ to solve the Zimbabwe election crisis. In a democracy the head of state (i.e the King) would be questioned by the media on these controversies.

82

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2008/05/swazi-media-freedom-day.html

56

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland But, of course, Swaziland is not a democracy and King Mswati is an autonomous monarch. He can do what he likes. Yesterday (29 August 2008), the Times of Swaziland in an editorial comment condemned the censorship, but blamed the Swazi Government for causing the problem. The newspaper seemed to forget that if the King wanted to be questioned, he would allow it. The newspaper wrote, ‗Once again somebody has decided to teach the media how to go about doing its job and barred it from posing questions to His Majesty the King on matters affecting his people. ‗This not being the first time, Foreign Affairs and Trade Minister Mathendele Dlamini together with officials from the King‘s Office, may have thought they were doing the King a great favour when in fact they continued to embarrass him by suggesting he was incapable of addressing matters to do with his own country. ‗The King is currently the chairman of Troika in the SADC region, a body responsible for resolving conflict. The foreign minister‘s action suggests the king is incapable of addressing local issues and by extension implying the same of matters involving other countries. Not only does this action violate the constitution and the public‘s right to information, but it goes a long way to portray the king as a dictator in the eyes of the watchful international community. ‗The king has travelled the world, addressed international gatherings and has needed no protection from foreign media. He is much wiser than the minister to believe we pose any threat. ‗When will the minister and company realise that His Majesty is perfectly capable of speaking for himself? ‗When will they realise that they are hurting the king even more by muzzling the press? Such attempts have been made in the past and we are grateful to His Majesty who has allowed us to proceed with questions. He realises fully that this is the only opportunity the media gets to interact with him, while foreign media is continuously given the red carpet treatment, only to taint the country‘s image once they get back home. ‗This has got to stop. ‗To think that we are about to celebrate 40 years of independence and the king‘s 40th birthday, while others are hell-bent on taking us back to the colonial era and making him look 18, is an insult to the intelligence of the king, the media and the public we all serve.‘

MPs Bar Swazi Reporters From Pay Talks 1 November 2008 Here‘s more evidence that journalists will not get an easy ride under the new Swaziland Prime Minister, Barnabas Dlamini.

57

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland Last week I wrote83 that Dlamini refused to answer questions from journalists after he announced the names of the members of King Mswati III‘s new cabinet. The Times of Swaziland editor Martin Dlamini also wrote84 about how Dlamini liked to control the work of journalists the last time he was Prime Minister from 1996 – 2203. Now comes news that on Wednesday (29 October 2008) Swazi journalists were kicked out of a meeting in which the newly-elected and appointed Members of Parliament discussed their pay. The journalists had been allowed to cover the earlier discussions, but when the legislators began to discuss their pay, the media were shown the door. The Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) reported85 yesterday (31 October 2008) that the Clerk at Table, Ndvuna Dlamini, who was chairing the proceedings, told the journalists that they would not be allowed to cover the part in which the parliamentarians would be discussing their salaries. The journalists were then asked to leave the meeting. The meeting had been called to orientate the new parliamentarians about parliament procedures and code of conduct. The 95 MPs and senators are each expected to receive in excess of E25,000 (about US$3,000) per month in salaries, excluding sitting allowances. The MISA Swaziland chapter views the expulsion of the journalists from the MPs‘ meeting as ‗a serious violation of the public‘s right to know and freedom of the press‘. MISA says, ‗The MPs will be paid from the public purse and the public had a right to know on how much the MPs would be getting from the public funds. Therefore, the action to expel journalists from such a session was uncalled for.‘ Evidence from his previous time in office tells us that the new Prime Minister has no respect for the rule of law. This time around he has already said that he is out to get the ‗terrorists‘ and those who support them. We should read from this that he doesn‘t trust anyone who disagrees with him. The media in Swaziland are in for a tough time.

Swazi PM is Enemy of the Media 5 November 2008 One of Swaziland‘s major journalist commentators has been reminding his readers how the kingdom‘s new Prime Minister Barnabas Dlamini hounds the media. Dlamini, who was illegally appointed by King Mswati III last month, was previously Prime Minister from 1996 to 2003.

83

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2008/10/illegal-swazi-pm-bullies-press.html http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2008/10/illegal-swazi-pm-bullies-press.html 85 http://allafrica.com/stories/200810311021.html 84

58

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland According to Vusi Sibisi, who writes a weekly commentary in the Times of Swaziland, Dlamini was ‗responsible for raining hell on the media industry and presided over the enforced albeit illegal closure of two newspapers‘. The newspapers in question were the Nation magazine and the Swazi Guardian. I have written myself about the way the government illegally closed down the journals. Even after a court order said publishing could resume, the government sent police to raid the offices of the Nation.86 Sibisi, writing in the Times last week said that Dlamini salso ‗hounded‘ journalists out of newsrooms. Sibisi wrote, ‗Not only did he flex his political muscles to shut down two newspapers but he also ensured that anyone of the media, particularly that in private ownership, who refused to toe the official line was blacklisted from getting government advertisements. And since he was law no one could question his word.‘ Sibisi is not optimistic about the future (and with Dlamini‘s record on human rights and disregarding the rule of law who can blame him?). He writes, ‗As I see it the media will once more be in the eye of the storm given that for his second time around he has been given additional ammunition, far more lethal that of the rule of law crisis he visited on this country, to fight an imaginary war. If he could do what he achieved then without his power being embellished then the media, not least the whole nation, will be facing hell fire now that the man is back with unfettered additional powers.‘ Don‘t say, we have not been warned.

Swazi PM and Free Speech Farce 3 February 2009 Swaziland‘s illegally-appointed Prime Minister Barnabas Dlamini met editors and senior journalists last week at what is promised to be a regular monthly ‗editors‘ forum‘ meeting. The forum is billed as an opportunity for journalists to question the Prime Minister (and any other senior politicians he chooses to invite along). To some people this ‗openness‘ demonstrates how much he believes in freedom of speech and freedom of the media. The forum is not a new idea; the most recent Prime Minister Themba Dlamini also held such meetings. There was some doubt about whether Barnabas Dlamini would carry on with the ‗tradition‘ because he has a well-deserved reputation as a hater of freedoms, including freedom of the press and freedom of association. Since he came to power in October 2008, Barnabas Dlamini has branded four political formations as terrorists and announced that anyone who is a member or supporter of the organisations will be deemed a terrorist. Under the Suppression of Terrorism Act, this could result in up to 25 years in jail.

86

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2007/11/swaziland-police-raid-magazine.html

59

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland I suppose Barnabas had nothing to worry about meeting the journalists. At his final editors‘ forum meeting in July 2008, Themba Dlamini praised the editors87 for all the support they had given him and his government over the previous five years. The forum is billed as an opportunity for the media to question the Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues on matters of interest to the nation, but in his speech the PM was very open about the fact that he would only answer the questions that he wanted to. He told the editors, ‗You will recall that the initial breakfast meetings were very difficult and tense even though I had given you the rules of engagement. ‗I think you will remember rule number one, which says, ―I am not under any obligation to answer all your questions and I reserve the right to refuse to answer any question‖ This has been the rule of thumb for our breakfast meetings and I am happy that we have kept it alive throughout our sessions; and our interaction has matured over time.‘ This, of course, doesn‘t represent an open dialogue. A real interaction would only take place when the Prime Minister and senior politicians were forced to answer questions they did NOT want to answer.

Swaziland Media Sedition Threat 11 February 2009 Only days after Barnabas Dlamini, Swaziland‘s illegally-appointed Prime Minister, told journalists there was freedom of the press in the kingdom,88 he has threatened89 they will be charged with sedition if they criticise King Mswati III‘s recent speech90 to the Swazi parliament. The ‗state of the kingdom‘ address91 made last Friday (6 February 2009) received a lukewarm reception in some of the Swazi media. The Times Sunday reported former cabinet minister Mfomfo Nkhambule saying it was stale and lacking in substance. Other critics said King Mswati failed to address key issues affecting the country, including HIV/AIDS and poverty. Now, Dlamini has announced that anyone who publishes criticism of the speech will be dealt with under the Sedition and Subversive Activities Act 1968. In a perverse reading of the concept of freedom of speech, Dlamini said,92 ‗Government welcomes constructive comments of the speech – as the constitution guarantees freedom of expression. However, this does not give people the right to abuse this privilege. All rights come with certain responsibilities and limitations such as respect for others.‘

87

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2008/07/pm-praises-swaziland-media.html http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/02/swazi-press-freedom-lies-exposed.html 89 http://www.observer.org.sz/index.php?news=1615 90 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/02/swaziland-king-in-total-control.html 91 http://www.observer.org.sz/index.php?news=1555 92 http://www.observer.org.sz/index.php?news=1615 88

60

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland The Media Institute of Southern Africa Swaziland Chapter in a statement93 said Dlamini believed, ‗any view on the King‘s address should be presented in a language and manner that showed respect to the office of the monarch. He said the King had a reputation and enjoyed the protection of the Sedition and Subversive Activities Act. The PM said his government will not hesitate to charge with sedition anyone who further criticizes the King‘s speech.‘ MISA said the move was an attempt to silence the country‘s citizens. It condemned the government threat ‗which has a potential to muzzle people‘ and appealed for tolerance within the dictates of freedom of expression which is guaranteed in the kingdom‘s constitution. The Swaziland Coalition of Concerned Civic Organisations (SCCCO) said Dlamini‘s threat ‗shows the extent of the fundamental disregard this government has for the constitution and the rights contained in it‘. It said freedom of expression was enshrined in the Swaziland Constitution. ‗Freedom of Expression includes the freedom to criticise government, government policies and government actions. The Speech from the Throne sets out those policies. Criticisms of the contents of the speech are a democratic right and a democratic duty. If the Prime Minister wants to take our rights away from us, let him try. He will find us robust in our defence.‘ Swazi Women Reporter Barred From Reporting King’s Speech 12 February 2009 A woman journalist was harassed and barred from reporting the speech of King Mswati III at the opening of the Swaziland Parliament. Mantoe Phakathi, from the independent monthly Nation magazine, was treated this way because she is a woman. According to the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA), Swazi Parliament officials first warned Phakathi that since she was female she would not be allowed to take pictures of the King. In a statement94 MISA said, at first Phakathi took the warning lightly because she said she had never heard or read of such a rule in her entire career. But as she went about her duties inside the chambers of Parliament, the Clerk at Table of the House of Assembly, Ndvuna Dlamini, an ex-journalist himself, ordered that Phakathi be expelled, even though she had been accredited to cover the event. She was eventually thrown out by security personnel. Speaking to journalists later Phakathi said she felt very humiliated in that she was the only journalist to be thrown out of the House. Nation Editor, Bheki Makhubu said it came as a shock to him to learn about the harassment and expulsion of his journalist from Parliament.

93

http://appablog.wordpress.com/2009/02/10/swaziland-media-critics-threatened-with-sedition-charge-overcriticism-of-king/ 94 http://appablog.wordpress.com/2009/02/10/swaziland-female-journalist-harassed-on-gender-grounds-andbarred-from-covering-parliament/

61

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland ‗Because of this we don‘t have the pictures and story about the opening of Parliament. There is nothing we can do as we are a small publication but we are not happy about the sexist act by the government,‘ Makhubu said. The Clerk at Table claimed that Phakathi was not dressed properly since she had not covered her head, hence her expulsion. The Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) Swaziland chapter has issued a statement condemning the discriminatory and sexist act from the officials and has demanded that government and Parliament should apologise to Phakathi and the Nation magazine ‗for this act which was clearly humiliating to the journalist‘.

Swaziland Lies On Press Freedom 12 February 2009 Swaziland‘s new official government spokesperson Macanjana Motsa must think we are blind. She has hit out at a new international report from Reporters Without Borders (RWB) that places Swaziland in 147th place in the world when it comes to freedom of the press. In a statement95 Motsa rubbished the report and said, ‗press freedom is guaranteed by the constitution of the Kingdom of Swaziland. The Swazi public and the international community is well aware that local media is not repressed in this country‘. Has she been drinking? She certainly hasn‘t been paying attention. Her defence of press freedom in Swaziland comes in the same week that the illegally-appointed Prime Minister Barnabas Dlamini told journalists that if they criticise King Mswati III‘s recent speech to parliament they will face sedition charges.96 Over the past few weeks former Swazi Government cabinet member Mfomfo Nkhambule has been hauled before police, threatened with jail and been told he will be disowned by his traditional regiment if he continues to write articles in the Times of Swaziland newspaper that criticise the King and the anti-democratic ruling elite in the kingdom. Only last month (January 2009) trade unions and other civic organizations petitioned the Swazi Prime Minister demanding that every citizen of Swaziland should be allowed equal access to the three state media organisations: the Swaziland Broadcasting and Information Services (SBIS), Swazi TV and the Swazi Observer newspaper. The petition called upon government to ensure that these media houses‘ independence was guaranteed. It also demanded ‗equal access to public institutions such as halls, stadiums and tinkhundla centres which are currently the formal meeting place for people without any hindrances‘.

95 96

http://www.observer.org.sz/index.php?news=1650 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/02/swaziland-media-sedition-threat.html

62

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland Motsa joins a long list of Swazi Government denialists. Whenever there is a report critical of Swaziland, the government blames the messenger and lies about the message.97 Bizarrely, Motsa attacked the credibility of RWB because it had once used the UNESCO logo without permission. Motsa and the Swazi Government know this is a smokescreen. RWB is not alone among international media watchers in criticising Swaziland‘s lack of press freedom. The most recent annual So This Is Democracy? report98 from the Media Institute for Southern Africa (MISA) highlighted many cases of press repression, including the case of the Times of Swaziland publishing house that was threatened with closure by King Mswati III because he objected to a report it had written on how the International Monetary Fund (IMF) believed that the king‘s lavish lifestyle was deterring overseas‘ investors from supporting Swaziland. MISA concluded that the Swazi Government continues to harass journalists. ‗This was evident when the Swazi House of Assembly set up a Select Committee to investigate Mbongeni Mbingo, the editor of the Times Sunday, following a commentary piece he wrote in his newspaper criticising the House Speaker for not allowing a debate to take place on possible amendments to the kingdom‘s Constitution. The House of Assembly said the editor was in contempt of Parliament.‘ The International Press Institute (IPI) in its annual World Press Freedom Review,99 published in May 2008 reported how Njabulo Mabuza, the then Minister for Health and Social Welfare, ‗simply banned the media from entering Swaziland‘s biggest hospital, after various publications published exposés alleging that a pattern of staff negligence and drug shortages resulted in the death of a young girl. Similar accusations had been published in the past, prompting Mabuza, a week earlier, to issue a government memo to the hospital administration, instructing the same to deny media access to the hospital premises without his permission.‘ This was Macanjana Motsa‘s first media release since she was appointed Government Press Secretary. It is not an auspicious start and her credibility for honesty is in tatters. She needs to be careful, I am reminded of her predecessor in the job Percy Simelane; when he tried to defend a report critical of Swaziland‘s poor governance, he so outraged parliamentarians they branded him a ‗herdboy‘.100

Swaziland Political Purge Starts 12 March 2009 The witch-hunt101 against civil servants in Swaziland who support freedom and democracy has started.

97

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/01/swaziland-governance-appalling.html http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2008/05/swazi-media-freedom-on-hold.html 99 http://www.freemedia.at/cms/ipi/freedom_detail.html?country=/KW0001/KW0006/KW0178/ 100 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2007/10/abuse-hurled-at-press-secretary.html 101 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/03/swazi-civil-service-politics-purge.html 98

63

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland Barnabas Dlamini, the illegally-appointed Prime Minister of Swaziland, has announced the Swazi police have been instructed to find out how a former journalist who was critical of the government is now a police officer. Dlamini told the Swazi House of Assembly that this put in question the effectiveness of the police‘s ‗vetting‘ procedure when recruiting. According to the Swazi Observer,102 the newspaper in effect owned by King Mswati III, Dlamini was responding to questions from members of parliament. They wanted to know why a critic of the government was allowed to join the police force. Dlamini told the House, ‗Though we may not claim that the vetting exercise is 100 percent foolproof, I wish to assure the Committee that the intelligence Service does all in line with its specialty and capacity, to ensure that undesirable elements are not recruited into the police service. However, the issue will be looked into to determine if all processes were followed.‘ Dlamini announced on Monday (9 March 2009) that his government (which is unconstitutionally constructed)103 is drafting a charter that will compel civil servants who are considered by the Swaziland ruling elite to be ‗political‘ to recant and if they didn‘t they would be sacked from their jobs. This is the latest move by Dlamini to silence dissent in Swaziland, which has the last absolute monarchy in sub-Saharan Africa. Last year he introduced the Suppression of Terrorism Act, which is widely seen as a law to curb freedom of speech and association. He has also branded four political entities as ‗terrorists‘ and members and supporters can face up to 25 years in jail.104 Protests105 against the political purging have already begun in Swaziland, led by trade unions, banned political parties and the kingdom‘s only independent daily newspaper, the Times of Swaziland.106

Swazi Senate to Fight Media Freedom 23 April 2009 Not for the first time Swaziland senators are threatening journalists with contempt of parliament because they are writing reports that they don‘t like. The latest attempt to curtail the freedom of the press comes after Swazi media reported about a verbal fight between the Senate President Gelane Zwane and Senator Ndileka Dlamini that took place in a hotel. The spat between the two women was over allegations made by Dlamini that Zwane had undermined her in Parliament.

102

http://www.observer.org.sz/index.php?news=2487 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/03/swazi-ministers-unconstitutional.html 104 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2008/11/swazi-kings-war-against-his-people.html 105 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/03/fury-at-swazi-civil-servants-purge.html 106 http://www.times.co.sz/index.php?news=6154 103

64

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland News reports said that the two women had to be dragged apart to stop violence taking place. After reports appeared, the Senate President raised the issue in Parliament and accused the media of having embarrassed her. Of course, the fight was public and she was indeed involved in it, so if there was any embarrassment caused it was caused by Dlamini and Zwane. I wasn‘t there so I can‘t say who tried to throw the first punch, so let‘s say they were both equally to blame and both showed themselves up (and senators generally, because we don‘t expect parliamentarians to behave like this). But Swazi politicians being the arrogant lot they are, these two childish senators couldn‘t see they were at fault: instead they want to blame the media, yet no one denies the fight took place. Now, the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) reports107 that a senate select committee has been set up to investigate the media with a view to punishing journalists. The senate has warned the media against publishing further reports on the matter. It is a typical tactic in Swaziland. Senators would do well to remember that the Swazi Constitution allows for freedom of speech and freedom of the media. The last time senators tried to bully the media by launching a senate select committee was when the Times Sunday editor Mbongeni Mbingo was accused of bringing parliament into disrepute by publishing critical articles.108 In a groundbreaking decision the committee found Mbingo not guilty and confirmed his constitutional right to free speech. But then in a contradictory move, the committee said it wanted to accredit all journalists who reported on parliament (in effect choosing who could and who could not be a parliamentary reporter). If such a move went ahead journalists who cover Parliament would be intimidated against reporting critical stories for fear of losing accreditation and maybe their jobs as a result. Presently in Swaziland there are many attempts to muzzle the media. Among them is the continuing saga of Swazi dissident Mfomfo Nkhambule, a weekly columnist with the Times of Swaziland, who has received threats for criticising King Mswati III. In February 2009, the government threatened to charge with sedition anyone who criticized the state of the nation address delivered by the king.109 This followed a number of statements by media commentators that the king‘s speech was stale and lacked substance. MISA reported last month (March 2009) said it had issued a record number of alerts about media freedom violations in Swaziland, mainly around harassment of journalists, censorship, intimidation and assault of media persons.

107

http://appablog.wordpress.com/2009/04/22/swaziland-senators-threaten-media/ http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2007/10/danger-government-censors.html 109 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/02/swaziland-media-sedition-threat.html 108

65

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland Senator Wants ‘Stringent Law’ to Deal With Media 25 September 2009 Press freedom is once again under attack in Swaziland as Swazi a senator called for a ‗stringent‘ law to ‗deal‘ with the media. And the Minister for Information, Communications and Technology Nelsiwe Shongwe said her ministry was doing something about their concern. She was not specific. The Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) reports110 that Senator Themba Msibi, a former Minister for Information, told a session of parliament that ‗enacting a stringent law will deal with the journalists once and for all‘. Msibi was making a submission during a debate over a newspaper article in which it was said a journalist with the Times of Swaziland misquoted the Senate President, Gelane Zwane, during a previous Senate seating. He said asking the media to apologise for wrong articles does not help ‗because they will continue doing this. This is not a mistake but they are doing it purposely.‘ During the same debate the Senate President Zwane herself verbally attacked the Times journalist, Arthur Mordaunt, who was also present in Parliament to cover the proceedings. MISA said an angry Zwane accused Mordaunt of having a vendetta against her and she went on to threaten the journalist. ‗I have been watching you very closely and I have realized that ever since you started writing about me you are always writing negatively. If you want to survive in your journalism career you should immediately stop it,‘ Zwane was reported to have said. She went on to say that had it not been for the fact that she was not an ordinary member of society, she would have already done something to Mordaunt and expressed in SiSwati [the language of Swaziland] something to the effect that she would have already set her ‗dogs‘ upon Mordaunt to ‗tear‘ the journalist apart. In a statement MISA Swaziland chapter said the threats not only constitutes a serious attack on press freedom but is also plain abuse of parliamentary privilege by the senators. MISA Swaziland National Director Comfort Mabuza said MISA Swaziland rejected the call by Senator Msibi for a law to regulate the media. He said such a call was out of place and inconsistent with the kingdom‘s constitution and the universal principles of media freedom and also goes against a 1997 Parliamentary resolution to have the media regulate themselves.

Attorney General Leans on Free Press 4 January 2010

110

http://appablog.wordpress.com/2009/09/23/swaziland-renewed-threat-for-swazi-media-as-senator-calls-for%E2%80%9Cstringent%E2%80%9D-media-law/

66

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland The Swaziland Attorney General has told one of the kingdom‘s independent newspapers it must stop publishing articles from Mario Masuku, president of the banned People‘s United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO). In a veiled threat Majahenkhaba Dlamini, the Attorney General, has told Innocent Maphalala, the editor of the Times Sunday, he will face jail time for supporting a terrorist if he doesn‘t stop publishing the articles. Even though Masuku was acquitted of a trumped up terrorism charge in September 2009,111 Dlamini says PUDEMO, the organisation he leads, is a terrorist entity. In a letter to Maphalala the Attorney General says the Swazi Government cannot understand why the Times is supporting terrorism. He writes, ‗This is the same PUDEMO which was declared a terrorist entity last year. The entity or anybody on its behalf has never denied or challenged the declaration.‘ The Attorney General went on, ‗And there you are, giving all the publicity and support as if the entity or its members are legitimate persons. In any effort to deal with the entity or member of the entity, you and your newspaper cannot avoid being identified with the entity or its member(s).‘ He said he had no doubt that the newspaper was fully aware that promoting or giving support to terrorists remained a crime in this country. This is a reference to the Suppression of Terrorism Act which makes it illegal for anyone to offer any kind of support to terrorist organisations. If charged and found guilty of such an offence the editor could face up to 25 years in jail. Maphalala said he would stop publishing Masuku‘s articles for now pending consultation on the matter. Editor’s note: The Times has not published further articles by Masuku.

State Threatens Outspoken Newspaper Writer 25 February 2010 Another outspoken critic of the undemocratic regime in Swaziland is in danger. Musa Hlophe, coordinator of the Swaziland Coalition of Concerned Civic Organisations, who writes a column each week in the Times Sunday is being leaned on by what he calls ‗powerful people‘ from ‗highly placed sources within the state apparatus‘. He has been told not to write about ‗a certain office‘. Hlophe is too polite to say it out loud but the office in question is I‘m told that of King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa‘s last absolute monarch. 111

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/10/swazi-government-case-hopeless.html

67

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland He told readers of the Times Sunday, ‗One of my recent articles apparently touched some raw nerves among our ruling elite. ‗My attention has been drawn to the fact that I should no longer write about a certain office. These powerful people are not from the management of the Times Group of Newspapers but from highly placed sources within the state apparatus.‘ He goes on, ‗Why are the mighty and powerful so afraid of the truth? This is asking me to censor myself and to deny the public at least my version of the truth and I cannot, in all conscience, do that.‘ Hlophe is not the first critic of the undemocratic regime of King Mswati and Barnabas Dlamini, the man he illegally appointed Prime Minister of Swaziland. Mario Masuku, the president of the banned organisation the People‘s United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO) was forced to stop writing for the Times Sunday and Mfomfo Nkhambule had to abandon his weekly column for the Times of Swaziland. Both men were told they could not criticise Swaziland‘s ruling elite.112 King Mswati has form when it comes to censorship in the Swazi media as I demonstrated in a report for the Media Institute of Southern Africa.113 Also, in 2007 King Mswati threatened to close down the entire Times of Swaziland group of newspapers if it did not retract a report it published, sourced from Norway, that King Mswati was partly responsible for the poor economic state of Swaziland.114 Meanwhile, Hlophe has told his readers he will carry on writing. I hope he gets the chance. Editor’s note: Holphe’s columns have continued to be published in the Times Sunday. Swazi PM: ‘I Control The Media’ 28 May 2010 Swaziland‘s illegally-appointed Prime Minister Barnabas Dlamini has total control over state television and radio, he reminded editors this week. Dlamini, who has an international reputation115 as an enemy of freedom and democracy, said the media should follow government policy and do what they are told. He was talking at an editor‘s forum when he reminded his audience that government had dictated that state media are banned from promoting gambling activities, including Top Lotto. He said the government forbade the SBIS radio and Swazi TV from promoting gambling, smoking and drinking alcohol.

112

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/05/swazi-king-wants-editors-heads.html http://www.scribd.com/doc/18628577/Censorship-in-Newsrooms-in-Swaziland 114 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2007/11/closure-threat-to-times.html 115 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2008/10/new-pm-enemy-of-freedom.html 113

68

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland He said the state media had no discretion in the matter. ‗Government‘s stance involved is clear, so state owned media cannot even use their discretion where this is concerned, but they are advised to simply ignore all gambling activities. Even if you are interviewing someone and that person mentions something about gambling, just cut the interview,‘ the Swazi Observer, the newspaper in effect owned by King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa‘s last absolute monarch reported him saying. Swazi PM Calls Newspaper Columnists ‘Enemy Of The State’ 23 July 2010 Barnabas Dlamini, the Prime Minister of Swaziland, has launched another attack on the freedom of the press. Dlamini, who is a well documented enemy of freedom and democracy,116 says newspaper columnists who criticise his government and the Swazi ruling elites are ‗enemies of the state‘. He said their views got onto the Internet and ‗blemish‘ the kingdom‘s image. His comments are reported in the print edition of the Times of Swaziland (but not in its online version) today (23 July 2010). Dlamini, who was appointed by King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa‘s last absolute monarch, with a special mandate to attack anyone who opposed the king, said the newspapers had many columnists who had openly stated that they were advocating for a change of the system of government. He said he was worried about the ample space they were being given by the newspaper houses. The Times, the only independent daily newspaper in the kingdom, reported Dlamini saying that he was worried that the newspaper bosses allowed these columns to be published. Dlamini said newspapers were seemingly dominated by ‗enemies of the state‘ whose views find their way to the Internet and blemish Swaziland‘s image. ‗There are columnists who have come out to say that they do not like how the country is governed but they are given huge space in the paper [to write] and their reports eventually make it to the Internet. I would like the media to answer this so that it can stop‘, the Times quoted Dlamini saying. This is not the first time in recent years that Dlamini has threatened the press. In February 2009 he warned journalists they would be charged with sedition if they wrote anything critical of King Mswati.117

Swaziland Bars Foreign Reporters 6 September 2010

116 117

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2008/10/new-pm-enemy-of-freedom.html http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/02/swaziland-media-sedition-threat.html

69

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland The Swazi state is so worried about how the international community will view the Global Day of Action for democracy in Swaziland tomorrow (7 September 2010), it has barred foreign journalists from the kingdom. The Associated Press (AP) news agency reports that two of its journalists from South Africa were stopped from crossing the border into Swaziland earlier today. AP says the journalists were told they would not be allowed into the kingdom, ruled by King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa‘s last absolute monarch, to cover ‗illegal protests‘. AP also reports that Swazi police today deported118 foreign nationals who were at a meeting in Manzini to support the campaign for human rights and democracy.119 AP quotes Swazi police spokesperson Wendy Hleta saying, ‗we felt that they had no right to interfere‘. Police detained Swazis at the meeting before determining who was non-Swazi. Hleta says all were later released.

PM Wants To Vet All News On Swaziland 10 October 2010 Barnabas Dlamini, the increasingly eccentric Swazi Prime Minister, says he wants journalists to seek his permission before they write about Swaziland. Dlamini, who was illegally-appointed to his job by King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa‘s last absolute monarch, told the Swaziland Senate that journalists who are in league with ‗enemies‘ of Swaziland were writing bad things about the kingdom – and worst still, they were getting paid for it. Dlamini said he wanted the journalists ‗clamped down on’. Dlamini has already publicly stated that he wants to see foreigners who criticise him and his regime tortured by foot whipping.120 He said there were people who write articles which taint the image of the kingdom, adding that this was not acceptable. He claimed, without giving any evidence to support his assertion, that the people were funded by other countries to write the articles.121 ‘We have a lot of them who write every Sunday in the newspaper and they are being paid for it. So we must decide, as a government, if we want such people in the country.’ He said such people will in future have to ask for permission from government to write about Swaziland. He said his government was exploring to see whether a law existed to allow him to do this. If no law existed his government would write one and bring it to Senate, he said.

118

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2010/09/democracy-supporters-deported.html http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2010/09/swazi-democracy-leaders-arrested.html 120 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2010/09/swazi-pm-torture-dissidents.html 121 http://www.observer.org.sz/index.php?news=17134 119

70

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland In fact a law exists in Swaziland that allows journalists to write what they like about the Government. It‘s called the Constitution.122 Dlamini should read it some time.

Swazi Senate Bullies Critical Newspaper Editor 21 October 2010 Swaziland senators are up to their old tricks – trying to intimidate local journalists. The latest victim is Alec Lushaba, editor of the Weekend Observer. They are angry at an article he wrote last week (14 August 2010) in which he criticised them for being too soft on government ministers.123 The senators claim the article was in contempt of the senate and have set up a committee to investigate it. Swazi senators have form in this. They reckon no one is allowed to criticise their activities and if local journalists dare to do so they get harassed. If it goes to plan the committee will call witnesses to debate the merits of the article and Lushaba will have it all hanging over his head. The idea, of course, is to stop journalists criticising the senators. If reporters know they will have to jump through hoops to establish their innocence, they might be reluctant to make the criticism in the first place. But the senators won‘t get it all their own way. In 2007 when a committee was set up to investigate a claim of contempt against Mbingo Mbongeni, the then editor of the Times Sunday and now editor-in-chief of the Times of Swaziland, it declared he had a constitutional right to freedom of expression and it dismissed the charge.124 Lushaba has done nothing wrong. We all have a constitutional right to free speech. The senate should cancel the committee of inquiry and set about answering the criticisms made and stop trying to dodge them.

Swaziland Censors BBC Radio 9 March 2011 The Swaziland Government is censoring BBC broadcasts in the kingdom. This is because last week the BBC broadcast two items that were broadly supportive of people fighting for democracy in the kingdom, ruled by King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa‘s last absolute monarch. 122

http://www.scribd.com/doc/26185252/Swaziland-Constitution http://www.observer.org.sz/index.php?news=15398 124 http://www.scribd.com/doc/25958627/Swazi-Select-Ctte-Report-Contempt-Times-Sunday-Editor 123

71

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland Nelisiwe Shongwe, Minister of Information, Communication and Technology, said yesterday (8 March 2011) that the Focus on Africa programme that is broadcast in its entirety on staterun radio, SBIS would in future be ‗edited‘ before broadcast. The Swazi Observer, the newspaper in effect owned by King Mswati, reported her saying that as a Swazi nation, people should understand that there were some pieces of information that could not just be sent to the people. She said they had to consider the impact that information would have.125 The Observer reported she said the programme was being ‗delayed by the editing process‘. The newspaper did not give details of the content of the programmes complained of. They were two features by reporter Louise Redvers broadcast on separate days last week. The first talked to people who see the present economic meltdown in Swaziland as an opportunity to press for democratic change. The second talked to people who said they were prepared to put their lives on the line to campaign for freedom in the kingdom. Redvers interviewed a student leader, a journalist and a human rights campaigner. They all knew that it is ‗suicidal‘ to challenge the king – but nonetheless they are prepared to do so. As one interviewee said, the level of oppression keeps people quiet, but the rulers can‘t keep the lid closed. The censorship was criticised in the Swazi House of Assembly. MP Robert Magongo said that the government was acting dangerously. He said what government was doing was the equivalent to lying to the people by wanting to only have the minister‘s opinion broadcast. The Observer reported he said such behaviour by government had the potential to spark a riot among the people.

MISA Blasts Government Radio Censorship 13 March 2011 The Swaziland Government has banned state media from covering demonstrations and strikes currently taking place in the kingdom. The Swazi Government also censored the BBC Focus on Africa programme that is broadcast daily on SBIS in the mornings, mid-day and evenings, after it contained items critical of King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa‘s last absolute monarch, and the government he hand-picks. The Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) – the prominent media freedom organisation in the region – reports126 that the state radio SBIS has not been reporting on the strikes, which include a massive protest from nurses this week who were not paid their allowances by government. 125 126

http://www.observer.org.sz/index.php?news=22094 http://allafrica.com/stories/201103110935.html

72

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland MISA reports Members of Parliament confronted Nelisiwe Shongwe, the Minister for Information Communications and Technology (ICT), for answers. The Minister conceded in Parliament that the programme has been temporarily suspended. She said the government has taken a decision to censor the programme and said it would be back on air soon. MPs did not take kindly to the government‘s move and warned that it was dangerous as it was infringing on people‘s right to access information. One of the MPs, Robert Magongo, said what the government has done has the potential to spark a riot among the people. MISA reports that Magongo was quoted in the media to have said, ‗If I were a Minister I would never take orders from anyone because that would negatively portray me in the eyes of the people I am serving. I would rather resign than have someone dictate to me.‘ The government has not only banned the BBC programme but has also banned all state media from covering demonstrations and strikes currently taking place in the country. Parliament has also cautioned the government against this move. In its statement MISA says, ‗MISA Swaziland condemns in the strongest terms the government‘s move to ban or censor media content. Such a move has no place in the modern world as it seriously violates people's right to access information. MISA strongly rejects the Minister‘s assertion that government has a right to filter information to the public. To the contrary, the public has a right to receive unfiltered information from any media of their choice. ‗MISA, therefore, strongly urges the government to restore the BBC programme to be aired uncensored and to stop interfering in media content. ‗MISA further commends the MPs for questioning the government about this and cautioning against it. MISA cannot agree more with the MPs that the government's move is not only dangerous but also infringes upon people‘s right to know. The government cannot prescribe what people should listen and not listen to. People have the right to choose what is good for them without being dictated to by the state.‘

Swaziland Radio Censored Again 2 April 2011 Swaziland‘s state radio SBIS was banned by the Swazi Government from reporting the mass protest march in the kingdom on 18 March 2011. About 8,000 people marched on the office of the prime minister to demand the resignation of the entire government. Yesterday (1 April 2011), at a meeting between editors and Barnabas Dlamini, the kingdom‘s illegally-appointed Prime Minister, SBIS News Editor Welile Dlamini said he had been forced to go from pillar to post asking for permission to cover the march, but did not get it. The Swazi News, an independent newspaper in Swaziland, reported him saying, ‗The march happened right under our noses and we were told never to say anything about it. This does

73

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland not augur well for a country that professes to support freedom of the media. It has come to a point that at SBIS we are now informed what to publish and what not. There is a danger that the people will eventually lose interest in the station and one day government will desire that a certain issue is broadcast but very few listeners will take note of it,‘ he said. Barnabas Dlamini told editors journalist has to abide by the policy of the station. In what many would see as a not-so-veiled threat, the PM told Welile Dlamini it was not uncommon that editors resign from media companies if they felt that their convictions were against those of the media company. Bheki Makhubu, Editor of the Nation, an anti-government monthly magazine, asked the PM if government was in the habit of pretending that things were not happening when in fact they were happening. This is not the first example of blatant censorship at SBIS. Last month (March 2011), it stopped broadcasting the BBC World Service Focus on Africa programme after it carried reports critical of King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa‘s last absolute monarch.127 In the same month, SBIS failed to cover the march by nurses that forced the Swazi Government into paying them overdue allowances.128 SBIS is not expected to report on the next major protest in Swaziland. An ‗uprising‘ coordinated by a Facebook group is due to take place on 12 April 2011.

127 128

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2011/03/misa-blasts-swazi-bbc-censorship.html http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2011/03/now-nurses-are-also-censored.html

74


7. The King And The Royal Family King Threatens To Close Times of Swaziland 20 November 2007 The Times of Swaziland came close to being forced to close earlier this year after it published a report critical of King Mswati III. This news has emerged from a recently published report looking at media freedom in Swaziland. The Times was threatened with closure unless it published an apology after it reproduced a news report from an international news agency, Afrol. The Afrol article129 gave details of an International Monetary Fund report on Swaziland. It said, ‗Swaziland is increasingly paralysed by poor governance, corruption and the private spending of authoritarian King Mswati III and his large royal family. The growing social crisis in the country and the lessening interest of donors to support King Mswati‘s regime has also created escalating needs for social services beyond the scale of national budgets.‘ Such open criticism of the king is not allowed in Swaziland (not even in so-called independent newspapers like the Times Sunday). On the Thursday (22 March 2007) following publication an ‗unreserved apology‘ to the king was published on the front page of the Times of Swaziland (repeated in the following week‘s Times Sunday). The apology signed by both the publisher and managing editor of the Times Group said the article ‗was disparaging to the person of His Majesty in its content, greatly embarrassed him and should not have passed editorial scrutiny‘. It went on, ‗Our newspapers take great care with matters regarding the monarch, being conscious always of the unbreakable link of the King with the Nation. What occurred is reprehensible and we will renew our vigilance in editorial matters with the utmost vigour.‘ To make absolutely certain that there was no doubt of the newspaper group‘s subservience to the king, it finished the apology, ‗Once again your Majesty, our sincere and humble apologies.‘ Now, a report from African Media Barometer, which is based on a workshop conducted with media experts in Swaziland, states that the Times was threatened with closure over the publication of the report. Details are sketchy, but the background to the incident appears to be that the owner of the Times Douglas Loffler was summoned by Royal authorities and ordered to make the apology. Fearful of a demand to close the newspaper, he did as he was told

Media Too Meek To Tell King Truth 12 May 2008 Media in Swaziland are too meek when it comes to giving King Mswati III advice. 129

http://www.afrol.com/articles/24707

75


There is no straight talking, even on matters of huge national importance. At a World Media Freedom Day meeting held in the Swazi capital Mbabane last week130 media folk said they should be brave and tell the king what is going on in his own kingdom. I was reminded of the truth of this on Friday (9 May 2008) by an article in the Times of Swaziland by the newspaper‘s managing editor, Martin Dlamini. Dlamini wants the 40/40 celebration scheduled for later this year called off because Swaziland can‘t afford it. The 40/40 is a double celebration to mark the king‘s 40th birthday and also the 40th anniversary of Swaziland‘s independence from Britain. Dlamini thinks that E50 million (about US$7 million) is too high a price to pay when living standards in the kingdom are at an all time low. But Dlamini, like all other media people in Swaziland, isn‘t allowed to tell the king the truth. Instead, he has to pussyfoot around and hope that someone other than the media will point out to him the reality of the situation. Dlamini said this in his Just Thinking column, ‗Who, of all the wise men and women in this country [Swaziland], would dare approach the king to humbly request His Majesty to consider staggering these celebrations over the coming years until such time as we can really afford them?‘ I note that Dlamini believes that the very act of approaching the king is something to be done ‗humbly‘. Doesn‘t this statement alone show how really out of touch people are making the king? If the king reads the Times – and judging by the fuss he made last year (2007) when the Times Sunday reported that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) thought the king‘s lavish lifestyle was putting off foreign support – he, or his underlings (‗bootlickers‘ Dlamini calls them in his article) certainly do, then he will already know what the problems over 40/40 are. Dlamini set them out clearly in his article. Here‘s what he had to say: ‗Living standards have dropped considerably. The gap between rich and poor has risen sharply and there are no indications yet that the situation could change anytime soon. ‗In the year of our 40th anniversary, we certainly need to take time to look back at our gains and our losses. One matter that needs serious attention is how this country has utilised its resources and how best she can invest the little that‘s left for a better tomorrow. ‗The country‘s statistics suggest that 70 percent of this population lives below the poverty line which means there is a great need to get the bigger part of this population out of misery. ‗These are the people to be thought of each time we have a little extra cash to spend.

130

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2008/05/swazi-media-freedom-day.html

76

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland ‗For the 70 percent of the population, the celebration is meaningless because there is no guarantee they will have food on the table the next day. Even if there was, they are tired of living on handouts. ‗What would be a cause to celebrate independence for them is a day in their lives where the millions of Emalengeni have been pumped into genuine or effective community development projects that would make them independent of food aid, not the cosmetic projects or funding under the Regional Development Fund that has become a source of corruption for its administrators.‘ Personally, I think Dlamini is right; the 40/40 celebrations should be put on hold. The cost is inappropriate at a time when about 600,000 people in Swaziland (out of a population of less than one million) have to rely on internationally-donated food aid to stop from starving. If the celebrations do go ahead, King Mswati III will once again be reviled in the eyes of the international community for spending money irresponsibly. He will also be seen to be out of touch with the realities of life in his own kingdom. This will do him immense personal harm and it will also damage Swaziland because it will make international donors reluctant to do business with the kingdom (something the IMF has already identified as happening). There is still time to stop this happening, if someone would tell the king the truth. Humbly, or otherwise.

The Writing On The Wall 19 May 2008 The Times of Swaziland got itself in a bit of a state yesterday, when it tried to report about some rude words that had been written on a wall near an election registration post. You see the words were about King Mswati III and they were not flattering. ‗What was written cannot be printed due to their contemptuous nature,‘ the Times reported (28 May 2008). And to top it all some pamphlets were found nearby which were ‗anti election‘. Dissent (about anything the ruling elite is in favour of) is not allowed in Swaziland, so the mere fact that someone has dared to say something nasty about the king is, I suppose, news. What interests me is that there is no vocabulary for the media to use when reporting such matters. Reading the Times report I got the impression the newspaper desperately wanted to give the details, but the consequences they would face if they did would be too dire. Here are some choice extracts from the report. The pamphlets were about, ‗The ongoing election registration process and the upcoming elections are said to be a waste of public funds to enrich those in the corridors of power.‘

77

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland The Times said that the writing on the wall, when translated from the original siSwati, said, ‗away with … and the government who feeds on our money‘. The writing didn‘t actually say ‗dot, dot, dot‘ – the Times put that in to spare our anger. I assume ‗dot, dot, dot‘ is really King Mswati III. Mswati is known in some circles as ‗M3‘ and the Observer newspaper group has taken to calling him ‗HMK‘ (for, I assume, His Majesty the King), but I shall always think of him from this point forward as ‗dot, dot, dot‘. Anyhow, the Times continued, ‗Parliament was also not spared in the seditious statements as it was accused of passing laws like the recent Road Traffic Act, which according to the perpetrators, are made to enrich the government at the expense of the poor.‘ So dangerous are these statements that the Times took it upon itself not to reveal the name of the political party that distributed the pamphlets, because the newspaper couldn‘t confirm that they were genuine. The Times reported that police confiscated the pamphlets; although it was not said what offence has been committed. These are not the first ‗anti election‘ pamphlets to have been found in Swaziland recently. As I reported on Wednesday (28 May 2008) pamphlets found at Zombodze were also seized by police.131 There is a serious point to this. Swaziland is supposed to be having a ‗free and fair election‘ (at least according to ‗dot, dot, dot‘),132 but how can that be so if people are not allowed to discuss the issues. Swaziland is not a democracy and just about any of the many indices you care to use shows that too many people in the kingdom are poor, and the distribution of what wealth there is in Swaziland is poorly distributed. Only this week the newspapers have been reporting that one cabinet minister has more than E30million (more than US$4 million) in his personal bank account. Why shouldn‘t people be allowed to talk about this massive imbalance of wealth? And why shouldn‘t they be allowed to question the present social setup that puts ‗dot, dot, dot‘ above the rest of the population. That, after all, is what elections are for. Except, of course, in the ‘unique democracy‘ that is Swaziland. Swazi Media Gagged By King’s Man 9 June 2008 Fresh evidence of the way the media in Swaziland are censored by the king‘s helpers emerged this week. When King Mswati III returned from a protracted trip across Asia last week, reporters gathered to question him at a media conference.

131 132

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2008/05/democracy-is-evil-swazi-canon.html http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2008/04/swazi-king-says-election-is-free.html

78

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland This is standard practice in Swaziland. The King tells the media what a great trip he has had and how he has been working hard for the people of Swaziland and so on. Then he allows the journalists to ask questions. The Times Sunday (8 June 2008), in an editorial comment, revealed that this time the journalists were barred from asking any questions that did not relate specifically to what the king had been up to while abroad. The King‘s Office Chief Officer Bheki Dlamini gave the instruction. As the Times Sunday points out there have been a number of contentious things happening in Swaziland while the king has been away, such as the revelation that an unnamed cabinet minister has amassed E30m (more than US$4 million) in his personal bank account and the call for the king to dissolve parliament. This is not the first time that journalists have been barred from asking the king questions. Last year (2007) they were not allowed to ask him about the attempts by junior police officers in Swaziland to form a trade union. In its editorial, the Times Sunday said that the tendency to censor journalists was not new. I suspect it goes on all the time but ordinary Swazis are not told. I am pleased the Times Sunday has alerted its readers to this problem. The Times Sunday in its editorial wrote, ‗So, just as a warning to people who behave like the Chief Officer: let the king speak, and where he cannot answer, allow him to tell that to the media. ‗And in the same vein, those who consider themselves journalists – and not government secretaries – should break their silence and relentlessly speak against this tendency.‘ In as yet unpublished research I have been conducting among journalists in Swaziland I have discovered a tremendous amount of censorship taking place around the king. Media houses are fearful of writing things that upset the king. Their fear is real because in the past the king has had newspapers and magazines that he found too critical closed down. The most recent threat to do this happened in March 2007 when the Times Sunday itself was forced to apologise to the king or face closure over an article it wrote that the king disliked. It is the role of journalists to ask the important questions on behalf of the people. If they do not, they are no better than (in the words of the Times Sunday) government secretaries.

King Attacked On Times of Swaziland Website 17 August 2008 Swaziland‘s King Mswati III has come under heavy attack on the Times Sunday website today (17 August 2008). The newspaper, which last year (2007) was threatened with closure by the King because it published an article that said the King was partly responsible for Swaziland‘s economic ills,

79

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland has been publishing comments from its readers on its website that are overtly critical of King Mswati III. One reader says King Mswati III ‗alone has done more damage to the country‘s political situation and economy. Single-handedly, he has managed to portray Swaziland in a bad light to the whole world.‘ The comment on the Times of Swaziland website refers to a report in the Times Sunday today (17 August 2008) from Sandton, South Africa, about a protest march to draw attention to the lack of democracy in Swaziland. The report appeared in both the newspaper‘s print edition and also on its website. The report quotes one participant saying, ―I think there comes a time in every person‘s life where we must either surrender in cowardice or fight and I think that time has come for me. I have always been afraid to state my views about the situation in Swaziland but when I heard that government was planning a 40-40 bash [to celebrate the King's 40th birthday and also the 40th anniversary of Swaziland's independence from Britain] I said enough is enough. Today I came here to show the world that Swaziland is indeed undemocratic.‖ The reader‘s comment published by the Times Sunday says, ‗Democracy or no democracy, things are not going well at home. So lets not try to define democracy and then justify the ills that are perpetrated by the government of His Majesty. It would be naive of us Swazis to be covered by blind loyalty to the King and his government. Truth is he alone has done more damage to the country's political situation and economy. Single-handedly, he has managed to portray Swaziland in bad light to the whole world. We might not be in a situation like that of Zimbabwe, but we cannot ignore the glaring similarities in the events that preceded the situation in that country and the situation that we are in right now. We are not far away from a total collapse of the already crumbling economy. The King has to wake up and smell the winds of change and the sweet aura that comes with that. History will judge him either as a failure or the victor that stopped the moral rote, corruption and collapse of the economy. It is up to him to decide how history will judge him. The government and the king in Swaziland should realize that a new breed of Swazis has been born and we will not be fed lies and stupid patronage to the monarchy. We deserve better leadership from our leaders, not the emptiness they are giving us. We will stand up and fight for what is just. Swaziland will be free.‘ In a separate report on the protest the Times Sunday quotes one of the march organisers, Violet Sebone, vice president of the Congress of South Africa Trade Unions. ‗Swaziland has the oldest state of emergency in the region, with all public institutions and decision making the monopoly and sole preserve of the royal family. There are no democratic elections, there is systemic and institutionalised corruption laced with state terror against political and worker activists. All these are founded on the basis of the 1973 King‘s decree that concentrated all powers in his (king) hands. Years of convenient silence have promoted a culture of impunity and disregard for the fundamentals of democracy in the whole region.‘ This report also attracted stern criticism of King Mswati III. A reader wrote on the website, ‗There is no peace in Swaziland, but there is quietness. The people are just quiet and that cannot be viewed as peace. They are quiet because they are afraid to voice out their

80

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland grievances‘. The King is oppressing the poor nation by upholding up [a] 35-year-old state of emergency. In Swaziland we need to be freed, politically [and] economically.‘

Censorship at Times of Swaziland Website 19 August 2008 Normal service has been resumed in Swaziland. The Times of Swaziland newspaper website has deleted the frank – and frankly outspoken – comments readers left over the past days about what they see as the lack of democracy in the kingdom, the corrupt King Mswati III, and the arrogance of Swazi ‗traditional leaders‘. A news report (18 August 2008) that attracted most criticism involved the ‗traditional Prime Minister‘ Jim Gama who declared it ‗uncultural‘ for women to engage in a protest march.133 The women were (and still are) demanding answers to why eight of the King‘s 13 wives had gone on a trip to the Middle East, along with family, bodyguards, maids and assorted hangers-on. The suspicion is that they are on a huge shopping trip ahead of Swaziland‘s 40/40 celebrations early next month (September 2008). Some people had detected a new openness on the part of the Times newspaper by allowing readers to air honestly-held opinions about life in Swaziland. Personally, I never bought into that. In July 2008 I published research134 that showed just how much the media in Swaziland are censored (especially by the monarchy) and how they censor themselves to avoid offending monarchy. The Times’ website went against that. I reckon what we saw wasn‘t a new spirit of freedom; rather it was an inept management at the Times who didn‘t realise what was going on, until it was pointed out to them. The moment they found out, they pulled the plug. We must wait and see whether comments are allowed on the website ever again. If they are allowed, I suppose they will be ‗moderated‘ (i.e censored) before they appear. One thing is for certain, the comments that have been published on the website from readers show there is a lot of genuine ill feeling out there towards the King, his government, and ‗traditional leaders‘. The censors might not want us to read about it, but there is no denying the fact of its existence. Swazi King’s Cars Censorship 3 May 2009 King Mswati III of Swaziland is clearly rattled that news about his purchase of up to 20 stateof-the-art armoured Mercedes-Benz cars for himself and his (many) wives has become public knowledge. It was reported that the Mercedes Benz S600 Pullman Guard cars that can resist an attack with small arms projectiles, a grenade or other explosive and include high-end audio, an 133 134

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2008/08/swazi-women-told-do-not-march.html http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2008/07/censorship-and-swazi-media.html

81

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland intercom, 19-inch flat screen display, DVD player, refrigerator and wood trim as standard, cost E25 million (US$250,000) each. The Times Sunday reported this news that has also been all over the Internet. Now, the Times of Swaziland, the kingdom‘s only independent newspaper group, has been forced to make an apology. It seems Times’ publisher Paul Loffler was summoned to see the king and as a result the following appeared on the front page of the Times. APOLOGY The Times Group of Newspapers wishes to bring to the attention of its readers and the public at large that an article published in the April 19, 2009 edition of the Times SUNDAY entitled 'E25m cars at Ludzidzini' was not entirely correct and could have misled the public into believing that his was an amount actually spent on the cars. It has been brought to our attention that the cars referred to in the article were not purchased at a cost of E25 million but at a highly reduced figure due to them being ordered directly from the manufacturers in Germany. We therefore would like to unreservedly apologize to His Majesty the King and all affected parties for the misleading information. We wish to state that the Times Group of Newspapers remains committed in its endeavour to provide information accurate and balanced content in a respectful and unbiased manner and that it shares a common vision for peace and development of this country with the people of Swaziland. By the publisher on behalf of the Times Group of Newspapers. Keen readers will note that King Mswati is not denying that he bought the cars, but only that they didn‘t cost as much as E25 million, because he got a discount. As I said in my blogpost on Thursday (30 April 2009),135 when reporting the king‘s denial in the Swazi Observer,136 the newspaper in effect owned by the king, nobody has actually said how much the cars did cost. If King Mswati doesn‘t feel the cost of the cars is any big deal, let him tell us how much he paid for them and where he got the money from. The news about the king‘s new cars will not go away. I suspect he may have scored an own goal by forcing an apology from the Times over a report that was essentially true. Expect to see more international attention focused on the king who is said to have a wealth of US$200 million (E2 billion)137 when 70 percent of his subjects live in abject poverty earning less than one US dollar a day, Swaziland has the highest rate of HIV AIDS and tuberculosis in the world and last year six in ten people needed some form of international food aid to avoid hunger.

Times Censors Advert About The King 13 August 2010 The Times of Swaziland has censored a paid advert from a group of pro-democracy groups in the kingdom, because it contains mild criticisms of King Mswati III. 135

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/04/cost-of-swaziland-kings-new-cars.html http://www.observer.org.sz/index.php?news=3708 137 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2008/08/anger-at-swaziland-kings-wealth 136

82


The advert drew attention to a recent rejection by the king of any dialogue with groups advocating democracy in the kingdom where he is sub-Saharan Africa‘s last absolute monarch.138 The advert also commented on a statement made by the king‘s brother Prince Mahlaba who made death threats against journalists who give coverage to political dissenters.139 At first, the Times claimed the advert was illegal, but later privately accepted this was not the case. What was happening, of course, was self-censorship by the newspaper. As I reminded readers earlier this week,140 the Times has had a series of run-ins with King Mswati and he has threatened to close down the newspaper group if it criticises him. The pro-democracy groups who signed the advert were the Swaziland Democracy Campaign, the Foundation for Socio-Economic Justice, the Swaziland Coalition of Concerned Civic Organization, the Swaziland Democratic Front and Swaziland Positive Living (SWAPOL). The advert runs for more than 800 words and there were significant changes made to four paragraphs. A reference to King Mswati acting in an ‗un-Swazi‘ way was also cut. The pro-democracy groups decided not to publish in the Times and will now try the Nation magazine, an independent monthly. Royal Sex Scandal Newspaper ‘Banned’ 12 August 2010 The City Press newspaper that broke the story about the Swaziland Royal Family sex scandal141 has been banned from the kingdom – but only ‗unofficially‘. The City Press is a South African Sunday newspaper but it is on sale in Swaziland. For the past two weeks it ran stories about an (alleged) adulterous relationship between (now former) Justice and Constitutional Affairs Minister Ndumiso Mamba and King Mswati III’s 12th wife, Nothando Dube (also known as Inkhosikati LaDube). Now, reports in the African media say Swaziland security forces were apparently instructed to buy all copies of the City Press that were on sale in the kingdom. African Eye reports142, ‗―There were reports that people could not get the paper last weekend in Swaziland, and our sources...also called on Tuesday asking if we know that we have been banned,‘ said City Press executive editor Japhet Ncube on Wednesday. ―Our lawyers are looking into this issue and steps will probably be taken if it's true, otherwise there is no official report on this.‖‘ 138

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2010/07/political-dialogue-dead-mswati.html http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2010/07/death-threat-prince-condemned.html 140 http://cpj.org/blog/2010/08/in-swaziland-local-press-subdues-royal-sex-scandal.php 141 http://www.citypress.co.za/International/News/Swazi-kings-wife-in-sex-scandal-20100801 142 http://www.news24.com/Africa/News/Swazi-bans-City-Press-20100811 139

83


Spokesperson for the Swaziland chapter of the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA), Michael Motsa, said there was no law the Swaziland authorities could use to ban City Press or any other paper. ‗Yes, there are rumours that City Press has been banned from circulation in the kingdom, but I don't think there is any truth to that. If it is true, we will condemn this and call for the unbanning of the paper based on the fact that there is no legislation calling for banning of newspapers that report negatively about the royal family,‘ said Motsa on Wednesday.‘ (11 August 2010). While the royal sex scandal has not been covered in the Swaziland media, South African Sunday newspapers City Press, Sunday Sun and the Sunday Independent have reported on it.

Anti-Royal Activist Could Face 50 Cents Fine 13 August 2010 The man arrested for photocopying a news report on the Swazi Royal Family sex scandal could face a maximum two months in prison or a fine equivalent to 50 US cents. No really. The absurdity of the arrest of Sibusiso Mhlanga knows no bounds. Mhlanga was arrested143 by a plain clothed police woman in Manzini when he tried to get a photocopy of a City Press newspaper report144 on the (alleged) adultery of (now former) Justice and Constitutional Affairs Minister Ndumiso Mamba, and King Mswati 12th wife, Nothando Dube (also known as Inkhosikati LaDube). Police said they would charge Mhlanga with copyright infringement. Mhlanga, aged 31, is a member of the Swazi Youth Congress (SWAYOCO), the youth wing of the People’s United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO). Both groups are considered ‘terrorist entities’ in Swaziland, ruled by King Mswati, subSaharan Africa’s last absolute monarch. No one believes that a plain clothed policeman just happened to be passing by when Mhlanga tried to get his photocopy. Reports of his arrest and his role as a pro-democracy activist have circulated the world since yesterday. No matter how it tries the Swaziland state has not been able to keep a lid on the Royal Family sex scandal and what it says about King Mswati and the way he oppresses the Swazi people. And the 50 cents? Copyright law in Swaziland dates back to 1912. If convicted you are liable to a fine not exceeding E4 [about 50 US cents], with the maximum fine not exceeding E100 In Swaziland the legal system provides for fines or imprisonment as an alternative. The imprisonment term imposed by the Act does not exceed a period of two months.

143 144

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2010/08/royal-sex-scandal-arrest-made.html http://www.citypress.co.za/International/News/Swazi-kings-wife-in-sex-scandal-20100801

84


‘Banned’ City Press Will Go On sale 14 August 2010 City Press will try to distribute copies in Swaziland tomorrow (Sunday 15 August 2010), despite fears that it has been banned in the kingdom. The South African newspaper that is on sale in Swaziland has drawn international attention over the past two Sundays for its reporting of the Swazi Royal Family sex scandal. 145 It was reported earlier this week that City Press had been ‗unofficially‘ banned in Swaziland, which is ruled by King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa‘s last absolute monarch. Reports in the African media146 said Swaziland security forces were apparently instructed to buy all copies of the City Press that were on sale in the kingdom. Melanie-Ann Feris, managing editor of City Press, said, ‗The paper is not aware of being officially banned in Swaziland. We will continue to distribute the paper to our outlets there this weekend.‘ Swazi police deny there is an official ban. City Press quoted Superintendent Wendy Hleta, the deputy public relations officer for the police, saying claims that the paper was banned were unfounded and untrue.147

Times Sunday Censors Itself Over King 20 March 2011 The Times Sunday, an independent newspaper in Swaziland, has censored its own report on international media coverage of the mass protest on Friday (18 March 2011) that called on the government to resign.148 It reported that the protest attracted journalists from all over the world, including the US, France, Germany and the UK. It then gave some examples of what the media said. But – this is Swaziland after all – it censored the coverage. And, admitted it. ‗Comments deemed insensitive have been edited,‘ the Times Sunday said. Readers of this blog and the Internet generally will be very aware that the international media coverage has been highly critical of Swaziland‘s King Mswati III, who is also sub-Saharan Africa‘s last absolute monarch.

145

http://www.citypress.co.za/International/News/Swazi-kings-wife-in-sex-scandal-20100801 http://www.news24.com/Africa/News/Swazi-bans-City-Press-20100811 147 http://www.citypress.co.za/SouthAfrica/No-City-Press-ban-Swazi-police-20100811 148 http://www.times.co.sz/News/26899.html 146

85

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland I doubt if there was a single report that didn‘t point out that the king was rich, while he‘s subjects lived in abject poverty. Here are some extracts from reports the Times Sunday doesn‘t want the people of Swaziland to read. The impoverished kingdom is under pressure from the International Monetary Fund to cut its wage bill if Swaziland is to qualify for much-needed international loans. King Mswati, Southern Africa’s last absolute monarch, is criticised for his lavish spending on luxury cars and palaces for his 13 wives. – AFP news agency149 The austerity budget has galvanized an anti-monarchy movement in the southern African country of about 1 million led by King Mswati III. Some protesters on Friday carried signs saying: "We want political reforms" and "tyrants must fall." – Canadian Press "Swaziland cannot remain an island of dictatorship in the sea of democracy," Mario Masuku head of the banned opposition People's United Democratic Movement (Pudemo) told the crowd, reports the AP news agency. "Royalty has squandered the economy... We want a government by the people," he said. – BBC150 Unemployment in the nation of 1.4 million people is about 40 percent, with 70 percent of the population living below the national poverty line. In contrast, King Mswati III -- who has 14 wives -- has a personal fortune of $200 million, according to Forbes magazine. – Reuters news agency151 Mswati has a personal fortune of $200 million, New York’s Forbes Magazine said on its website. The nation’s gross domestic product was $3 billion in 2009, according to the International Monetary Fund. He holds stakes in most major businesses, including a venture with Illovo Sugar Ltd., Africa’s biggest producer of the sweetener, and Swaziland’s only mobile phone services provider, the local unit of Johannesburg-based MTN Group Ltd. Mswati’s allocation of 210 million emalangeni in this year’s budget is nearly as much as the government spends on medicines, including anti-AIDS drugs. - Bloomberg agency report152

149

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g8xi61YswwVh44wBbdgOzvjH7YdQ?docId=CNG. fddcdddc9d52b6bd15a7cbe41e46b894.251 150 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12790037 151 http://af.reuters.com/article/topNews/idAFJOE72H09H20110318?sp=true 152 http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-03-18/rolls-royce-riding-swazi-king-s-pay-rises-as-cuts-stokerage.html

86


8. Police Harassment And Censorship Swazi Cops Storm Media Workshop 9 December 2008 Police in Swaziland have once again proved they think they are above the law by denying people their constitutional rights. The latest example came when state police in plain clothes tried to demand they sit in and monitor a workshop for media managers. This follows recent incidents in which Swazi police denied people the right to rally153 against the government‘s oppressive ‗anti-terrorist‘ law and denied church leaders, civic organisations and foreign diplomats the right to meet and discuss recent government policy.154 On all occasions the police were ignoring Swaziland‘s Constitution which allows for freedom of speech, freedom of the media and freedom of association. The most recent outrage happened last Wednesday (3 December 2008). The Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) reports that ‗state police stormed a MISA training workshop for media personnel and threatened to disrupt it if they were not allowed to monitor it‘. The two-day workshop on media management was held in Matsapha, outside Manzini, the second city of Swaziland, and facilitated by the Southern African Institute for Media Entrepreneurship Development, from Botswana, in partnership with the MISA Swaziland chapter. According to MISA,155 ‗Plainclothes security officers arrived and demanded to be allowed to monitor the discussions. MISA Swaziland‘s Information Officer, Michael Motsa, who was on the ground, explained to the police that the workshop was open only to media personnel who included editors and marketing managers. ‗Motsa further explained that the workshop was neither political nor infringed any statute law of Swaziland as it was educational and aimed at only equipping the participants with managerial and marketing skills for their media houses. He said he saw no reason why it should be monitored by the police.‘ After a 10-minute discussion, the police backed down and left promising to come back if their seniors insisted on them sitting in during the workshop. However, they did not return for the rest of the day. The workshop, which was not advertised, involved a few media senior personnel and it was arranged through email and telephone contacts. In a statement, MISA Swaziland National Director, Comfort Mabuza, expressed shock at the police action to threaten a professional 153

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2008/12/swazi-cops-break-up-legal-rally.html http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2008/11/swazi-cops-ban-diplomats-meeting.html 155 http://allafrica.com/stories/200812081391.html 154

87

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland training workshop. He said this underscored the government‘s frustration at the growing dissenting voices on the ground such that they can even regard lobby groups like MISA as threats to state security.

Police Harass Journalists At Traditional Ceremony 17 December 2008 Journalists covering a traditional ceremony in Swaziland were harassed, banned and had their equipment confiscated by the police while trying to cover the event. Brian Mohammed, a journalist with the Times of Swaziland, was banned and kicked out of a royal residence where he had gone to cover the first day of the Incwala event. According to a report156 from the Media Institute for Southern Africa (MISA), a police officer, who gave no reasons for his actions, told Mohammed that he was not welcome to cover the event and ordered him to leave. Not even the intervention of a colleague from another media house could convince the officer to allow Mohammed to cover the event so he eventually left without covering the event. A television crew from the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) also felt the brunt of police harassment. They had their equipment confiscated by the police when they were caught filming the event. This was despite the crew having the necessary accreditation. Members of the SABC crew were quoted in the local media saying that the police had confiscated their equipment without giving any valid reason. It was not until the intervention of traditional authorities that the journalists were able to get their equipment back. But even then, they were told to stop covering the event. During the festival‘s main day on Monday (15 December 2008), MISA said, the situation was even worse as there was a blanket ban on media coverage of the event. Police officers made it a point that no journalist took photographs and those who attempted to do so had their cameras confiscated. No reasons were given for the blanket ban. The MISA Swaziland chapter said these actions violate the freedom of the press. MISASwaziland plans to raise this with the relevant government and traditional authorities. This was the first time the media have been harassed and banned during the Incwala ceremony. In the past, the media have been allowed to cover this event without any problems, though there were some limits, MISA said.

Swazi Police Detain and Torture Television Journalists 19 December 2008 Swaziland police have been accused of torturing and detaining two television reporters.

156

http://allafrica.com/stories/200812160885.html

88

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland The journalists, who work for Swaziland‘s only independent television station Channel S, say they were arrested by police while they were following a story about a crime syndicate. It is reported157 that police thought the journalists were part of the criminal gang. They were released without charge. Now, the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) has asked police and other security agencies not to disturb journalists in their duties. According to a report in the Swazi Observer yesterday158 (18 December 2008), Director of the MISA Swaziland Chapter Comfort Mabuza said if there were suspicions in the way journalists conduct themselves, the relevant entities should be contacted. Mabuza also urged journalists to investigate stories and not rely on sources for information. ‗Do not run for a story without satisfying yourself that it is not foul play. Investigate a story and confirm it.‘ Secretary General of the Swaziland National Association of Journalists (SNAJ) Timothy Simelane said the alleged detention and harassment of the two was unfortunate. ‗From what we have gathered so far, the journalists were on duty and had been promised a story yet this was not to be the case. However, no matter the circumstance, the police had no prerogative to harass them, nor detain them for so many hours. ‗Members of the public are also warned not to take journalists for a ride by promising them news, yet the motive is to abuse them to settle personal scores with opponents. Similarly, journalists are warned not to fall for scheming bogus sources, but to screen them first to avoid being taken for a ride.‘ Simelane said the association would investigate the matter further.

Police To Decide Who Can Go On Radio 23 June 2010 Swaziland police are to decide who can make announcements on state radio, SBIS. It has told the broadcaster that it must stop allowing people to broadcast information about future meetings unless the police have given permission. Jerome Dlamini, Deputy Director of the Swaziland Broadcasting and Information Services (SBIS), said this was to stop the radio station airing an announcement for a meeting that is prohibited. He said, ‗It‘s the station‘s policy not to make announcements without police permission.‘

157 158

http://www.observer.org.sz/index.php?news=192 http://www.observer.org.sz/index.php?news=228

89

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland The police directive came to light when the Swaziland National Association of Teachers (SNAT) tried to get an announcement aired about a meeting this coming weekend. There is a major crackdown on pro-democracy activists in Swaziland at present. Police are raiding homes under the pretence that they are searching for bombs or bomb-making equipment.159 Many activists are being harassed and hauled into police stations across the kingdom ruled by King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa‘s last absolute monarch.160 Police have already taken it upon themselves to decide which meeting may go ahead and which may not161 – sometimes even when the courts have sanctioned the meetings.162 Barnabas Dlamini, Swaziland‘s illegally-appointed Prime minister announced that his government was in control of content on SBIS and the government decided what could and could not be aired.163

Swazi Police Block Newspapers At Border 16 July 2011 The Sowetan newspaper from South Africa was held by police at the Swaziland border yesterday (15 July 2011) and copies were confiscated, because it carried an article critical of Michael Ramodibedi, the Swazi Chief Justice. Copies of the newspaper that is usually freely available to buy in Swaziland were taken at the Ngwenya Border Post. The Sowetan included an article reporting that the Law Society of Swaziland wanted the chief justice to be dismissed immediately for his mishandling of the judiciary in the kingdom, ruled by King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa‘s last absolute monarch. It also carried a report that the Times of Swaziland, the only independent newspaper in the kingdom, had received a High Court order to stop it publishing its own story about the Ramodibedi dispute. The Swazi News, a companion newspaper to the Times, reports today that according to one of the distributors of the Sowetan, police officers forcefully confiscated copies of the newspaper which were going to various news-stands in the country. Sources told the Swazi News that as early of 7am a considerable number of police officers had already been deployed at the border to ‗block‘ two South African newspapers, the Mail and Guardian and the Sowetan. The Sowetan was a bit delayed and arrived much later than the usual time. It is not reported what happened to the Mail and Guardian.

159

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2010/06/hlophe-raid-act-of-intimidation.html http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2010/06/another-swazi-day-another-victim.html 161 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2010/04/proof-of-no-freedom-in-swaziland.html 162 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2010/04/swazi-police-bar-democrat-masuku.html 163 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2010/05/swazi-pm-i-control-media.html 160

90

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland When the paper finally arrived in the vehicle for media couriers, the police on the Swazi side of the border confiscated it and took the copies to the police headquarters in Mbabane. The police, it is reported, said they were acting on a court order. Sources say the police confiscated the Sowetan newspaper and ‗detained‘ the paper at the police headquarters for more than two hours. They later handed it back to the distributors after finishing their ‗investigations‘ after 10am, The Swazi News reports.

91


9. Internet Censorship Government Wants To Censor Internet 9 January 2010 The Swazi Government wants to extend its censorship of the media to the Internet. Already newspapers and broadcast media are subject to censorship (and self-censorship) by government and other organs of the ruling elite. Now there is news that the Swaziland Attorney General Majahenkhaba Dlamini is looking to get a website from the People‘s United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO) closed down. According to a report in the Times Sunday (28 December 2008), Dlamini says the website could contravene the Suppression of Terrorism Act (STA). He didn‘t tell the newspaper why he thought it did this, but as Amnesty International revealed on Thursday164 (8 January 2009) the definitions of ‗terrorism‘ and ‗terrorist activity‘ in the STA are so broad that just about anything could be included: such as setting off a fire alarm as a prank. The real reason the Swazi Government wants the website closed down is because it comes from a political party that is banned inside Swaziland. In November 2008 the illegallyappointed Prime Minister of Swaziland Barnabas Dlamini declared PUDEMO and three other political formations to be terrorist organisations. This means anyone who is a member of the organisations or offers them support could face up to 25 years in jail. The Swazi Government cannot control what goes on the PUDEMO website at a time when international opinion is turning against Swaziland where King Mswati III rules as the last absolute monarch in sub-Saharan Africa. His wealth of US$200 million contrasts to 70 percent of Swaziland‘s one million population who live in abject poverty, earning less than one dollar a day. All political parties are banned in Swaziland and the parliament has no real powers. The present prime minister was appointed by the king, even though he had not been a member of the House of Assembly (a constitutional requirement). In the past few months the Swazi Government has clamped down on dissent. Only this week Mfomfo Nkambule, a writer for the Times of Swaziland, was threatened with a 20-year jail sentence if he continued to write articles deemed by the police to be critical of the king. According to the Times Sunday report, the Attorney General said he would consult the STA to ascertain whether or not PUDEMO operated the website outside of the law and then block it from being accessed by the public. He conceded it was not easy to block it because the Swazi Government still had to find out where the website was hosted.

Main Swaziland Opposition Party Website Closed Down 1 December 2010 164

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/01/call-to-repeal-swazi-terror-act.html

92

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland Censorship in Swaziland seems to have taken a new twist today (1 December 2010) with the revelation that the website of PUDEMO, the main opposition group in the kingdom, has been closed down. Also, all attempts to use Google within Swaziland to search for PUDEMO draw error messages. It is now impossible to get on the PUDEMO website if you are inside Swaziland, but it is still available outside in the free world. But the censor has a sense of humour, because instead of delivering you to the PUDEMO (the People‘s United Democratic Front) website, it takes you to the Swazi parastatal Swaziland Posts and Telecommunications. The PUDEMO site is reportedly hosted by Real Image Internet which describes itself as ‗Swaziland's Leading Internet Service Provider‘. Real Image headed by Ali Resting has a number of contracts with the Swaziland Government for internet services, including the Swaziland Tourist Authority (STA). Government Won’t Come Clean On Web Censorship 2 December 2010 The Swaziland Government has denied any involvement with the banning of access to the PUDEMO internet site, despite independent expert evidence that a block has been set up. As I reported165 yesterday (1 December 2010), it is impossible to access the site in Swaziland and you can‘t search for PUDEMO on Google. Complete access to PUDEMO is available outside the kingdom. Nelsiwe Shongwe, Swazi Minister of Information, Communications and Technology, denied knowing anything about the censorship. She told the Times of Swaziland, the kingdom‘s only independent daily newspaper, that the problem was a ‗glitch‘ or ‗malfunction‘ in the network and ‗it is still not clear why this is happening‘. If Shongwe is telling the truth then that means normal service to the PUDEMO website will be resumed almost immediately. We shall, of course, soon find out. But PUDEMO says the access has been blocked for a week now. However, as things stand there is reason to doubt the minister‘s account. An investigation by an independent Internet expert reveals that the PUDEMO site is being blocked by software called Packeteer PacketSharper. This is the type of software that a company might use to block its employees from accessing sites such as Facebook.

165

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2010/12/web-censorship-in-swaziland.html

93

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland This means that someone in Swaziland has put up the block. The finger was pointed at Real Image Internet, ‗Swaziland's Leading Internet Service Provider‘, but Managing Director Ali Resting said he knows nothing about the blocking of PUDEMO‘s website. Also in the frame is Swaziland Post and Telecommunications (SPTC), the governmentowned monopoly telephone landline service in Swaziland. The expert says that the blocking of the PUDEMO site cannot be a ‗glitch‘. The expert Googled ‗PUDEMO and then five random words out of the dictionary and then PUDEMO again. Obviously the ―glitch‖ only occurred when Googling PUDEMO. ‗I also showed that if [you] went to a site that allows you to hide what you are looking for or at, you can see PUDEMO and Google it very easily - therefore it is a deliberate and successful attempt to stop Swazis from going there.‘ The expert also searched for PUDEMO through the Bing, Altavista, and Yahoo search engines and also got the denial of service. Significantly, when the expert typed ‗PUDEM Swaziland‘ into the computer the spelling correction software guessed correctly and showed all the information that a PUDEMO search would have. Someone in Swaziland, where censorship of the local media is rife, needs to come clean about this. Internet censorship is in breach of all international internet protocols and the global community needs to bring Swaziland to account. PM Rattled He can’t Control Internet 11 June 2010 Barnabas Dlamini, Prime Minister of Swaziland, is rattled because he can‘t control what‘s being said about the undemocratic kingdom on the Internet.166 Dlamini, who is internationally recognised as an enemy of freedom and democracy167 , wants to stop what he calls ‗malicious propaganda and misinformation‘ about Swaziland spreading across the globe. What he means of course is that news and comment about his crackdown on pro-democracy activists in Swaziland and the recent death in prison in mysterious circumstances of Sipho Jele has turned the spotlight on him and his paymaster, King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa‘s last absolute monarch. And Dlamini is powerless to stop it. We know (because recently he told us)168 that Dlamini‘s government has a stranglehold of the broadcast media in Swaziland and they are only allowed to report what Dlamini‘s government allows. 166

http://www.observer.org.sz/index.php?news=13955 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2008/10/new-pm-enemy-of-freedom.html 168 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2010/05/swazi-pm-i-control-media.html 167

94

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland We also know (because Musa Ndlangamandla, the editor in chief of the Observer newspapers, in effect owned by King Mswati, told us)169 that the Swazi Observer and Weekend Observer will not publish anything that puts the king in a bad light. That means that people in Swaziland have hardly any way of finding out what is really going on in their own kingdom. That‘s why people are setting up websites, blogs, Facebook accounts and so on, to get the message out to the world. Dlamini told the Swaziland House of Assembly this week,170 ‗We appeal to those responsible for such malicious propaganda to desist from such behaviour and urge them instead to come up with valid information that will positively benefit the whole country.‘ I like the bit about ‗positively benefit the whole country‘. Democracy in Swaziland would be a positive benefit to all Swazi people, instead of the system that presently puts all the power in the hands of the king. So, I‘d say the Interneters are doing precisely what the bogus Doctor171 Dlamini ordered. It is good to know that Dlamini and his supporters are taking such an active interest and are reading the comments from this blog and the other Internet sites about freedom for Swaziland. So freedom fighters of Cyberspace keep up the good work. And to Dlamini and our new readers: Welcome to you all. I am sure you are finding out many things that you did not previously know about Swaziland. Keep on reading and learn.

Swazi Senators Attack Facebook Freedom 20 August 2010 Swaziland senators are so worried that the truth about the Swazi Royal Family is getting out to the wider world they want to censor the Internet. And top of their list of victims is Facebook, the social networking site. Swaziland‘s Minister of Information, Communication and Technology Nelisiwe Shongwe told the senate that the kingdom, ruled by King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa‘s last absolute monarch, is looking at laws to control cyberspace. Shongwe was reacting to complaints that Swazi reporters were leaking information to the South Africa media that was censored in Swaziland. Although they didn‘t say so out loud they were referring to the recent sex scandal involving the 12th wife of King Mswati, 22-year-old Nothando Dube, (also known as Inkhosikati LaDube) and Ndumiso Mamba,the (now former) Justice and Constitutional Affairs Minister. Media in Swaziland have been banned172 from reporting this, but South African newspapers and Internet sites all over the world have published news and comment on their alleged adultery. 169

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2010/03/swazi-observer-is-propaganda.html http://www.observer.org.sz/index.php?news=13955 171 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/02/swaziland-pm-is-bogus-doctor.html 172 http://cpj.org/blog/2010/08/in-swaziland-local-press-subdues-royal-sex-scandal.php 170

95


One senator, Ndileka Dlamini, rather sinisterly called on the Swazi Government to ‗deal‘ with any local reporter found to be leaking ‗sensitive news‘. She called for a sense of ‗patriotism‘ from journalists. ‗They must learn to respect the country and know that what they are doing is wrong. They must know that action will be taken against them for doing such,‘ the Times of Swaziland quoted Dlamini saying during a senate debate. Senator Khephu Cindzi shared similar sentiments and asked the minister if social networking sites could be regulated to protect the country‘s image. There must be control on things like Facebook because it is being abused. They discuss sensitive issues anyhow, he said. In response Shongwe said the senators‘ concerns were justified. ‗It is true that sometimes the content is not good to be publicised and, besides, children use these sites. As part of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) we are looking at cyber laws to protect ourselves from such things,‘ she said. I flatter myself that I am one of the culprits complained of. So in the spirit of freedom of the media I invite any Swaziland senator to defend their position on the Swazi Media Commentary Facebook site. Senators just click here.173

Swazi PM Tries To Hide Facebook Secret 3 February 2011 The newspapers in Swaziland today (3 February 2011) report that Barnabas Dlamini, the Prime Minister, has warned the Swazi media against looking for stories on Facebook. What he and the newspapers don‘t tell us is that yesterday Dlamini himself was the focus of a Facebook post about the support he voiced for Ndumiso Mamba, at the time in August 2010 when the cabinet minister was found in an adulterous relationship with one of the wives of King Mswati III. The post on the Umgosi Eswatini: The Real Staff Facebook site174 said the idea that Dlamini wanted to send ‗a small delegation of ministers to offer sympathy and comfort to Ndumiso, was most despicable. Had it not been for one minster who objected to such nonsense the mission would have been executed. Surprisingly, no one suggested that they do that to the king, yet this is supposed to be a cabinet that would die for its boss.‘ But this was not reported by the Swazi newspapers. Instead they reported Dlamini saying it was important to keep information published on Facebook away from the Swazi people.

173 174

http://www.facebook.com/Swazi.Media.Commentary?v=wall#!/group.php?gid=142383985790674&ref=ts http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=119648468068161&v=wall

96

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland ‗If such stories from these websites then make it to the newspapers and radios, then the public at large will start to think there is some truth in the story yet it was just malicious gossip,‘ the Times of Swaziland, the only independent daily newspaper in the kingdom, reported him saying. The Swazi Observer175, the newspaper in effect owned by King Mswati, reported, ‗Dlamini said government did not have any measures to control the internet but relied on the support of the media which assists by shying away from information published or sourced from the internet.‘ The PM incorrectly said that the stories on the Internet couldn‘t be believed because the writers used a false identity. Most posts that I see (and write) are clearly identified by the writer‘s real name or the organisation that put up the site. The Times reported, ‗The PM was responding to questions posed by this publication over what government was doing to monitor the use of the internet, particularly regarding the image of the country as well as a recent story on Facebook which said a married female minister had been caught kissing another man in a vehicle by her husband.‘ The newspaper was referring to Nelisiwe Shongwe,176 Swaziland‘s Minister for Information, Communication and Technology. For no obvious reason (to me at least) the media in Swaziland continue to keep the name of the minister secret from its readers.

Facebook Scares Swazi Elite 22 March 2011 More evidence is emerging that the Swazi ruling elite are running scared of Facebook and the way it allows Swazi people to criticise King Mswati III without censorship.177 The latest call for the Swazi Government to ‗monitor‘ (ie censor) the Internet came from Senator Vuka Moi Moi Masilela. Masilela, described by the Times of Swaziland, the kingdom‘s only independent daily newspaper, as ‗a known traditionalist‘ believes Facebook poses a threat to the king and his kingdom. According to the Times, Masilela said Facebook had ‗created fear among the Swazi people who have read what is written there, especially about the king‘. The senator said Facebook had a lot of influence as witnessed by the uprisings taking part in North Africa where the social networking site has been used to incite people. ‗Even royals are ridiculed in this Facebook. However, this isn‘t defended. In the uprisings seen in the North, Facebook has been used to incite people, but we‘re quiet about it in the country,‘ Masilela said. 175

http://www.observer.org.sz/index.php?news=20656 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2010/10/swaziland-propaganda-wont-wash.html 177 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2011/02/swazi-secret-police-join-facebook.html 176

97

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland The senator called upon the prime minister‘s office to monitor Facebook and counter whatever negative information on Swaziland is posted. ‗This issue of Facebook is very serious. The government press secretary‘s office should have someone always monitoring this site,‘ Masilela said. ‗This Facebook is dangerous. We need to monitor and correct the things written there,‘ he added. What really worries Masilela and his kind is that he cannot censor what is written on Facebook. Over the past months there has been an increased activity on Facebook with a number of sites carrying information and comment critical of King Mswati, sub-Saharan Africa‘s last absolute monarch, and the government he hand picks. They are also very much in favour of bringing democracy to Swaziland The mainstream media in Swaziland is still fearful of the king‘s iron fist – witness the selfcensorship in the Times Sunday this week,178 when it ran a number of reports about Friday‘s mass protest that had appeared in the international press, but cut out the many critical references they made to the king. Facebook: Now It’s Personal For The Swazi PM 23 March 2011 Barnabas Dlamini, the illegally-appointed Prime Minister of Swaziland, has vowed to get the Facebooker who has published reports about his alleged illegitimate child on the Internet. Well actually, Dlamini didn‘t reveal that last part. He just said that ‗Gangada Masilela‘ who set up the Facebook site Umgosi Eswatini the Real Staff, the return would be caught. The Prime Minister was responding to the growing concern among Swaziland senators that Swazi people were publishing material on the Internet that was critical of the ruling elite.179 Masilela‘s Facebook site specialises in publishing material about the private lives of people in power. In the past week there have been reports all over the Internet that the Prime Minister has an illegitimate child that stays with its mother in Siteki in the Lowveld that the PM refuses to maintain. It is further reported that the Swazi Observer, the newspaper in effect owned by King Mswati III, has been tipped off about the child and has photographs. The paper, which is running a campaign against Dlamini at present, was said to be considering publication but has not. Dlamini told the Swazi Senate it would not be long before Masilela was exposed and there was ‗no safe haven from the full force of the law‘.

178 179

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2011/03/times-sunday-censors-self-on-king.html http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2011/03/facebook-scares-swazilands-elite.html

98

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland The Observer reported today180 (25 March 2011) that Senator Moi Moi Masilela complained that Gangadza Masilela ‗was always posting stories on the social site that tarnished the image of the country‘. The senator said someone showed him the disturbing statements posted by Gangadza and after reading them he felt there was a need to nail him. He did not say what these statements were, but it is a fair assumption they were the reports about the Prime Minister‘s sex life. The PM yesterday said Gangadza should not have confidence in himself because he would be brought to book ‗Angatetsembi. We will get this person,‘ said the PM. The PM told senators that sites like Facebook were not controlled in the kingdom, ruled by King Mswati, sub-Saharan Africa‘s last absolute monarch, stating that these were the downsides that came with technology. The PM‘s vow to get Gangadza Masilela is in direct conflict with his statement,181 also made yesterday and published in the Swaziland media, that the government would not respond to comments made on social network sites because ‗it was not its policy to respond to every gratuitous comment appearing in these sites and by anonymous people‘. Clearly, there is one ‗policy‘ for comments made about King Mswati and another when it‘s Prime Minister Dlamini in the spotlight. PM Says Constitution Lets Him Censor 25 March 2011 The Swaziland Government is running around like a headless chicken to try to stop Swazi people using Facebook sites to criticise it. Barnabas Dlamini, Swaziland‘s Prime minister, issued a statement yesterday (24 March 2011) saying the government would not be responding to its critics. Then he flatly contradicted himself by saying he would use the full force of the law against them. According to the Swazi Observer,182 Dlamini said there were two reasons why the government won‘t respond. ‗One; it was not its policy to respond to every gratuitous comment appearing in these sites and by anonymous people. ‗Two; the feeling is that the comments on these sites were so appalling such that to respond to them would be tantamount to sinking to the same degraded levels.‘ In his statement, Dlamini said the government would only respond to reports or comments published by ‗officially recognised and registered media entities‘.

180

http://www.observer.org.sz/index.php?news=22785 http://www.observer.org.sz/index.php?news=22786 182 http://www.observer.org.sz/index.php?news=22786 181

99

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland But which are the ‗recognised‘ and ‗registered‘ media entities? In Swaziland all broadcast news outlets are state-controlled. One of the two newspaper groups in the kingdom is owned by the king and that just leaves one ‗independent‘ news group, the Times of Swaziland. And as we saw last Sunday in its reporting of the mass protest calling for the resignation of the government, the Times censors itself183 when it comes to criticism of King Mswati. So Dlamini hasn‘t much to fear from the Swazi media. That leaves the international media. Will Dlamini not talk to Reuters, the Associated Press, AFP or the BBC? Or, perhaps he will, but only if they ‗register‘ with his ministry of propaganda. Dlamini also said that Swazi people who post messages on Facebook and other Internet sites did so ‗under the cowardly cloak of pseudonyms and other forms of anonymity‘. That‘s a distraction and mostly not true. As anyone who regularly reads Internet postings about Swaziland will know the overwhelming majority of posters (including the one you‘re reading now) use their own names. But who can blame a Swazi person if they don‘t want to be identified by the government? Swaziland is a kingdom where (like Sipho Jele184) you can be arrested for wearing a T-shirt supporting a banned organisation and end up dead hanging from the ceiling at a state correctional facility. The real ‗coward‘ here is Barnabas Dlamini himself. He consistently refuses to engage with his critics: whether at home in Swaziland or in Cyberspace. His unwillingness to engage is precisely why there is so much activity on Facebook and the other Internet sites. People have no other way of expressing their frustrations with King Mswati and the governments he handpicks. They have no other way of putting forward alternatives to the disastrous polices Dlamini is following that have run the kingdom into the ground. Instead, Dlamini pretends that the critics aren‘t really ‗true‘ Swazis. Then, who does he think they are? In his fevered mind all Swazis believe in Dlamini, the king and the discredited tinkhundla system of non-government in Swaziland. Because Dlamini is too scared to engage, he has only one ‗answer‘. Yesterday, he warned Internet critics that the Swaziland Constitution allowed him the power to punish critics ‗where the comments conflict with the best interests of public defence, safety [and] order‘. He said, ‗There is no safe haven from the full force of the law, now reinforced by the promulgation of the Electronic Evidence Act.‘ We have been warned, but we won‘t be silenced.

183 184

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2011/03/times-sunday-censors-self-on-king.html http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2011/03/pudemo-on-jele-inquest-verdict.html

100


10. Case Study 1: Mfomfo Nkhambule During the early months of 2009, a former minister in the Swaziland Government Mfomfo Nkhambule came to prominence for his writings in the Times of Swaziland. His ‗Mfomfo on Monday‘ column was unique for its outspokenness in favour of human rights and freedom in Swaziland. The kingdom, ruled by King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa‘s last absolute monarch, is not free and critics of the regime are generally not tolerated. For a few weeks, Nkhambule got away with his criticisms of the corrupt kingdom and its leader, King Mswati. But if couldn‘t last. And it didn‘t. Nkhambule was hauled in by the Swazi police‘s Intelligence Unit and told to shut his mouth (or more accurately, put down his pen). When he didn‘t do as instructed, in a few short weeks Nkhambule was threatened with torture, told he could do 20 years jail time, was kicked out of his traditional regiment and threatened with banishment from his homeland. Finally, his family were threatened. The Times, the kingdom‘s only independent daily newspaper, proved it wasn‘t so independent after all and dropped his column. Nkhambule took to the Internet, but his energy was running out. Eventually, he succumbed to the ruling elite in Swaziland and stopped his writing completely. We have hardly heard anything of Nkhambule since, which is a shame.

Swazi Intelligence Unit Warn Off State Critic 6 January 2009 The Swazi police Intelligence Unit has warned former cabinet minister Mfomfo Nkhambule that the articles he writes each Monday for the Times of Swaziland newspaper are subversive. The state police say the articles he writes express political opinions. Nkhambule, now Chairman of Inhlava Forum (a political party), told the Times, the kingdom‘s only independent daily newspaper, ‗I was invited by the head of the Intelligence Unit, who identified himself as Magagula, to Matsapha Police Station where he was with two subordinates (a certain Maseko and Sibandze). They questioned me over the articles I have been writing. I was also warned that the articles were now taking a subversive slant and cautioned me that I was now skating on thin ice.‘

101

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland He told the Times the police told him that the articles were no longer just a column but were starting to hit on the authorities and could incite people to revolt against King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa‘s last absolute monarch, and this was beginning to pose a security threat. Nkhambule said the officers informed him that even though Swaziland had a new constitution, there were still laws that could be used against him, which were enacted before independence and they had very serious consequences. Nkhambule stated though that the police were not violent towards him but spoke in a conciliatory tone. ‗I was amazed that we still have such responsible people in the force. I can safely say that I got the message as they drove their point across without fighting with me,‘ said Nkhambule. Police spokesperson Vusi Masuku confirmed Nkhambule‘s meeting with the police. He said the police went there to ‗interview Nkhambule.‘

Swaziland Rule of Law Breaks Down 7 January 2011 News that Times of Swaziland writer and former cabinet minister Mfomfo Nkhambule has been taken in by state police185 and told he must stop criticising the ruling elite is further evidence that the rule of law has broken down in the kingdom since Barnabas Dlamini was illegally appointed Prime Minister in October 2008. Nkhambule says that the head of the Intelligence Unit and two other officers interviewed him and told him that his articles could incite people to revolt against King Mswati III and this was a security threat. Nkhambule said the officers informed him that even though Swaziland had a new constitution, there were still laws that could be used against him, which were enacted before independence. This threat is nonsense. According to the Swazi Constitution (Section 2), the constitution is supreme law in Swaziland and if there are any existing laws that are inconsistent with the constitution, the other law will no longer stand. Put simply what that means is that the constitution guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the media, so Nkhambule is entitled in law to write what he likes. We shouldn‘t be surprised that the constitution is being ignored. When Barnabas Dlamini was appointed by King Mswati III, the king was acting unconstitutionally because the Prime Minister has to come from the House of Assembly and Dlamini does not. Dlamini was never elected to anything. Dlamini had previously been Prime Minister from 1996 to 2003 and his term in office was characterised by a complete disregard for the rule of law in Swaziland. He refused to abide by 185

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/01/swazi-police-warn-off-critic.html

102

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland decisions of the courts and unleashed a reign of terror against anyone who supported democracy and argued against the king and government. In Swaziland, the king is an absolute monarch and the parliament has little real power. Dlamini has not changed. He remains an anti-democrat and since he started his second term in office there has been a further illegal clampdown on dissent. As the Nation magazine points out in its current issue (January 2009), Mario Masuku, the leader of the People‘s United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO), has been arrested and awaits trial for allegedly breaking the Suppression of Terrorism Act (STA), even though when he is alleged to have acted against the Act, the STA was not in force. In the past months, marches, meetings and rallies that are perfectly legal under the constitution‘s so-called ‗Bill of Rights‘ that guarantees freedom of expression and assembly, have been banned or broken up by police. Police also demanded to attend workshops of journalists and meetings between church leaders and foreign diplomats. In November 2008, journalists working in Swaziland were warned that they could be branded ‗terrorist sympathisers‘ and face up to 25 years in jail if they wrote reports unfavourable to the Swazi government and the king.186 A briefing paper prepared for the Open Society Initiative of Southern Africa in November 2008 summarised the situation in Swaziland rather well. ‗The ruling elite and the King seem to be surrounding themselves with higher levels of security and the ensuing paranoia that goes along with this. They are increasingly isolated and with extreme wealth and power disparities to protect seem intent on using military and paramilitary analyses and solutions. Thus they see their political foes not as legitimate challengers to power but enemies of the state and the status quo that must be demonised and defeated. They have said that they know how to ‗control‘ conflict. This is inevitably going to provoke a reaction by the paramilitary supporters of the political opposition and lead to an escalation in the frequency and severity of their attacks and the subsequent reactions. Military solutions to political problems are rarely as effective as their proponents expect.‘ The Swazi political elite are indeed paranoid about opposition and it is this lack of rationality that makes them so dangerous. Also, they do not recognise the constitution and they will use the police and army to maintain their hold on power in Swaziland. This paranoia also makes them highly unpredictable. It is anybody‘s guess who they will come after next. Nkhambule Caution an Attack on Press Freedom 7 January 2099 The following is an editorial comment published in the Times of Swaziland today (7 January 2009) following the news that one of its writers Mfomfo Nkhambule had been hauled in by

186

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2008/11/swazi-journalists-terrorists.html

103

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland the state police because they felt what he had been writing in the newspaper was ‗subversive‘.187 Dark days unfold Comment Constitution or no constitution, the days of the little freedom of speech we have left in this country are numbered. Times of Swaziland columnist Mfomfo Nkhambule has been told to watch his mouth. Police say his writing is now bordering on Subversive acts. In short, he has been warned against expressing his opinion on how this country ought to be governed. In his writing, Mfomfo is of the opinion that the 35 year old tinkhundla system of governance is no longer suitable for the Swazi people because of the worsening social, political and economic situation in this country. He emphasises that Swazis need to be educated on an alternative system that would work for the benefit of the majority. Police told him he was now chewing too close to the bone and this could land him in jail; implying that no matter how correct he could be, he is not allowed to say it the way he sees it. So who or what should Mfomfo become to think the way police want him to? Obviously a tinkhundla supporter. How now? Swaziland is supposed to be independent. But what about its people. Are they not supposed to be independent thinkers? The tinkhundla system is branded as democratic. Where is the democracy in a society that cannot think, speak or express itself freely? Is this how unique our system is where forced silence means consent to how certain people want to run our lives? Police have warned Mfomfo of laws hidden in dark cupboards that could be whipped out to deal with thinkers like him. Not that we did not see it coming. Those feeling threatened or wanting to appease the powers that be, have deliberately twisted Mfomfo‘s writing to suggest he was a threat to this country‘s leadership and or peace and national security. This newspaper would never allow anybody to use it to further acts that undermine these key components to national development. It will however, encourage debate and freedom of expression as a contribution towards the development of Swaziland. Those opposed to Mfomfo‘s point of view are free to use the same platform to defend the tinkhundla system and counter Mfomfo‘s weekly analysis. Invitations have been extended to those who claim to be staunch supporters of tinkhundla but none has taken up the offer. This is not Mfomfo‘s fault but that of their own and their silence speaks volumes. Government should therefore be careful on how it seeks to respond to criticism against its style of governance. We have continuously called for it to open a forum for dialogue to engage every sector of society on how best to deal with the glaring challenges facing Swaziland today.

187


104

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland Suppression of the media and rule by the barrel of a gun is certainly not the future Swaziland we all envisage. His Majesty should never allow his subordinates to turn him into a dictator but rather a peace broker because that is a legacy we shall cherish for as long as we and our grandchildren shall live. Nkhambule Faces 20 Years In Jail 8 January 2009 Mfomfo Nkhambule, the Times of Swaziland writer and former Swazi Cabinet Minister, could be charged with sedition and face up to 20 years in jail for articles he has written in the newspaper. Nkhambule, who is also chairman of the Inhlava Forum political party, was taken in by the Swazi state police Intelligence Unit and told that his articles could incite a revolt against King Mswati III.188 According to a report in the Times today (8 January 2009), Nkhambule was told he could be charged with sedition should he continue to write his articles. The newspaper reported, ‗Section 5 (1) of the Sedition and Subversive Activities Act prescribes that anybody convicted for subversive activities will be sentenced to a maximum of 20 years without the option of a fine. ‗The Act defines subversive activities as actions that support or advocate things that are prejudicial to public order, the country‘s security and the administration of justice. ‗The crimes include inciting disobedience among citizens to any lawful authority, indicating association with unlawful groups and comments or criticism intended excite disaffection against public officers. ‗The 1938 law stipulates that once a person has been charged with these crimes, a Special Tribunal of not less than five people will be appointed by the king to deal with his matter. Proceedings of the tribunal shall not be subject to any court and its members shall have the same powers, privileges and immunities of High Court judges.‘ The Times quotes Mandla Mkhwanazi of the Lawyers for Human Rights saying that the police are wrong to think they can use outdated laws such as the Sedition and Subversive Activities Act against Nkhambule. ‗The constitution guarantees the freedoms of expression and speech. It also allows one the freedom to hold any belief. Any other law that takes away that right should fall off. Unless the police are saying they want to charge him with sedition but even then, personally, I have not seen anything seditious in those statements. The man is just stating facts as he sees them,‘ said Mkhwanazi.

188


105

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland Swazi Police Have ‘Perverted Morality’ 8 January 2009 The following is a statement from the Swaziland Coalition of Concerned Civic Organisations following news that a Times of Swaziland writer and former Swazi Government Cabinet Minister Mfomfo Nkhambule was taken in by police and told that the articles he was writing for the newspaper could incite people to revolt against King Mswati III.189

The Swaziland Coalition of Concerned Civic Organisations notes with extreme concern the twisted logic and perverted morality of our police service. It can send three officers to threaten and intimidate a writer yet it takes no action on members of its own force that have been colluding in the rape and prostitution of underage girls. Community police acknowledged knowing about these so called teenage brothels where underage sex and child prostitution was common. They further admitted to using the girls to get information on petty criminals.190 This is the sort of scandal that would rock any other government to its foundations and lead to resignations or sackings. The officers that knew about these crimes and criminals and did nothing about them must be found and must be dismissed. Our daughters‘ moral, emotional and sexual development is not a suitable tool for the detection of crime. Of course this lackadaisical behaviour by the police in terms of serious crime is not found when it comes to them attempting to please their political masters and once again try to tear up our Human Rights. The Coalition is particularly concerned at the nature of the threats levelled at Mfomfo Nkhambule for writing his Monday articles in the Swazi Times. We are unsurprised at the police officers‘ continuing lack of awareness of the rights afforded to us all under the Constitution. It is part of a pattern of human rights abuses that the current police leadership seems unwilling to do anything about. The police invoking unspecified pre-independence legislation (we assume they mean the Sedition Act) shows the depth of their ignorance of the Law. Under section 268, the Constitution (the ultimate law of the land) repeals all previous acts insofar as they are inconsistent with it. Nothing that Mfomfo has written can seriously be said to destabilise or threaten the State, it might embarrass some people who are making an extremely good living on the back of their loyalty to their stomachs, but that is not a National Security issue. It is no role of the police to protect the blushes of labadzala from legitimate enquiry. This illegal, unconstitutional and unprofessional bullying must stop. The Coalition has also been visited by security police and its staff have come under pressure to limit what we do and what we advocate on. This pressure will, of course, be ignored. Our freedoms are most easily extinguished when we do it ourselves. Freedom of Expression includes the right to question not only the actions of the government and the traditional authorities but the motives behind those actions. It is only the weak, and the defenders of the indefensible who cannot respond to debate but instead send in the police to intimidate the messenger. We find it difficult to believe that these officers were acting on their own initiative and so the Coalition would like to know where the orders to interrogate and threaten Babe Nkhambule really 189 190

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/01/swazi-police-warn-off-critic.html http://www.observer.org.sz/index.php?news=632

106

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland came from. No doubt those that issued the order will remain as all bullies do, hidden and cowardly, happy for their henchmen to carry the blame for their lack of moral or political courage. The Coalition sees these two incidents as part of a deep and underlying malaise in policing in Swaziland. The priorities seem to be all wrong. The Coalition has repeatedly called for the RSP to be trained on policing under a Bill of Rights and we repeat that call now. The majesty of the law and the rule of law is being called into question by these actions. These actions are doing more harm to the image of Swaziland than any number of so called detractors can do. It brings shame on our country when the police take to themselves the right to intimidate our writers, human rights defenders and others while leaving our daughters easy prey to perverts. This is in spite of the country enacting the Constitution with its Bill of Rights as well as ratifying many international human rights treaties. We must stand up for our rights to free expression, assembly and association etc. The Police have no place in the editor‘s room. A politicised police force has no place in a democracy. In fact, a politicised police force threatens the very fabric of our democracy.

Editor’s note: For background information on the issue of community police191 and child prostitutes192.

Support For Dissident Nkhambule Grows 9 January 2009 Support for the Swazi writer who has been threatened with 20 years in jail193 for criticising Swaziland‘s King Mswati III is growing. Mfomfo Nkhambule, a former Swaziland Cabinet Minister who writes for the kingdom‘s only independent daily newspaper, the Times of Swaziland, was hauled before the state police Intelligence Unit and told that his weekly articles in the newspaper would incite people to revolt against the king.194 The Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) Swaziland chapter has condemned the police action. In a statement195 MISA-Swaziland National Director, Comfort Mabuza, said, ‗state threats against the media and citizens were uncalled for and that this was a serious infringement on the fundamental right to freedom of expression‘. Mabuza said the state should know that people have a right to express themselves freely without intimidation. He said such right was guaranteed in the Swazi constitution and reiterated that MISA-Swaziland will always guard against the violation of such rights. The Times newspaper, in an editorial published on Wednesday (7 January 2009), also condemned this censorship. The newspaper said that it seems that days are numbered for even minimal freedom of speech for Swazi citizens and asked the question, ‗Where is the democracy in a society that cannot think, speak or express itself freely? Is this how unique 191

http://www.observer.org.sz/index.php?news=592 http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=82246 193 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/01/swazi-dissident-faces-20-years-jail.html 194 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/01/swazi-police-warn-off-critic.html 195 http://allafrica.com/stories/200901080534.html 192

107

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland our system is, where forced silence means we consent to how certain people want to run our lives?‘ Nkhambule, who is also chair of the Inhlava Forum political party, has been a vocal critic of the ruling elite, both in his time as a parliamentarian and also in his newspaper column. In his article on Monday (5 January 2009), which is thought to have provoked the police action, he wrote, ‗Use your brains people; the king has to come to terms with the fact that he leads people who are far different from the ones who were led by King Sobhuza II. ‗The king is all by himself and is sinking rapidly whilst his subjects are watching him but shouting 'there is a big rock 2 metres deep and we are going for assistance 2 km away. Hang on Your Majesty.' They do not realize that the king is 1.78m tall. . .the king talks and listens to himself.‘

Police Angry at Nkhambule Article 10 January 2009 Mfomfo Nkhambule, a former Swaziland Cabinet Minister who writes for the kingdom‘s only independent daily newspaper, the Times of Swaziland, was hauled before the state police Intelligence Unit196 and told that his weekly articles in the newspaper would incite people to revolt against King Mswati III. Nkhambule, who is also chairman of the Inhlava Forum political party, was told if he criticised the kingagain he could face 20 years in jail. It is believed that the police were particularly angry about an article written by Nkhambule and published in the Times on Monday 5 January 2009. Below is an extended extract from that article. When I talk about leadership in Swaziland I am not referring to any of the king‘s messengers (Liqoqo, Cabinet, Border Adjustment Committee, MPs, Judicial officers, etc) but to His majesty King Mswati III. In this country, there is no decision that can be made / taken by anyone or a group of people unless the king is involved, especially if that particular decision will affect a number of His Majesty‘s subjects. Without the involvement of the king nothing gets done. This is not normal in today‘s world but some of His Majesty‘s subjects have learned to accept such a set-up and would go to great lengths to defend it. To me, this set-up is unhealthy and not good for the kingdom and also a threat to the health of the king. Anybody believing it‘s the best for Swaziland could be influenced by teachings of the past, as well as exploitation of the Swazi custom. His Majesty has to come to terms with the fact that he is leading people who are far different from the ones who were led by His Majesty King Sobhuza II. There may be similarities between the two groups, but King Mswati III‘s group has more challenges than the other and is becoming quite a challenge to the king to lead. ‗Your Majesty, your subjects are not asking much from you but the right to life as the prevailing situation has driven them to a point where they are beginning to believe that you are the one holding 196


108

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland the key to their right to life. This key to the right to life comes with the transfer of power to the majority of your subjects‘. I am not concerned that much about the past, but I am concerned about today, tomorrow and the years to come. You will agree with me that under the leadership of His Majesty King Mswati III, this nation is sinking because it is standing on quick sand. What makes it worse is that His Majesty is leading people whose majority has not been given the survival skills in a quick sand environment. When one is all by oneself, there is no way one may avoid sinking in a quick sand situation. His Majesty is all by himself (as highlighted in last week‘s article) and is sinking rapidly, whilst his subjects are watching him but shouting "there is a big rock 2m deep and we are going for assistance 2km away! Hang on Your Majesty!" They do not realise that the king is 1.78m tall. Is there really a Swazi who is a friend to the king? Who has been a friend or a close acquaintance of His Majesty for the last 10 – 20 years? If there could be a Swazi who could raise his/her hand and tell me that he/she has been an acquaintance of the king for the period stated above I would conclude that he/she is lying. If such a relationship has existed between the king and any of his subjects, then it would be interesting to find out as to who benefited from the relationship. I am sure you would understand if I told you that most of the time it would be the subject benefiting from such a relationship with the king. If the king were to benefit anything, then the king would expose himself to blackmail, which would ultimately lead to evil practices in places you would never imagine. Those who get acquainted to the king do so at a very high expense to the majority of His Majesty‘s subjects. I have had an opportunity to engage some of His Majesty‘s subjects, who have had the chance to get to know the king better than you and me. Difficult They have told me that it is very difficult to be of any value to the king because he has a way of getting a majority of those acquainted with him to lose their natural bearings. This makes me realise that the king will never be in an environment where he may learn a thing or two from those he mingles with. Those who try to make sense are easily marginalised and they end up doing what everybody (in the group) does without fail (visiting the bank on pay-day). It is very obvious that there is no structure that is responsible for giving sound advice and guidance to His Majesty in as far as leadership is concerned. It is all a game of chance when it comes to finding the best decisions for the majority of the people of Swaziland. The king has not acquainted himself with any Head of State in the region, who could be of some assistance to him for the benefit of his subjects. The king talks and listens to himself. This is why he came up with committees like Liqoqo, Cabinet, Border Adjustment, Ludzidzini, etc. These are all an expense to His Majesty‘s subjects but not to the king because the king talks and listens to himself. We have left everything to the unknown gods of this kingdom and this is not acceptable. The mistakes being made by my king are becoming many and this is sending a bad signal to the common man in the street because his confidence on his beloved king is being eroded at a pace greater than it can be regained. The king must be conscious of the fact that whilst we do not have power in this kingdom to do what is right for ourselves, we are beginning to use our brains to bring about the necessary change needed to live today, tomorrow and many years to come.

109

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland We strongly believe that we have a potential of living a lifestyle better than the one offered to us by the present political set-up. We, at Inhlava, have realised that our strength is in the people of Swaziland realising the opportunities that lie ahead for them under a new political set-up, where they will be able to make decisions for themselves and their children. We have realised that in the midst of all the social challenges facing us as a people, our strength is in believing what we can be and what we can do when we change the political set-up. The present political set-up, under the leadership of the king has been successful in showing us our weaknesses as a people. It has not put us in positions where we could have exploited or utilised opportunities that came our way. When Inhlava changes the current political set-up with the support of the majority of Swazis, it shall be able to set up standards that will be endorsed by the majority. His Majesty King Mswati III cannot transform the people he leads because knowingly / unknowingly he has taught them to look up to him for initiatives, yet for decades there have not been any initiatives that have increased the standard of living for the majority. We have taken the initiative to re-organise ourselves after enduring pain and hardships beyond human endurance. Seeing that nobody cares about our basic needs and our children‘s dreams, we have fought our old selves (submissive, conformist, etc) and have emerged victorious. In our commitment to transform ourselves to a better people, capable of making best decisions for ourselves, we shall police ourselves so that each Swazi man/woman may live a purposeful lifestyle. There shall never again be a majority that will be passive on issues that affect its well-being and progress as such an environment breeds a culture in which dishonest people thrive very well and end up being role models, who do not pass on the desirable values and principles needed for nation building. Inhlava members shall be meeting this week to discuss a major strategy that will result in Swazis taking their new positions in the affairs of this country.

More Grief For Dissident Nkhambule 11 January 2009 The Swazi dissident Mfomfo Nkhambule has been hauled before Swazi authorities for the second time in a week because of comments he has made about King Mswati III. This time, he was summoned by an inner council of Prince Logcogco, the chair of Liqoqo, which is the most powerful advisory committee to the king. Nkhambule was made to attend at Gundvwini Royal Residence to explain what he was up to. Nkhambule, a former cabinet minister and present chair of the Inhlava Forum Political Party, writes a weekly column in Swaziland‘s only independent daily newspaper the Times of Swaziland. Last Tuesday he was interrogated by the Swazi state police Intelligence Unit197 and told he faced 20 years in jail if he continued to criticise the king. The state police told Nkhambule that his writings would incite people to revolt against the king.

197


110

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland This time, according to a report in the Times Sunday today (11 January 2009), Nkhambule was questioned in his capacity as a resident of Gundvwini, paying allegiance to Prince Logcogco, the traditional leader of the area. The Times Sunday reported that he told his interrogators that the king (the last absolute monarch in sub-Saharan Africa) could govern the kingdom in consultation with the people. ‗They wanted to know about Inhlava, so I told them what this organisation is advocating for. They wanted to know what police were saying to me, and I told them everything,‘ Nkhambule told the newspaper. He said Inhlava was supportive of the monarch but wanted to formulate policies and laws to safeguard it. ‗We don‘t want our king to be a laughing stock in the international community and that‘s why we want to formulate democratic policies and laws to protect the monarch. We are opposed to violence,‘ said Nkhambule. He said he was sure Prince Logcogco was aware of the meeting because it took place at his royal residence. He, however, refused to cite the prince as the initiator of the meeting. He revealed that John Mngomezulu, the chiefdom‘s governor chaired it. In an interview with the Times Sunday, Prince Logcogco said Nkhambule was not summoned to the meeting in his capacity as a leader of Inhlava because the organisation was unknown to him and the elders of Gundvwini. He said he appeared before the inner council in his capacity as a resident of the community. Nkhambule ‘Faced Torture’ From Police 11 January 2009 The following is an extract from an article written by Times Sunday editor, Mbongeni Mbingo, and published in his newspaper today (11 January 2009).

We are living in fear This past week, police saw it upon themselves to summon former MP Mfomfo Nkhambule to the notorious Sigodvweni Police Station in Matsapha, where they were to warn him of his writings. As we speak, perhaps Nkhambule is lucky he left that police station in one piece, and not pieces — or better still — that he left at all. Two things could have happened to him while ‗being interviewed‘ by the police; one is that he would have been forced to reveal certain information, such as who his sources are, and what drives him to write the manner that he does. He would also have been asked to reveal why he writes the way that he does, if he is aware he is rubbing certain people the wrong way, and then forced to apologise for all his writings. If he would have refused to apologise, Mfomfo Nkhambule would have been ‗forced‘ to do so. This means he would have been tortured, into submission. And we do know what the police can get to when torturing suspects — some of them, if not mostly, even die.

111

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland But that is never a matter for concern for the country, people were born to die anyway, and certain when you become a suspect, you are as good as dead. So many of them walk into a police station, supposedly innocent until proven guilty, but the overzealousness of the police, and their torturing methods always ensure that people leave the stations in one bad state—emotionally and otherwise. Now, you have to admit therefore that Mfomfo Nkhambule needs to thank his God he only got a talking to (and that is if that is all that happened in there!). Remember Mathousand Ngubane? He was an innocent man, who got a talking to, to have the police ascertain the truth. What happened to him? He was killed in that very police station, and that was the end of it. The people responsible are still employed. Oh, they were transferred, a serious punishment in the police force if you kill a person. And by the look of things, it does not take much for them to decide they will kill you, they just do it. Some innocent suspect was shot from the back, and died. Nothing happened. Another famous case is that of a Ngozo chap who was a notorious criminal who gave the cops a hard time with his robberies.198 So they tracked him down, found him — and shot him. It was at point blank range. The prime minister of that time said it was a reasonable distance — 35cm away from him. He died, and it was no big thing in the country. Those police officers responsible for this are still employed, and the police force wasn‘t even forced to defend this. Nothing happened. Everything was normal. So, I am very happy for Mfomfo. In fact, I am thrilled on his behalf. I am personally very terrified of the police, and what they can get up to, and believe that with the Suppression of Terrorism Act, they are becoming an even bigger threat to human rights. In fact, they are becoming more and more law unto themselves. God only knows who they are answerable to.

Nkhambule Apologises to King 12 January 2009 Mfomfo Nkhambule has been forced to apologise to King Mswati III for writing articles in the Times of Swaziland criticising him. Nkhambule was hauled before the Swazi state police Intelligence Unit last week and told if he continued writing articles critical of the king he could end up in jail for 20 years. Yesterday (11 January 2009), Mbongeni Mbingo, the editor of the Times Sunday, revealed that Nkhambule would have been tortured by police if he failed to do what they said.199 In a letter written to the king - also published in the Times today (12 January 2009) Nkhambule apologises ‗unreservedly for the unnecessary anxiety and stress caused [to King Mswati III] by the articles that have been published weekly over the past 16 months‘. I am not surprised by the apology. As research I published for the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) Swaziland Chapter in July 2008 showed, the biggest censor of Swazi media is

198 199

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2008/05/brutal-swazi-police-condemned.html http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/01/swazi-dissident-faced-torture.html

112

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland the monarchy.200 Journalists are so worried about incurring the wrath of King Mswati that they habitually censor themselves so as to avoid upsetting him. The king has no hesitation in attacking the media if they dare to criticise him. In March 2007, when the Times Sunday published a report sourced from an international news agency that said King Mswati was in part responsible for Swaziland‘s ill, the newspaper‘s publisher was summoned to see the king and told his newspaper group (which also includes the Times and the Swazi News) would be closed down immediately unless an abject apology was forthcoming.201 The king also demanded that the features editor of the Times Sunday be sacked. The publisher did as he was told. In his letter to the king, Nkhambule, a former cabinet minister and present chair of the Inhlava Forum political party, says the reason he wrote his articles was to ‗make you [the king] aware of what is going on in the minds of your simple subjects and what they plan to do in order to get out of the hardships they are enduring in this land of their birth under your leadership.‘ As we know Swaziland is sub-Saharan Africa‘s last absolute monarchy. King Mswati has a wealth of US$200 million (about E1.4 billion) at a time when 70 percent of his subjects live in abject poverty earning less than US$1 a day. Swaziland has the highest rate of HIV infection in the world and last year 60 percent of the kingdom‘s one million population relied on international food aid to fend off starvation. The king rules Swaziland with an iron grip and the kingdom‘s parliament has no real powers. In November 2008 the king unconstitutionally appointed Barnabas Dlamini as prime minister. Since the appointment there has been a reign of terror unleashed by the king and his government against the Swazi people. Only last week Amnesty International said the provisions of a newly enacted Suppression of Terrorism Act ‘threaten human rights, are inherently repressive, breach Swaziland‘s obligations under international and regional human rights laws and the Swaziland Constitution, and are already leading to violations of the rights of freedom of expression, association and assembly.‘202 In his letter to the king Nkhambule says, ‗I know what the lion [the king] is capable of doing when it is angry or threatened. I do not want to test your patience.‘ Then in one telling phrase he reveals where the real power in Swaziland lays. ‗Your Majesty, you have the power to put me into eternal darkness but I pray that you allow me to continue with what I started doing over 16 months ago.‘ In effect Nkhambule is asking the king‘s permission to continue voicing his opinion in public. 200

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2008/07/censorship-and-swazi-media.html http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2007/11/closure-threat-to-times.html 202 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/01/call-to-repeal-swazi-terror-act.html 201

113

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland So there you have, nobody can do anything in Swaziland without the King Mswati‘s permission. Nkhambule ‘Ready To Give Up’ 27 January 2009 It seems Swazi dissident Mfomfo Nkhambule has at last been silenced by the kingdom‘s dictators. This follows an ultimatum from traditional leaders in the area in which Nkhambule lives. First, he was told that he should stop criticising King Mswati III. Now, he has been told he must either stop his politics or quit the local traditional regiment to which he belongs. Writing in the Times of Swaziland yesterday (Monday 26 January 2009), Nkhambule, who is also chair of the Inhalva Forum political party, said he was summonsed to Engabezweni Royal residence to be told he would be kicked out of the traditional regiment Balondolozi BakaLozitha Ligezii if he didn‘t stop criticism the king and advocating for democracy in Swaziland. Nkhambule wrote, ‗I was told to choose between multi-partyism and being a member of the traditional regiments. It is either Umbutfo or Inhlava. It is unSwazi to talk politics and be a member of the traditional regiment. ‗This was a difficult order for me and I politely asked for time to consult with Inhlava membership. I like being part of the Swazi warriors and I also like politics because in Swaziland without someone carrying a torch light for the majority of His Majesty‘s subjects, my fellow countrymen are perishing in their numbers and from the bottom of my heart I had to do something to bring this to a halt.‘ He said he was still considering what to do next. The pressure on Nkhambule is typical of how social control works in Swaziland. Chiefs and ‗traditionalists‘ have the real power in the kingdom. This they get from the monarch. People who speak out of turn or in any other way displease the authorities can find themselves banished, sometimes literally when people are forced out of their homes by chiefs. Chiefs and traditionalists can also determine whether people have jobs, get scholarships for education, or receive food aid from international donors. In Swaziland if you speak out of turn you and your family can starve. According to a report in the Times Sunday (25 January 2009), ‗Nkhambule went to the royal residence to honour summons that was announced through national radio. He went there in the company of his father and younger brother. The deliberations were chaired by Chomentanyeni Magagula, the leader of the regiment, but were also attended by members of the Inyatsi regiment. About 20 members of the regiment attended the meeting. The leaders of the regiment were allegedly intent on confiscating his Liqhuzu, an artefact that is given to a warrior who has been admitted to a particular regiment.

114

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland ‗―I was given an ultimatum; to choose between my role in Inhlava and my membership with the regiment,‖ said Nkhambule, whose regiment name is Veni. He has been a member since 1980. ‗―They told me that culturally, members of regiments do not get involved in politics. They insisted that no member is expected to criticise the king. An example they used to illustrate my position was that one cannot ride two horses at the same time. They suggested I choose one horse,‖ he said. ‗He said the leaders of the regiment told him that his articles, published in the Times on Mondays, had brought shame and disrepute to regiments and the King. ‗Nkhambule, who is a former cabinet minister, said he told the meeting of his undying love for his regiment, and the king in particular.‘ Despite the threat from the traditional authorities, it seems Nkhambule can‘t resist pointing out the lack of respect King Mswati has for his people. In the Times yesterday he wrote that the king and his ‗messengers‘ don‘t believe Swazi people have the brains to decide on how to run their own lives for themselves ‗There has not been one person in authority who has ever asked us to justify the decisions we take on a daily basis because no one person, from the king down to the last of his messengers, is ever interested in the reasoning of an ordinary Swazi because they have drawn the conclusion that we have nothing in between our two ears or if we have, we often do not make sense at all,‘ he wrote.

PM Backs Attack On Nkhambule 30 January 2009 Swaziland‘s illegally-appointed Prime Minister Barnabas Dlamini has said it was all right for Swazi police to haul in dissident Mfomfo Nkhambule and make him stop writing newspaper articles that criticised King Mswati III. Dlamini told a meeting of Swaziland media editors and senior journalists, ‗government has a duty to protect the Head of State if someone wants to pit him against the nation‘.203 You won‘t see a clearer statement that freedom of expression is banned in Swaziland and if you disagree with the government, you will be dealt with. He also said – rather sinisterly – that Swazi police could question anyone they wanted to, but he denied that the police were sent to question Nkhambule by some higher authority. Nkhambule was threatened with up to 20 years in jail204 if he didn‘t stop his criticisms. Mbongeni Mbingo, the editor of the Times Sunday went so far as to speculate that Nkhambule would have been tortured205 by police if he didn‘t do as he was told 203 204

http://www.observer.org.sz/index.php?news=1283 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/01/swazi-dissident-faces-20-years-jail.html

115


Nkhambule, a former Swaziland Cabinet minister and present chair of the Inhalva Forum political party, was also forced to appear before his local traditional leaders206 and told that he must quit the Balondolozi King‘s regiment if he continued to be outspoken.

Dissident Nkhambule Writes On 2 February 2009 Mfomfo Nkhambule has vowed to continue writing his controversial articles in the Times of Swaziland. And he has called on King Mswati III to support him by telling the traditional authorities who have told Nkhambule to stop writing to shut up. Writing his regular Monday column in the Times today (2 February 2009), Nkhambule says that only his readers can tell him to stop writing. Nkhambule has been under intense pressure over the past three weeks after members of the Swazi state police Intelligence Unit hauled him in for questioning and told him he must stop criticising the king.207 He was threatened with 20 years in jail.208 It is also reported that Nkhambule faced torture if he didn‘t do as the police said.209 Later, traditional authorities at Nkhambule‘s home and at his regiment waded in by telling Nkhambule that he would lose all rights and privileges if he didn‘t stop his criticism.210 In his column today Nkhambule continues his attack on supporters of the king who exploit ordinary Swazi people. ‗I think my king should be happy when we realise that we have been exploited by other Swazis who have turned us into a nation of beggars whilst they have been using His Majesty‘s resources (people, tax and any other source of income) to enrich themselves and their friends much to the detriment of the majority of his subjects. I want to believe that if there is anything that my king can look after carefully with all of his might, it is none other than the culture of the Swazi people,‘ he writes. He goes on, ‗Therefore it is my hope that His Majesty will quickly call the regiments to order before great damage is done to our culture. If His Majesty endorses the unbecoming behaviour of the leadership of this regiment then he needs to maintain his silence on this disturbing development so that you and I may draw the necessary conclusion. If my king decides to marginalise the matter of the regiments, then we will deduce as to who was behind the action of the police warning me about the articles and who is behind the action of the regiment leadership threatening me with expulsion for helping my fellow countrymen believe in themselves and or giving them information that will help them make good decisions for their survival as well as their children's survival.‘

205

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/01/swazi-dissident-faced-torture.html http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/01/swazi-dissident-ready-to-give-up.html 207 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/01/swazi-police-warn-off-critic.html 208 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/01/swazi-dissident-faces-20-years-jail.html 209 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/01/swazi-dissident-faced-torture.html 210 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/01/swazi-dissident-ready-to-give-up.html 206

116

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland In conclusion, Nkhambule writes, ‗What I have undertaken in this column is a public duty and I cannot make a unilateral decision. When the people who I serve tell me to stop I will do so.‘ Now Nkhambule’s Family is Threatened 18 February 2009 Mfomfo Nkhambule says his family is under threat if he continues to write newspaper articles critical of King Mswati III and Swaziland‘s ruling elite. Mfomfo‘s father Mncene Nkhambule has said, ‗certain people with links to the country‘s authorities‘ had approached him on the street of the Swazi capital Mbabane and told him to put pressure on Mfomfo to stop writing. According to a report in the Times of Swaziland yesterday (17 February 2009), Mfomfo said, ‗They asked him what he was thinking and doing as an elderly person when his own son was doing something like this in the country. He then asked me if I could see the potential problems I was creating for the family.‘ In Swaziland is it common for threats to be made against the families of people who speak out against injustice and for democracy in the kingdom. Families, particularly those who live in rural areas, are under threat because any Swazi owes his or her livelihood to the chief of their area. Chiefs can decide who lives where, who has a job and who gets an educational scholarship. They are also able to banish people they do not like from their chiefdom. In many cases where people rely on food donated from overseas‘ agencies, chiefs decide who gets fed and who doesn‘t (quite literally deciding on life or death). Mfomfo, a former Swaziland Government cabinet member and present chair of the Inhlava Forum political party, writes a controversial column each Monday for the Times. He was hauled in by police211 and told if he didn‘t stop criticising the King he could face 20 years in jail. It has been said that if he did not do as the police said he would face torture.212 Mfomfo has also been told he will be expelled from his local traditional regiment. When asked by the Times what the reaction of other members of his family was towards his articles, Mfomfo said the younger generation was largely sympathetic but they, too, were worried about the consequences of the opinions, especially on the whole family. He said he understood his father‘s concerns, but he could not simply keep quiet just because things were getting tough.

Chief Fines Dissident Writer Nkhambule 2 March 2009 Mfomfo Nkhambule, who has been in trouble for criticising King Mswati III in his newspaper column, has been fined by his traditional chief. 211 212

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/01/swazi-police-warn-off-critic.html http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/01/swazi-dissident-faced-torture.html

117

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland Nkhambule was summoned to appear before traditional authorities on Saturday (28 February 2009) and told he must pay an undisclosed number of cattle to the king. Nkhambule had previously been told by the traditionalists213 that he must stop writing about the king in his regular Monday column that appears in Swaziland‘s only independent daily newspaper, the Times of Swaziland. Nkhambule, a former cabinet minister in the Swaziland Government and present chair of the Inhalva Forum political party, was told to appear along with his father before Prince Logcogco Mangaliso‘s Inner Council. His father couldn‘t make the date, so Nkhambule‘s brother went along instead. The prince is also the chairman of the advisory committee to King Mswati III known as Liqoqo. According to a report in the Times Sunday yesterday (1 March 2009), ‗They were sternly cautioned to toe the line laid down or face consequences.‘ According to the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) Swaziland Chapter such ‗consequences‘ could include eviction of him and his entire family from his area of birth. 214 When the Times Sunday contacted Nkhambule after the meeting he was said to be ‗too distressed‘ to talk and ‗adamantly declined to divulge deliberations of the meeting other than to say it was tough for him and his father. He said his spirit was down because it appeared to him that the situation was getting worse.‘ The Times Sunday also revealed that he ‗was busy last night trying to delete phrases that could be viewed as directly and challenging to the institution of the monarch or those that could perceived as blatant disrespect of His Majesty King Mswati III.‘ In his column in the Times today (2 March 2009), Nkhambule gives details of the meeting with the traditional leaders and says they wanted to punish him to show that they did not agree with his comments about the king. He wrote, ‗The inner council told me that they were no longer comfortable with these articles because everyone who matters in the corridors of power was of the opinion that they were failing to protect and uphold certain values and traditions of the Swazi people which have remained intact since time immemorial.‘ Nkhambule disclosed that he was required to give the king a number of beasts as an apology for his writings. But there remains a defiant streak in Nkhambule. In his article today he concluded that under the present system in Swaziland, ‗A Swazi national today is supposed to be a permanent idiot. A Swazi national today is supposed to cast a blind eye on any form of injustice perpetrated by those in authority in the name of culture or tradition.‘ 213

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/01/swazi-dissident-ready-to-give-up.html http://appablog.wordpress.com/2009/03/02/swaziland-traditionalists-fine-newspaper-columnist-forcriticizing-king/ 214

118


Nkhambule Forms His Own ‘Government In Waiting’ 16 March 2009 Mfomfo Nkhambule has formed his own cabinet of ministers to oppose the undemocratic government of Swaziland. Nkhambule, who is under threat of banishment from his homeland or a spell in jail for criticising Swaziland‘s King Mswati III, said he wanted to topple the present government. In what will surely be seen as a smack in the face for Barnabas Dlamini, Swaziland‘s illegally-appointed215 Prime Minister and his government of ministers which was formed unconstitutionally,216 Nkhambule has gathered 16 members of the Inhlava Forum political party to create a government in waiting. Nkhambule, a former Swazi Government cabinet minister and present chair of Inhlava, said he wanted to force a change in the Swaziland Constitution to allow for a new democratic parliament. At present, all political parties are banned and parliament is in effect controlled by King Mswati, the last absolute monarch in sub-Saharan Africa. In an interview in the Times of Swaziland published today (16 March 2009), Nkhambule said Inhlava would topple the government ‗gradually‘. ‗We will first have a structure of a cabinet within the organisation. People will have to monitor our progress, and when they gain confidence with our way of governance – we will then take over.‘ He declined to name the 16 people who would form the new cabinet. According to the Times, when asked what would happen to King Mswati when they took over, Nkhambule said the king could be given certain powers, but most would rest on the government of the day. ‗He will not be stripped of his title as he will remain the king, but play a different role,‘ he said. Writing in his regular Monday column in the Times today, Nkhambule continued to criticise the role of King Mswati in Swaziland. He wrote, ‗Do not forget that whoever gets appointed into Parliament or elected into Parliament is appointed primarily to serve the interests of the king and those who are close to the king. There is nobody in Parliament to serve the interests of the majority because there is no majority in Swaziland.

215 216

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/03/swaziland-pm-not-constitutional.html http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/03/swazi-ministers-unconstitutional.html

119

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland ‗The Parliament is His Majesty‘s Parliament and so is the judiciary and the cabinet. Do not expect any MP to see anything wrong with what is done by those that are in the corridors of power.‘ He added, ‗Those that have eyes to see and brains to think big, know that the present political set-up is not in any way meant to address any of our concerns but those of the king.‘ The latest move from Nkhambule may be seen as an act of treason in Swaziland. Already he has been hauled before Swaziland Police‘s Intelligence Unit217 and threatened with 20 years in jail if he continued to write newspaper articles that were critical of the king. It has been said that if he did not do as the police said he would face torture.218 Nkhambule has also been told he will be expelled from his local traditional regiment219 if he continues to advocate for democracy. Last month (February 2009), Nkhambule said his family had been threatened220 by ‗certain people with links to the country‘s authorities‘.

Nkhambule Summoned To Appear at Royal Residence 19 March 2009 Anti-democrats in Swaziland are refusing to give up their attacks on Mfomfo Nkhambule. Nkhambule, a former Swaziland Government cabinet minister, is an outspoken advocate for democracy in the kingdom ruled by sub-Saharan Africa‘s last absolute monarch, King Mswati III. Nkhambule has been threatened with jail,221 with torture,222 and with banishment223 from his homeland and traditional regiment. His family have also been threatened.224 All because Nkhambule continues to point out to the Swazi people the failings of Swaziland‘s political system and the need for reforms of the present monarchy-led set up. His criticisms are regularly made in his weekly column published in the kingdom‘s only independent daily newspaper, the Times of Swaziland. The Times reports today (19 March 2009), that Nkhambule has been summoned to appear at the royal residence on Saturday.

217

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/01/swazi-police-warn-off-critic.html http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/01/swazi-dissident-faced-torture.html 219 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/01/swazi-dissident-ready-to-give-up.html 220 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/02/threat-to-swazi-dissidents-family.html 221 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/01/swazi-police-warn-off-critic.html 222 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/01/swazi-dissident-faced-torture.html 223 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/01/swazi-dissident-ready-to-give-up.html 224 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/02/threat-to-swazi-dissidents-family.html 218

120

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland According to the newspaper, he might be officially kicked out of the regiment for defying instructions from his Chief‘s (Prince Logcogco) council warning him to stop writing negatively about the anti-democratic nature of Swaziland‘s ruling elite. An unnamed source told the Times the last straw was this past Monday, when Nkhambule announced had formed its own cabinet team, to try to replace the present cabinet.225

Regiment Expels Nkhambule 22 March 2009 Mfomfo Nkhambule has been thrown out of his traditional regiment because he won‘t stop advocating for democracy in Swaziland. And he has also been stopped by his church from working as a preacher because his bishop disagrees with his views. As expected,226 Nkhambule was told yesterday (21 March 2009) that his writings in the Times of Swaziland newspaper were too critical of King Mswati III and the ruling elite. King Mswati is sub-Saharan Africa‘s last absolute monarch and despite a constitution published in 2005, the king has a firm hand on Swaziland, selecting the prime minister and the cabinet. All political parties are banned and the king makes all the important decisions. He and his government regularly ignore the provisions of the constitution. According to a report in the Times Sunday today, Nkhambule, a former Swaziland Government cabinet minister and present chair of the Inhlava Forum political party, was told he was expelled from the regiment at a meeting that lasted two minutes. He was also fined one cow. Nkhambule said he would probably appeal the decision. He told the Times Sunday, ‗I will also continue writing my column in the Times of Swaziland. ‗I intend to fight this issue to the last pint of my blood. Submitting to their ruling would mean that being a Swazi is determined by them, when in actual fact that is not the case. I am a Swazi by birth; no one determines my nationality or cultural activities in which I take part.‘ In a separate development, Nkhambule has been stopped from preaching at the church known as World Solutions Ministries. The Times Sunday reported that Nkhambule disagreed with some of the church‘s doctrines. His church superior, Bishop Lucas is known to be a fervent supporter of King Mswati III. Nkhambule has now started his own church.

225 226

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/03/free-swazi-government-in-waiting.html http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/03/fresh-attack-on-swazi-dissident.html

121


Nkhambule Calls On PM To Resign Or Be Sacked 26 March 2009 Mfomfo Nkhambule has called on Swaziland Prime Minister Barnabas Dlamini to resign or be sacked because he was not appointed legally. Nkhambule, who recently announced his Inhlava Forum political party would form an opposition government to Dlamini, says Swaziland faces a constitutional crisis. As I have been reporting in this blog since October 2008 when Dlamini was made Prime Minister by King Mswati III, the appointment was unconstitutional227 because a prime minister can only be appointed from members of the House of Assembly. Dlamini was not a member at the time of his appointment. Nkhambule, a former Swaziland Government cabinet minister, writing in his regular weekly column in the Times of Swaziland, said, the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) should intervene and see that Dlamini is removed from office. Nkhambule has been under attack228 in recent months for his outspoken views on Swaziland‘s undemocratic political system and the role King Mswati, sub-Saharan Africa‘s last absolute monarch, plays in it. In his article, Nkhambule says that if Dlamini stays as prime minister, King Mswati ‗is telling all his subjects to forget about the constitution‘. He goes on, ‗The question that should be troubling some Swazis is: can the king have courage to do what is right? Can he really send Dr Sibusiso [the prime minister] home for the sake of this country and for the restoration of the rule of law? IT IS A COURAGEOUS MAN WHO LIKES UPHOLDING THE TRUTH.‘ The questions he poses are, of course, rhetorical since it was King Mswati who appointed Dlamini in the first place. The king knew what he was doing and he knew Dlamini‘s reputation as an anti-democrat, who when he was previously prime minister in Swaziland, constantly flouted the rule of law.229 When appointing Dlamini, King Mswati gave him instructions to wage war230 against any Swazis who wanted to see the present despotic regime overturned by democracy. 231 Dlamini has set about his task with energy and a reign of terror was unleashed and prodemocracy advocates have been arrested and harassed and legal public demonstrations banned or attacked. And that‘s just the way King Mswati likes it.

227

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/03/swaziland-pm-not-constitutional.html http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/03/regiment-expels-swazi-dissident.html 229 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/02/swazi-pm-disgrace-to-law.html 230 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2008/10/kingdom-at-war-with-itself.html 231 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2008/11/swaziland-is-now-military-state.html 228

122


Times Drops Nkhambule’s Newspaper Column 4 May 2009 Mfomfo Nkhambule has had his controversial column dropped by the Times of Swaziland newspaper. Nkhambule, who wrote each Monday for Swaziland‘s only independent daily newspaper, has been in much trouble for his outspoken views on Swaziland‘s ruling elites and in particular King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa‘s last absolute monarch. Now, the Times has dropped the column without notice. The Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) reports232 that Nkhambule, a former Cabinet Minister in the Swaziland Government and present chair of the Inhalva Forum political party, confirmed that the ban came into effect last week and his columns will not appear again. MISA reports that he believes the newspaper was pressured to stop his articles. Times‘ Managing Editor Martin Dlamini denies any pressure, saying Nkhambule‘s column has simply been affected by the routine changes the newspaper was making with regards to content. Nkhambule told MISA233 that he personally took his article to the Times last week for publication but was told of the ban without reasons being given. ‗I then received information from other quarters that authorities have ordered the Times to stop publishing my articles. Whatever threat they received might have been very serious as they simply told me that my articles will no longer be published with no reasons being given,‘ he said. The ban on Nkhambule came in the same week that the Times was forced to make an abject apology234 to King Mswati after publishing an essentially correct report that he had purchased up to 20 armoured cars for the use of himself and his wives. This is not the first time the Times has folded to pressure from King Mswati. In 2007 it was forced to make an apology235 or face immediate closure after it repeated a news agency report236 that was critical of the king. The banning of Nkhambule will hit the reputation of the Times hard. Nkhambule had received international attention for his courage in standing up against King Mswati and Barnabas Dlamini, his illegally-appointed prime minister, especially after the Swazi Government introduced its Suppression of Terrorism Act last year which has been used to curtail freedom of speech and association in Swaziland. Some people had seen the Times as a true supporter of democratic change in Swaziland: the banning of Nkhambule will put an end to that. 232

http://www.journalism.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2244&Itemid=37 http://www.journalism.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2244&Itemid=37 234 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/05/swaziland-kings-cars-censorship.html 235 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2007/11/closure-threat-to-times.html 236 http://www.afrol.com/articles/24707 233

123


‘Swazi King Wants Editors’ Heads’ 8 May 2009 What follows is something that journalist like to call ‘unconfirmed reports’ and ordinary folk call ‘rumours’. Swaziland‘s King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa‘s last absolute monarch, has demanded that Martin Dlamini, managing editor of the kingdom‘s only independent daily newspaper the Times of Swaziland, and Mbongeni Mbingo, editor of the Times Sunday, both be sacked for publishing reports that the king had bought up to 20 top-of-the-range Mercedes cars at a cost of about 2.5 million US dollars (E25 million).237 The king has also demanded that Vusi Sibisi and Mfomfo Nkhambule both be dropped as columnists by the Times. We know that Nkhambule has been dropped because he has said so publicly. 238 Martin Dlamini said at the time he was not forced to drop Nkhambule, he did so because the Times was undergoing routine changes with regards to content. I hear that Times publisher Paul Loffler was hauled before the king and told to produce invoices to back up his story about the cars and then he was forced to apologise when he couldn‘t. These apologies appeared in both the Times and the Times Sunday.239 What we do know as fact is that King Mswati has intimidated the Times group before. In 2007 it was forced to make an apology240 or face immediate closure after it repeated a news agency report241 that was critical of the king. Nkhambule gained international attention for his articles that appeared each Monday in the Times and were largely critical of Swaziland‘s ruling elite, including the king. Mbongeni Mbingo, made headlines himself in 2007 when a Swaziland Senate select committee cleared him of contempt of parliament for an article he had written critical of parliamentarians.242 The committee said he had a right to free speech protected by the constitution.

Nkhambule Speaks About Swazi King And The Media 19 May 2009 Mfomfo Nkhambule, the Swazi dissident dropped as a columnist243 by the Times of Swaziland, has been speaking about the role of the media in the kingdom.

237

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/04/cost-of-swaziland-kings-new-cars.html http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/05/times-drops-swaziland-dissident.html 239 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/05/swaziland-kings-cars-censorship.html 240 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2007/11/closure-threat-to-times.html 241 http://www.afrol.com/articles/24707 242 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2007/10/danger-government-censors.html 243 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/05/times-drops-swaziland-dissident.html 238

124

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland Nkhambule, who gained international attention with his comments about Swaziland‘s ruling elites, and in particular King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa‘s last absolute monarch, used a speech at a World Press Freedom Day gathering to draw attention to the way the press are cowed by the king. He said, ‗It is assumed that the interests of the king are the interests of the Swazi people. Everybody else in Swaziland is a messenger (PM, cabinet, MPs, Committees, Parastatals and their Boards).‘ He said the king and the leadership of Swaziland works on the guiding principle that ‗a Swazi should live in ignorance and in ignorance he should die‘. This is done to maintain the current political set-up, he said He went on, ‗the king is the only one who exercises choice in this kingdom in as far as the utilization of the country‘s resources is concerned‘. He said media practitioners who bring this to the attention of the reader or listener are rebuked in a covert manner for being irresponsible. ‗In the case of Swaziland, the attention of the media should be on government (especially for anything bad) and other committees appointed by the king and not or never on the king, who has all the power and money in Swaziland to facilitate the transfer of power to an informed majority, so that it is able to address its concerns without fear or favour.‘ He went on, ‗When the king decides, for reasons best known to himself, to put the constitution aside in order to meet certain objectives that are known to himself, the masses should not be told that His Majesty is in the wrong, but it should be Minister so and so or, that particular committee has ill-advised the king.‘ He said when the king unconstitutionally appoints a prime minister (as he did with Barnabas Dlamini, the present PM) members of the press are not allowed to bring this to the attention of the people. Instead journalists write about church, football, school children and sex, and not about what Swaziland needs to do as a nation to help itself. He said, ‗Anybody writing to inspire Swazis to believe in themselves is a danger to the leadership because we should all look up to the king even for things that we can do much better than the king.‘

Nkhambule Takes To The Internet 19 May 2009 Mfomfo Nkhambule, who had his regular column dropped244 by the Times of Swaziland on the instructions of King Mswati III, has set up his own site on the Internet.245 Nkhambule, a former Swaziland Government cabinet minister and present chair of the Inhlava Forum political party, had gained international attention with his comments against the Swazi ruling elite and his criticisms of King Mswati, sub-Saharan Africa‘s last absolute monarch. 244 245

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/05/times-drops-swaziland-dissident.html http://www.mfomfosblog.tk

125


On his new site, he says, ‗Anybody standing against the system in Swaziland is branded a terrorist - yes a terrorist just for being a politician, a citizen and somebody who wishes to do the right thing by his fellow citizens as well as His Majesty.‘ Meanwhile, Nkhambule has been further victimised for his views. The Times Sunday reported that he was ‗chucked out of the royal fields and further threatened with mob violence‘ last week. The newspaper says he was chased away because he is no longer a member of the Balondolozi regiment, following his expulsion for writing negatively about the kingdom‘s government and monarchy.

Arrest Warrant Issued For Nkhambule 1 June 2009 An arrest warrant has been issued for the arrest of Mfomfo Nkhambule. Nkhambule has been under attack for his views on the lack of democracy in Swaziland and the role of King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa‘s last absolute monarch. On his own website246 Nkhambule reports, ‗There is to be a warrant issued for my arrest under the anti terrorism Laws of Swaziland, today (Sunday 31st May 2009). ‗This is most likely as a result of starting this website and speaking against the current regime in my Country. But fear not divided we stand, divided we fall and this site will continue with or without me. ‗We call upon the International Community and our regular watchers here to show support in writing both here, and, to your local MP in your country, the EU and the UN to help bring light upon our plight and suffering in this struggle for humanity. ‗The time for Zimbabwe has passed, now it is the time for Swaziland to fight for its freedom and democracy in the World. ‗Why does the Commonwealth remain silent in such matters and yet so vociferous towards Zimbabwe? Where are the Americans and the British when you need them most? ‗It is time to stand up and shout about Swaziland and stop the death and corruption with its global repercussions. We have enlightened you to the Beef you are eating in the EU and yet nothing is heard, does nobody hear when there is an election on? ‗We will keep you posted on events as they unravel……‘

Dissident Nkhambule Writes On 2 June 2009 Mfomfo Nkhambule, who fears he is about to face arrest247 for his outspoken views on King Mswati III and the undemocratic kingdom of Swaziland, is continuing with his criticism. 246

http://www.mfomfosblog.tk/

126


Nkhambule, who used to write a weekly column for the Times of Swaziland, the kingdom‘s only independent newspaper, until he was dropped248 by the paper after pressure from King Mswati, sub-Saharan Africa‘s last absolute monarch, has taken his column to the Internet. The latest,249 published yesterday (1 June 2009), attacks the king and those around him for ‗partying, dancing and cruising all over Asia‘ while not caring about the ‗lack of education for the Swazi people and their children‘. Nkhambule goes on, ‗The Swazi people have served this monarch with their might, sweat and money hoping that the King would, in return, put them first in his priority list. The King is not making any sacrifice to show his people that he cares about them.‘ Nkhambule ‘In Hiding To Escape Arrest’ 6 June 2009 Mfomfo Nkhambule is said to be in hiding in South Africa to escape arrest in Swaziland on sedition charges. Nkhambule, who came to world attention for his anti-establishment writings in the Times of Swaziland, the kingdom‘s only independent daily newspaper, fears he will go the same way as Thulani Maseko, the human rights lawyer who was jailed on Wednesday on a charge of sedition. As I reported on Monday (1 June 2009) Nkhambule believes a warrant250 has been issued for his arrest because of his writings. After the Times dropped251 his weekly column after pressure252 from King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa‘s last absolute monarch, Nkhambule set up his own website to publish his writings.253 The Swazi state has been clamping down on the pro-democracy community and on Wednesday Maseko, who is the lawyer for Mario Masuku, the jailed president of the banned People‘s United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO), was arrested and jailed254 on remand pending trial. He is alleged to have made seditious comments at a May Day rally. According to the Swazi News today (6 June 2009), police had wanted to arrest Nkhambule at the same time as Maseko. The newspaper (a stablemate of the Times) reported that before his arrest Maseko was on TV where he spoke about his pending arrest and indicated that according to information he got Nkhambule was also to be ‗collected‘ by the police. The Swazi News reports that Nkhambule has opted to remain in South Africa where he had gone on a private visit in fear that on his return he would be locked up. Attempts to contact 247

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/06/arrest-warrant-on-swazi-dissident.html http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/05/times-drops-swaziland-dissident.html 249 http://www.mfomfosblog.tk/ 250 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/06/arrest-warrant-on-swazi-dissident.html 251 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/05/times-drops-swaziland-dissident.html 252 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/05/swazi-king-wants-editors-heads.html 253 http://www.mfomfosblog.tk/ 254 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/06/lawyers-jailing-is-intimidation.html 248

127

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland him proved futile. Meanwhile, Maseko has refused bail pending his trial. The Weekend Observer, a newspaper in effect owned by King Mswati, says this is part of a new strategy by progressives in Swaziland.255 They hope by opting to remain in jail they will speed up the judicial process. Whether this is the true reason I do not know, but it doesn‘t seem to be effective. Mario Masuku, who also refused bail has been in jail awaiting his trial since November 2008 and there is no sign yet of a court date.

Nkhambule Ready To Go To Jail 7 June 2009 Mfomfo Nkhambule has returned to Swaziland and says he is ready to go to jail. Last week he announced that a warrant256 had been issued for his arrest on sedition charges because of his outspoken criticism of King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa‘s last absolute monarch, and the Swazi ruling elite. After his controversial weekly column was dropped257 by the Times of Swaziland, the kingdom‘s only independent daily newspaper, after threats from King Mswati, Nkhambule set up his own website and continued with his writings. Speaking to the Times Sunday today (7 June 2009), Nkhambule says he has been in South Africa for the past week but he is now back in Swaziland and ready to face jail. He told the newspaper he was ready to face any reaction to the articles he writes, be it through incarceration or other means. ‗A man has to face the music for his actions. The important thing though is to defend the truth no matter what happens,‘ he said. Nkhambule said, ‗I‘m not worried about going to jail. After all, jails were made for criminals and I am not one. What I say or write has no criminal element. It is what I believe is the truth. If those in authority are afraid of the truth, then they will throw us in jail,‘ he said. It seems to me the way the Swazi police have been rounding up anyone who speaks up for democracy in Swaziland it is only a matter of time before the Swazi police oblige Nkhambule.

Nkhambule Writes On Poverty 11 June 2009 Mfomfo Nkhambule, who says he is expecting to be arrested258 any day because of his prodemocracy views, is still alive and writing.

255

http://www.observer.org.sz/index.php?news=4744 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/06/arrest-warrant-on-swazi-dissident.html 257 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/05/times-drops-swaziland-dissident.html 258 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/06/swazi-dissident-ready-to-go-to-jail.html 256

128

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland Nkhambule writes today (11 June 2009) on his blog about an encounter he had with a young woman at Matsapha who was carrying a baby on her back.259 He writes, ‗She volunteered to take me to her place of residence. When I got there my heart was devastated because the three of them were sharing this room of stick and mud with old corrugated iron, that had no window, and an old make shift door that hardly had hinges. It was clear to me that on rainy days the situation was unbearable. There were two small aluminium pots and an old paraffin stove next to the door. I then enquired if they were paying any rent for the room and she said no. A few dresses were hanging on an improvised 1m stick, suspended by some strings onto the rafters.‘ Nkhambule goes on to conclude that this young woman is not the only one in Swaziland suffering poverty under the present regime. ‗It is my belief that changing the current political set-up will give rise to changed attitudes that will encourage a new breed of leaders that will put the priorities of the majority of the people of Swaziland first,‘ he writes.

Nkhambule Writes On Excessive Royal Spending 17 June 2009 Mfomfo Nkhambule continues to criticise King Mswati III and the ruling elite, despite fears that he is about to be arrested for sedition.260 In his latest writing he says that the king has recently doled out US$6,000 (about E60,000) to each of the surviving 20 sons and daughters of the late King Sobhuza III – which apparently is an annual ritual. Unsurprisingly, Nkhambule questions whether this is the right way for the king to spend the money which he supposedly holds in trust for the ‗Swazi nation‘. But, Nkhambule says in reality King Mswati just holds the money in trust for the royal household. Nkhambule writes on his website,261 ‗As far as I can recall the King is supposed to be without properties and assets as well as private funds because whatever he has he is holding it in trust for the Swazi nation. But again in Swaziland the majority of the Swazi people do not make up the Swazi nation. The Swazi nation is made up of princes and princesses together with chiefs and members of the royal household, everybody else is a subject with no fundamental human rights unless the king makes a pronouncement from the throne. ‗Being a subject means you do not exist in the ―official books‖ of the Kingdom. This is why there is no unemployment benefit, money to pay for the children‘s education and young persons‘ education and training. This is why there is no food that is affordable to the majority of the people of Swaziland. 259

http://mfomfo.wordpress.com/2009/06/11/swazi-poverty-through-the-eyes-of-a-child/ http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/06/swazi-dissident-ready-to-go-to-jail.html 261 http://www.mfomfosblog.tk/ 260

129

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland ‗There is no shelter and health service for His Majesty‘s subjects because they are not in the ―official books‖ of the people of Swaziland. The society that has been set-up by the existing political set-up is not good for the survival of the majority and their children. The time to change the political set-up is long overdue.‘ Nkhambule Says State Spies On His ‘Cabinet’ 19 June 2009 State spies are infiltrating meetings held by Swaziland‘s ‗shadow cabinet‘. Mfomfo Nkhambule reports that when his Inhlava Forum political party meets state agents come to the meetings and ‗take notes to give to their masters‘. In March 2009 Inhlava set up a ‗shadow cabinet‘ to monitor the Swazi Government and to create alternative polices so that once democracy comes to Swaziland it would be ready to serve.262 Nkhambule says on his blog today (19 June 2009) that members of the shadow cabinet are being harassed.263 The shadow minister of housing has been taken in by authorities for ‗a grilling‘ after a letter he wrote in the Times of Swaziland, the kingdom‘s only independent daily newspaper, in which he advised King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa‘s last absolute monarch, to meet with Nkhambule. According to Nkhambule, ‗He told me he got a call from the illegal Prime Minister (appointed by the King in complete violation of the country‘s constitution) to report to the Palace on a Saturday without fail. ‗Present in the grilling session were the illegal Prime Minister, Dr Sibusiso B Dlamini, the Chairman of Liqoqo (King‘s advisory council) and two other gentlemen whom he could not identify. He was given stern warning not to associate himself with the party or similar statements again. ‗He was threatened with eviction from his village. I saw tears rolling down his face as he narrated his ordeal before the terrible four. Why would these four gentlemen pounce on a Swazi national who is trying so hard to help his fellow Swazis help themselves? What else are they capable of doing?‘ Nkhambule Attacks Swazi King’s Leadership 22 June 2009 Mfomfo Nkhambule, who says he is facing arrest for sedition,264 has raised the stakes in his fight with the Swazi state. Writing on his blogsite today265 (22 June 2009), Nkhambule makes what many in the Swazi ruling elite will see as a direct attack on King Mswati III‘s ability to lead Swaziland. 262

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/03/free-swazi-government-in-waiting.html http://mfomfo.wordpress.com/2009/06/18/threats-to-the-shadow-cabinet/ 264 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/06/swazi-dissident-ready-to-go-to-jail.html 263

130

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland Nkhambule criticises King Mswati‘s Government for not sticking to its constitutional obligation to provide free primary school education. In an open letter to the king, sub- Saharan Africa‘s last absolute monarch, Nkhambule says, ‗I fail to be convinced how my King could reverse a pledge that would have brought hope to so many children of his loyal subjects.‘ He goes on to criticise King Mswati for ignoring the voice of the Swazi people listening only to those people he appoints to government. ‗The notion that, only those appointed by you are wise and have to do the thinking for the majority, is the biggest hurdle we are facing as a nation. It does not build this nation. It does not instil confidence and seeds of hope to your people about tomorrow and the day after. The burden of leading this country is too much for you alone and we are paying a heavy price for it with our lives.‘

Nkhambule Says Swazi King Hides From His Subjects 17 August 2009 Mfomfo Nkhambule has returned to his attack on the king. Writing on his blog266 Nkhambule criticises King Mswati, sub-Saharan Africa‘s last absolute monarch, for being detached from his subjects and not giving them anything in return for their loyalty and what Nkhambule calls their ‗unconditional love‘. Nkhambule says, ‗It is a one way traffic. The king has made it quite clear what he wants from his subjects: It is peace and stability of the kingdom at whatever cost. ‗The most disheartening development in Swaziland is that the king stays in a palace surrounded by a brick wall 2m high, with no building higher than the wall. The king does not know how many Swazis are outside the palace. He knows the Swazis that are allowed entry to the palace. If a Swazi has never been to the palace then he is not an asset to the king because he does not exist and will never exist in the king‘s list.‘ He goes on, ‗Therefore the king‘s interests are bound to be those of his family and to a certain extent those of his messengers. It is no surprise then that on the year of the 40/40 celebrations some of the queens267 boarded a chartered jet for some shopping in Asia.268 Now this is becoming a routine, as not long ago (about a week to be precise) another delegation of about 50 (including some of the queens) got some visas for USA. It is no surprise again that they have a fine taste of style and the king has to look after their interests because his eyes can see as far as the walls of the palace.‘ He says King Mswati has told the Swaziland media he will close them down if they report on the queens‘ latest trip. Certainly there have been reports on the Swaziland Solidarity Network forum about the queens‘ trip but I‘ve seen nothing in the official media in Swaziland. 265

http://mfomfo.wordpress.com/2009/06/21/mfomfo-on-monday-22-june-09/ http://www.mfomfosblog.tk/ 267 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2008/08/swazis-march-against-monarchy.html 268 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2008/08/how-world-sees-swazi-march.html 266

131


Nkhambule Apologies To King Mswati 5 March 2010 It is with great sadness that I read that Mfomfo Nkhambule has thrown in the towel. He has announced that he will stop writing about King Mswati III and will apologise to him for what Nkhambule calls his ‗grossly disrespectful writing and comments about him and the country‘. Nkhambule became a symbol of the struggle for democracy in Swaziland when he was forced to stop writing269 for the Times of Swaziland, the kingdom‘s only independent daily newspaper. Nkhambule was reportedly threatened with torture270 by state authorities and his family were put under surveillance271 and he was thrown out of his traditional regiment.272 Today, the world reads273 in the Swazi Observer, the newspaper in effect owned by King Mswati, sub-Saharan Africa‘s last absolute monarch, that a ‗repentant‘ Nkhambule, ‗has apologised to the authorities at Gundvwini Umphakatsi (the Chief‘s Kraal) where he presented a fattened ox to Prince Logcogco. He insists that he is not selling out, or looking for favours from BakaNgwane, but is driven by a strong desire to be at peace with himself.‘ A report written by Observer editor-in-chief Musa Ndlangamandla, who earlier this week (1 March 2010)274 told his readers, ‗our collective stand as a newspaper is that the integrity of Swaziland as a democratic State and His Majesty King Mswati III as the legitimate leader of the Swazi nation, must never be compromised in any way.‘ quotes Nkhambule saying, ‗I have realised the folly of my ways and the fact that what I was writing about His Majesty was hurting and showed lack of respect for my King.‘ Nkhambule told the Observer that he will continue to write his online blog,275 although personally I can‘t see the point as it clearly won‘t be worth reading. Editor’s note: Mfomfo Nkhambule continued to write his blog. The most recent posting was on 1 August 2010, the posts are still available online.

269

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/05/times-drops-swaziland-dissident.html http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/01/swazi-dissident-faced-torture.html 271 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/02/threat-to-swazi-dissidents-family.html 272 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/03/regiment-expels-swazi-dissident.html 273 http://www.observer.org.sz/index.php?news=11673 274 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2010/03/swazi-observer-is-propaganda.html 275 http://www.mfomfosblog.tk/ 270

132


11. Case Study 2: The Swazi Observer The Swazi Observer newspaper is often referred to in Swaziland as the ‗king‘s newspaper‘. It and its companion, the Weekend Observer, are owned by a conglomerate called Tibiyo Taka Ngwane, which is controlled by the Swazi Royal Family. Although editorially it is technically independent of the monarchy it makes no bones about its support for the king. The editor of the Weekend Observer publicly stated that he checked with the Royals or their advisors before publishing anything about ‗their majesties‘.276 This in effect makes King Mswati a kind of ‗chief editor‘ of the newspapers. Here are some of the blogposts I wrote about the propaganda role of the Observer.

Swazi Newspaper Censors Criticism 18 February 2008 Swaziland‘s Weekend Observer newspaper has censored criticism about itself. The newspaper decided not to let its readers know just how badly it misreported one of Swaziland‘s leading non-government organisations. The newspaper misrepresented the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) – Swaziland Chapter, in a report of MISA‘s latest survey on the media, the African Media Barometer (AMB) Swaziland 2007. As I reported before277 the Weekend Observer allowed Channel Swazi director Qhawe Mamba to ‗punch holes in‘ the survey, recently published by MISA.278 The Weekend Observer said that the AMB survey had said that Channel Swazi was co-owned by Mamba with King Mswati III. The newspaper then allowed Mamba and Vukani Maziya, the chief executive officer of Swaziland‘s only other television station, the governmentcontrolled Swazi TV, to criticise the AMB report. At no time was MISA asked to comment. That was unprofessional enough, but as I reported the AMB report never said Channel Swazi was co-owned by the king. So there was no story – and the Weekend Observer would have known this if anyone there had bothered to read the survey that was being criticised. MISA complained about the Weekend Observer report and it was given space for a ‗right to reply‘ in the following issue (9-10 February 2008). This is laudable and is in line with article 10 of the Swaziland National Association of Journalists (SNAJ) code of conduct,279 which 276

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2011/01/swazi-observer-must-stop-lying.html http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2008/02/official-channel-swazi-bias.html 278 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2008/01/swazi-media-rights-still-restricted.html 279 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2007/07/code-of-ethics.html 277

133

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland states that a fair opportunity should be given to individuals and organisations to respond to issues But the Weekend Observer went on to let itself and its readers down badly. MISA gave an account of the AMB and how it was based on the views of a panel of media experts in Swaziland ‗knowledgeable about the media landscape in Swaziland‘. MISA gave Mamba and Maziya a ticking off. MISA said, ‗We are seriously concerned that the AMB was so misconstrued by the very people who most need to understand it. The report is a vital tool for both Mamba and Maziya. Understanding how people perceive your station is one way of improving and developing your product. Instead of taking the feedback personally they should be thankful for the assistance.‘ And as far as the Weekend Observer’s readers know, the criticism ended there. There was an additional paragraph in the ‗right to reply‘, but the Weekend Observer cut it out. This is what that paragraph said. ‗But what is of most concern to us at MISA is that the Weekend Observer published such an unbalanced story. The journalist never called MISA for comment so that he could present both sides of the issue. The reader was only given the opinions of Mamba and Maziya. But, of course, that's no surprise to us. The AMB cites lack of balance as one of the major deficiencies in the Swazi media. Now is that fact or mere perception?‘ I‘m with MISA on this one. The Weekend Observer reporter didn‘t read the survey, then allowed the survey‘s publishers to be seriously criticized by the two leading players in Swaziland television. Then the reporter didn‘t allow MISA to respond to the criticism. But it‘s not all the reporter‘s fault. The news editor and editor of the Weekend Observer allowed a seriously unbalanced news report to appear in the newspaper. Unfortunately, as the AMB survey itself pointed out, this was not an isolated incident. I believe the Swazi media are seriously biased. Sometimes this is deliberate, for example when the views of ruling elites are treated as truth. Sometimes this is because the journalists have no idea what they are doing. Just watch Mamba‘s Channel Swazi news any day of the week to see what I mean. Swazi Observer Is Propaganda – Official 1 March 2010 Just in case you missed it. Today (1 March 2010), Musa Ndlangamandla, the editor in chief of the Swazi Observer group of newspapers, told his readers in an article in his own newspaper what the Observer stood for.280

280

http://www.observer.org.sz/index.php?news=11533

134

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland ‗But our collective stand as a newspaper is that the integrity of Swaziland as a democratic State and His Majesty King Mswati III as the legitimate leader of the Swazi nation, must never be compromised in any way.‘ So let there be no more doubt. The Swazi Observer and the Weekend Observer are not newspapers, they are propaganda sheets.

Swazi Observer Still Propaganda Rag 22 December 2010 We should not believe the recently-appointed editor of the Swazi Observer when he claims his newspaper refuses to be anyone‘s lapdog. Thulani Thwala reckons the Observer publishes ‗news and information to assist them make informed decisions‘. Writing in his own newspaper today281 (22 December 2010), he makes the outlandish claim that the Observer, a newspaper in effect owned by King Mswati III, is ‗getting closer and closer to our target of being the best read in the country‘. Nonsense. It is impossible to get official figures about the number of newspapers the Observer and its rival, the Times of Swaziland, the only independent daily in the kingdom, sell each day. But anyone in Swaziland with eyes to see and ears to hear knows that the Observer sells a fraction of the number of copies of the Times. And the reason for this is simple: people in Swaziland see the Observer for what it is: the mouthpiece of the king and ruling power in the kingdom. Thwala should talk to his boss Musa Ndlangamandla, the Observer Chief Editor. Ndlangamandla was proud to state in March 2010,282 ‗... our collective stand as a newspaper is that the integrity of Swaziland as a democratic State and His Majesty King Mswati III as the legitimate leader of the Swazi nation, must never be compromised in any way.‘ Thwala himself stated, in his article ‗We are a proud watchdog for King and country and refuse to be anyone‘s lapdog.‘ The newspaper shouldn‘t be a watchdog for the king, it should be a watchdog for the people. If Thwala wants the Observer to be an independent newspaper that publishes ‗news and information to assist them make informed decisions‘, let him publish details of the Swazi Royal Family sex scandal283 from August 2010 that was reported around the world but not in Swaziland. Let him also explain to his readers how it is that King Mswati has a personal fortune, estimated by Forbes in 2009284 to be US$2 million, when seven in ten of his subjects have to exist in abject poverty, earning less than US1 a day.

281

http://www.observer.org.sz/index.php?news=19029 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2010/03/swazi-observer-is-propaganda.html 283 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2010/08/king-uses-military-for-own-feud.html 284 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/07/swaziland-king-keeps-coining-it-in.html 282

135

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland Once those reports appear in the paper we can believe the Observer is independent. Until then we should continue to see it merely as a propaganda sheet for the king.

Observer Must Stop Lying To Readers 8 January 2011 King Mswati III‘s newspapers in Swaziland are once again285 trying to fool us that they are independent chroniclers of events in the kingdom. The latest to try is Alec Lushaba, editor of the Weekend Observer. Writing today286 (8 January 2011) in his own newspaper, he says the Observer is not directly linked to the Swazi Government. That is true. But he admits the paper is owned by King Mswati. And, let‘s face it, that fact alone tells us that the newspaper cannot be trusted to tell the truth about Swaziland. Lushaba has the gall to write this, ‗We are just a newspaper that Serves the Nation.‘ He goes on, ‗We are called upon by our shareholder to publish without fear or favour all news of public interest in the following areas, politics, business, social, economic and sporting activities. We further make a commitment to inform and educate the public on matters of their social well being.‘ Nonsense. I make this challenge to Lushaba. If your newspaper serves the nation then tell your readers about the Royal Family sex scandal287 that was reported around the world in August 2010, but not in Swaziland. Report what the world knows: that Forbes revealed in 2009288 that King Mswati has a personal fortune estimated at US$200 million. Then tell the readers where he got the money from. And lastly: tell your readers about the present scandal involving a senior cabinet minister.289 Tell your readers who he is (half of Swaziland is already gossiping about the name) and tell them how the Swazi Royal Family is involved in the scandal. Once you do these things, you can claim to be a newspaper that publishes without ‗fear or favour‘. And if my readers think I‘m being a bit harsh on Lushaba, the following are his words, from his article: ‘We commit ourselves into respecting and observing the institution of the Monarchy by ensuring that all publications with regard to Their Majesties are factually, culturally and traditionally correct. The sensitivity of the institutions demands that all facts be 285

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2010/12/observer-still-propaganda-rag.html http://www.observer.org.sz/index.php?news=19607 287 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2010/08/king-uses-military-for-own-feud.html 288 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2009/07/swaziland-king-keeps-coining-it-in.html 289 http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2011/01/why-is-times-sucking-up-to-pm.html 286

136

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland checked or verified with the traditional structures and/or have been in direct consultation with Their Majesties.’ I rest my case. King’s Paper Censors Own Editor 26 March 2010 The following is from the Media Institute of Southern Africa, Swaziland chapter, concerning censorship at the Swazi Observer, the newspaper in effect owned by King Mswati III, subSaharan Africa‘s last absolute monarch.

An attempt by the Board Chairman of the state-owned Swazi Observer newspaper Tim Nhleko to censor the paper backfired badly when the editor, who had been employed only a month ago, tendered his resignation in protest. On the night of 21 March 2010 the Editor, Sifiso Dhlamini, was ordered by the newspaper chairman to withdraw a front-page story as the paper was about to go to the printing press. The story concerned a man, suspected to be an acquaintance of the board chairman, who had been recommended for employment as CEO of the Mbabane City Council, Gideon Mhlongo under unclear conditions. Nhleko told the editor that the story would spoil the man‘s chances of employment and ordered that the story be dropped. Grudgingly, the editor obliged but tendered his resignation the following day in protest. In desperation, the paper‘s management quickly apologized to the editor with Nhleko admitting that he erred. He withdrew his order for the story to be dropped and told the editor to go ahead and publish it as he wished. The paper is yet to run the story. Speaking to MISA-Swaziland, the editor said he was very happy at the developments. ―I have been very hurt by management‘s action. I felt my professional judgement was undermined. To me, this was an ordinary story that did not warrant any form of censorship. However, I accept the chairman‘s apology and I am happy that we will now publish the story,‖ said Dhlamini. Asked if he had withdrawn his resignation, the editor said that was still to be discussed with management. MISA-Swaziland condemns the censorship attempt by the Chairman of Swazi observer and welcomes Dhlamini‘s professional stance as victory for press freedom and hopes that other Swazi authorities will learn from this incident and refrain from censoring journalists.

Editor’s note: Sifiso Dhlamini did not return to edit the Observer.

137


12. Case Study 3: Without The King In 2007, the American filmmaker Michael Skolnik released his documentary Without The King. Skolnik described it as capturing ‗the birth of a nation‘s revolution‘. That was a bit optimistic, but what it did show was the contrast between the lavish lifestyle led by King Mswati III and the Swazi Royal Family and the wretched poverty of many of his subjects. Without The King also interviewed people who were openly critical of the king (sub-Saharan Africa‘s last absolute monarch) and who were advocating violence as a means to overthrow the monarchy. When the documentary was released as a DVD it was unobtainable in Swaziland. The contents of the documentary were under King Mswati‘s law subversive and anyone found watching it would be committing a criminal offence. I managed to get a copy from abroad and bring it into the kingdom. The level of interest in Without The King was so huge that soon ‗pirated‘ copies of the DVD were being passed around Swaziland. The anti-government Nation magazine reported at the time that copies of the DVD ‗are found around the country given to trusted individuals under the table. So secretive are people about it, one would have thought it a seditious pamphlet.‘ Swaziland’s ‘Revolution’ Documentary On DVD 26 March 2008 The award-winning, and highly controversial, documentary that claims Swaziland is close to a state of revolution has finally reached Swaziland. DVDs of the documentary called Without The King are now circulating within Swaziland. It is impossible to buy the DVD legally in Swaziland - possessing one would be an act of sedition - but imports have been passed around the kingdom over the past days. According to the documentary‘s own publicity it ‗captures the birth of a nation‘s revolution‘. I‘m not convinced that anything in the DVD really justifies that statement, but there are scenes where ordinary people in Swaziland talk about their dissatisfaction with the ruling elite – including King Mswati III. It is impossible to hear such views in public in Swaziland where most media are government controlled and the so-called ‗independent‘ newspapers are scared to criticise the king. Remember, in 2007 the Times of Swaziland group of newspapers was threatened with closure after the Times Sunday published mild criticism of the king and the way he was thought to put off foreign investors with his lavish lifestyle. The newspapers were forced to apologise humbly or be closed.290 290

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2008/01/unreality-of-swazi-media-freedom.html

138

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland Without the King – the title doesn‘t come from a wish to see the king deposed, rather it is a line from the king‘s eldest daughter Princess Sikhanyiso who says ‗Without the king [Swaziland] has no culture‘- contrasts the lifestyle of the Swazi Royal Family with ordinary people in the kingdom. In Swaziland about 70 per cent of the population live on less than US$1 (E7) per day. Without The King visits Moneni Township to witness near-starving people eating intestines they have scavenged from a rubbish tip. Their water supply is no larger than a puddle. In another part of the documentary political activists speak about their desire to change Swaziland. One activist says, ‗Nations are like babies; they don‘t just stand up and walk. But now it is clear to everybody, we can‘t take this any longer. By tomorrow, we can mobilize thousands; people can get to the streets. We have that power; we have that capacity to do that.‘ He goes on, ‗We cannot go to South Africa and ask for guns, we cannot go to America and ask for guns, but we can creep at night with our knives and kill them …. A knife is about 20 rand, today we can do it. It‘s only time and proper organizing.‘ The documentary shows a second political activist saying, ‗The government belongs to the king that is why now the buck rests with him. If his people are failing to deliver the basics, the ones he appointed, not the people, definitely, they‘re going to point fingers at him. ‗If we are going to have a constitution that is driven down the throat of the people, without their mandate, that is dictatorship.‘ He goes on, ‗For instance, yesterday I was prepared to die for the struggle. But today I don‘t want to die for the struggle. I want to kill for the struggle.‘ There are more scenes of criticism in the documentary that make the ones above seem mild. Without The King is so critical of the monarchy that I am sure anyone in possession of the DVD in Swaziland would be committing an act of sedition which carries a prison sentence of up to two years.291 Without The King won the special Jury Prize at Hot Docs film festival in Toronto, Canada, last year (2007).292 It has been shown all over the world, but it is thought that now is the first time it has been seen in Swaziland. Swazi King Documentary ‘Seditious’ 26 March 2008 Anyone who has in his or her possession a copy of the documentary Without The King is committing sedition. I can hear cries of incredulity rising all around me, but it is a fact. Even though the Swazi Constitution that came into effect in 2006 allows for freedom of expression, draconian laws in Swaziland have not been repealed.

291 292

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2008/03/swazi-king-documentary-seditious.html http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2007/07/swazi-doco-on-tour.html

139

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland Possibly the most draconian of all the laws in Swaziland is the Sedition and Subversive Activities Act, 1938. The main purpose of the Act is to provide for the suppression and punishment of sedition, that is criticism of the king and the Swaziland government. Read these extracts from the Act (particularly Section 4) and tell me that I‘m wrong. Section 4 makes it an offence for any person to do anything or even to attempt to do anything with seditious intent. It is also an offence to conspire with anyone who wants to do anything with seditious intent. This includes the utterance of seditious words as well as the printing and dissemination of seditious publications. The importation of seditious publications is also an offence except if the importer had no reason to believe that the publication was seditious. Section 3(1) defines a ‗seditious intention‘ as an intention to: bring the King into hatred or contempt, or to excite disaffection against the King, his heirs, his successors and the government of Swaziland; excite the citizens and inhabitants of Swaziland to ‗procure the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any matter in Swaziland as by law established‘; bring the Swaziland justice administration system into hatred, contempt or disaffection; raise discontent amongst the citizens and inhabitants of Swaziland; or promote ‗feelings of ill-will and hostility between different classes of the population of Swaziland‘. Any person found guilty of sedition may be fined and sentenced to two years‘ imprisonment for a first offence and three years‘ on a subsequent offence. Mere possession of a seditious publication may lead to a fine and imprisonment for one year for a first offence and for two years for a subsequent offence. You can read more about repressive Swazi media laws in Media Law, a Comparative Overview of Media Laws and Practice in Botswana, Swaziland and Zambia, from the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, Johannesburg.293

Without The King On Tour 29 April 2008 The seditious documentary Without The King is now freely circulating in Swaziland. ‗Pirated‘ copies of the DVD have been winging their way around the kingdom and I have received reports of it being watched in every major urban area in Swaziland. According to the documentary‘s own publicity, Without The King ‗captures the birth of a nation‘s revolution‘. Personally, I suspect the ‗revolution‘ is some way off yet, but the DVD does show scenes where ordinary people in Swaziland talk about their dissatisfaction with the ruling elite – including King Mswati III. Swazi media are not allowed to voice such sentiments – and it is not really safe for ordinary people to say them out loud in most places in Swaziland. I hear there have been some discussions in the main cities of Mbabane and Manzini about showing the documentary at a public venue. People are quite understandably scared to do this for fear of what might happen either at the showing itself (police in Swaziland are brutal 293

www.kas.de/db_files/dokumente/7_dokument_dok_pdf_5977_1.pdf

140

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland when it comes to dealing with dissent) or what might happen after the event to the person or organisation that allowed the showing to take place. All this is in great contrast to North America where Without The King is showing in public cinemas across the continent. It is also receiving interesting reviews in newspapers and on the Internet. I picked up this review on the Internet from someone called Kam Williams at News Blaze. 294 I think Williams got a little carried away, especially with regards to the statistics (do you know what 45 BILLION US Dollars looks like Kam?) and the bit about the ‗airhead‘ Princess Sikhanyiso is a bit strong, but (unlike in Swaziland) everyone is entitled to their opinion. ‗King Mswati III is a benevolent despot ruling the tiny African nation of Swaziland with a velvetgloved iron fist. This last absolute monarch on the continent governs just about the only sub-Saharan country somehow untouched by civil war or ethnic cleansing over the last 30 years. In contrast to such war-torn lands as Uganda, Rwanda, Congo, Liberia, Sierra Leone and The Sudan, Swaziland has enjoyed a relatively peaceful existence. ‗This, despite the fact that its citizens have a 42% AIDS rate and the world's lowest life expectancy at 31. Plus, most of the population has to survive on about 63 cents a day, and are thus very dependent on donations from international charities just to survive. ‗Meanwhile, the royal family lives in the lap of luxury, starting with the king. He has 14 wives, and picks another new one to add to his harem from the 75,000 topless young virgins participating in the annual Reed Dance, a weeklong celebration of chastity. ‗He also owns 7 palaces, a fleet of luxury cars, the media and sugar industries, and most of the developed real estate. Plus, he has $45 billion stashed away in a Swiss bank for safekeeping. Political parties are banned in Swaziland, so the miserable plight of the people isn‘t about to change any time soon in the absence of a revolution. ‗Besides Mswati, the film focuses on the decadent behavior of his spoiled-rotten eldest child, an airhead attending college in California. Well aware of the exploitation of her father‘s subjects, this future queen sarcastically appraises the situation shortly before the curtain comes down, vaguely promising to make some changes while rolling her eyes. ‗We‘re supposed to buy the idea that the Swazis will be saved by Africa‘s answer to Paris Hilton? Yeah, right. Proof-positive that despotism and decadence comes in all colors.‘

I notice that Williams didn‘t even think it worth mentioning the name of the king‘s daughter (it‘s Princess Sikhanyiso). The princess gets a more sympathetic mention by another reviewer, Cynthia Fuchs, writing on the popmatters website.295 ‗Princess Sikhanyiso, also known as Pashu, is the eldest of her father King Mswati III‘s 22 children. A dutiful daughter and self-described ―rhyme slayer,‖ the amateur rapper leads a film crew through the King‘s palace in Mbabane, capital of Swaziland, pointing out the gigantic swordfish that adorns ―one of the rooms for most important visitors.‖ She smiles politely, anticipating her upcoming 18th birthday and comparing the tour to MTV Cribs. [A television programme in which ‗famous‘ people show off their homes.]

294 295

http://newsblaze.com/story/20080422161502tsop.nb/newsblaze/TOPSTORY/Top-Stories.html http://www.popmatters.com/pm/film/reviews/57815/without-the-king/

141

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland ‗Pashu straddles a particular and complicated divide in Without the King… Introduced defending her father‘s reign (―I think being a king is the hardest thing ever; you have to take the most criticism in the country‖), she is also on her way to Hollywood, starting her freshman year at Biola University, a Christian school. ‗As Pashu‘s mother Queen LaMbikiza remembers being married at 16, Mswati‘s first wife, the daughter imagines that her education in a foreign land will prepare her for being royal in the future. ―We are the ones that have to change the country,‖ she says of her generation,‖ and toward that end, she seeks ―knowledge.‖ ‗Her father, in turn, expresses his pleasure in a way that indicates his conditioned detachment and performance for the camera (Pashu refers to him repeatedly as ―the King‖): ―I have a kid that is going to university,‖ he smiles, ―Of course I am very proud, the kid has been very good.‖ ‗As Pashu enjoys the ―freedom‖ of campus life without security details and with an ATM card (―I‘ve never used one,‖ she says, pressing buttons on the machine as the camera focuses on the sign above: Need Cash?). ‗Her story in the abstract is soon reframed by experience. Stepping into the street outside Grauman‘s Chinese Theatre, she‘s impressed by the traffic, the lights, the architecture: ―I wish that Africa was like this as well,‖ she says, her sentences fracturing. ―It just shows how much we still need to… It seems impossible… It wouldn‘t even be good to reach this level...‖ She sighs and finishes with an assessment that is diplomatic and self-preserving: ―You guys are doing good for yourselves.‖‘

But, of the recent crop of reviews, Bruce Bennett, writing in the New York Sun, is the most overtly political. ‗The king‘s insistence on upholding venerable tribal customs at the expense of modernization is revealed to be a social perversion allowing tyranny, ignorance, and cruelty. ―The mind fractures at the thought of it,‖ one U.N. health advocate says. Footage of Swazi citizens preparing meals of offal scavenged from landfills and slaking their thirst from fetid, muddy ponds takes its toll in Without the King, and as the film examines the grotesque disparity in wealth between ruler and ruled, the heart starts to crack, too. ‗But U.N. observers and film viewers, like the members of the royal family themselves, can afford the luxury of sentiment. King Mswati‘s subjects, however, cannot, and among the bracing nonfiction disclosures that Without the King makes is precisely where terrorists and freedom fighters come from and just how narrow the semantic line is between the two. ―I don't want to die for the struggle,‖ says one emaciated would-be assassin. ―I want to kill for the struggle.‖ Nearing the end of the approximately three decades that he'll remain alive, the man has literally nothing to lose either way.‘

Without The King Attacked In Newspaper 10 June 2008 A fierce attack on the documentary Without The King has been made in one of Swaziland‘s newspapers. The documentary that contrasts the lavish lifestyle of King Mswati III and his family with ordinary Swazis has been shown across the world, but is not available openly in Swaziland. Pirated copies of a DVD of the documentary are circulating in Swaziland and as the Nation magazine (April 2008) pointed out, the DVD ‗tells the shocking story of Swaziland‘s royal family excesses against the backdrop of an impoverished nation.‘

142


According to the Nation, copies of the DVD ‗are found around the country given to trusted individuals under the table. So secretive are people about it, one would have thought it a seditious pamphlet.‘ Now, a writer in the Times Sunday (8 June 2008) has called on people in Swaziland to stand up to those who ‗defame the good name of the king and country‘. Maqhawe Nxumalo makes a personal and racist attack on the documentary‘s American director Michael Skolnik before urging people to write to newspapers and to Internet sites to ‗let the entire world know what we think of this Skolnik character and his so-called masterpiece and by God! the next foreigner looking for a soft target will know that Swaziland is no longer an option!‘ I am disappointed that the Times Sunday allowed this racist attack to be made. I have no problem with the media discussing Without The King (a lot has already been said on this blogsite) but if people want to attack the documentary they should do it on the basis of facts. The documentary lasts for about 80 minutes and there are a lot of facts, personal testimony and opinion in it. It raises important questions about life in Swaziland and it is proper that these questions should be discussed.296 But it helps no one to make fierce attacks against the director for being American. Nxumalo writes in his article that the documentary contains ‗falsehoods‘, but doesn‘t say what these ‗falsehoods‘ are. If there are ‗falsehoods‘ he should say what they are and why they are false. It is almost impossible to have a rational debate about the monarchy in Swaziland. Nxumalo himself says at one point in the article that ‗since the news of this documentary started spreading everyone has been waiting to see what the government will say.‘ I can only interpret that statement to mean how will the government try to stop the DVD spreading and make sure that no one else gets to see it? If we want a proper debate about Without The King, let someone (perhaps the University of Swaziland which says it believes in academic freedom) hold a public showing of the documentary followed by a rational discussion on its contents.

296

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2008/03/swaziland-revolution-doco-on-dvd.html

143


13. Case Study 4: MISA Research In 2008 the Swaziland chapter of the Media Institute of Southern Africa, Swaziland commissioned research from me into censorship and self-censorship in the Swazi media. My report was published as The Existence of Censorship in Newsrooms in Swaziland.297 It concluded that there was widespread censorship in newsrooms in Swaziland and identified the Swazi monarchy and the poor state of the Swazi economy as the main causes of censorship. Media practitioners were interviewed and asked to identify how much censorship existed in Swaziland. They were then questioned about their own personal experiences of censorship. Below, are some of the blogposts I wrote at the time about the research.

Censorship Research Report To Be launched 4 July 2008 We are about to take part in an interesting experiment about journalism in Swaziland. Today (4 July 2008) in Mbabane I presented the results of a research project into imposed censorship and self-censorship in the Swazi media. The research, conducted on behalf of the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) – Swaziland Chapter, involved interviewing journalists in Swazi media houses about their personal experiences of imposed and self-censorship.298 Every single one I spoke to said that the biggest cause of censorship was the Swazi monarchy, and in particular King Mswati III. The censorship was both imposed (i.e. direct threats made to the media) or self inflicted (fear of upsetting the king made journalists leave out angles to stories or leave out stories completely). Many journalists from across the spectrum of Swazi media were present at my presentation. And here comes the ‗experiment‘. We must now wait and see how the media report the research. If, of course, they report it at all. While we wait, here is an extract from the research that reports on what journalists told me about their personal experiences of censorship and the monarchy. Fear of offending the monarchy is by far the biggest cause of censorship in Swazi media houses. Respondents returned time and again to the consequences to the journalist and the media house of offending King Mswati III.

297 298

http://www.sz.misa.org/images/stories/downloads/censorship.pdf http://www.scribd.com/doc/18628577/Censorship-in-Newsrooms-in-Swaziland

144

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland One respondent said, ‗The biggest problem in Swazi journalism is the King – who everybody tries to avoid.‘ One problem identified by a respondent was the rule that ‗you don‘t criticise the King‘. This led people to try to extend this to say you cannot criticise a cabinet minister, because the King appoints him and to criticise a cabinet minister, ‗indirectly you criticise the King‘ for making a bad appointment. According to the respondent, ‗It took a long time before media houses decided it doesn‘t work like that.‘ One respondent related this example of how the King interfered. ‗The King himself told us he is not happy with us reporting on how he is spending his money and how his wife was buying clothes. So any time a story to that effect comes through we generally don‘t venture into that area. So [he made] one order and it has stood for a long time.‘ Orders to media houses sometimes come directly from the King (rather than from someone on behalf of the King). It would seem that these summons are not made consistently across the media. The Times group seems to have been called more often than the Observer. Many respondents referred to an incident in March 2007 when King Mswati III ordered the Times Sunday to publish an apology for publishing an article sourced from Norway that said the King was partly responsible for Swaziland‘s economic ills. The King also demanded that the features editor of the Times Sunday be dismissed for allowing the report to be published. The King also said that the newspaper must never again refer to him as a ‗dictator‘ (even though the report did not use this word). The King said if his demands were not met he would close down the Times Sunday and the other newspapers published by its owner. A summary of comments by respondents on the incident suggests that the publisher went along with the King‘s demands because the publisher did not want to take the risk of not knowing what would follow if he did not apologise. So for a quiet life, the publisher did what he was told. Another example, generally known in the media industry and cited by some respondents, concerned the King‘s first daughter (who was of adult age) who willingly gave a media interview that the King did not like. The King summoned journalists to see him and demanded to hear a recording of the interview as proof that the interview really did take place. The King then told the media that they would not be allowed to interview her again without the King‘s expressed permission. Swazi media have interpreted this dictate to mean that they may not interview any of the King‘s children. Another example cited was a report about one of the King‘s wives going to Matsapha airport to see off her daughter who was going on a trip. The King was ‗livid‘ when the report appeared and made his feelings known to the media. He said the report had embarrassed him. According to one respondent, the problem the media face now is what do they do the next time the Queen is seen in public? If they report it, the King might be offended and give them trouble. ‗So we don‘t, we don‘t want trouble.‘ There are some areas about the royal family that are not covered by newspapers, either because of direct censorship (i.e. King Mswati III has said they must not) or through self-censorship (media houses fear the consequences of upsetting the King). One topic cited by respondents as being off limit was the national budget where it relates to the royal expenditure.

145

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland King Mswati III in effect owns the Observer and Weekend Observer newspapers and there is ‗an extra sensitivity‘ at these newspapers when reporting about the King and royalty. It is generally accepted throughout Swazi media that the Observer is ‗the King‘s newspaper‘. The person who at any time holds the position of ‗chief editor‘ of the Observer group is the person who would tackle royal assignments. One respondent described one of the chief editor‘s responsibilities as being to protect the ‗good standing‘ of the royal family. The Observer would also try to ‗correct the misconception‘ that the King had a lavish lifestyle. This situation seems to be generally recognised by the Swazi media – both inside and outside of the Observer group. A summary of respondents‘ views in this area suggests that the Observer will not report things that put the King and the Queen Mother in a ‗bad light‘ or publish something that ‗ridicules‘ them. Among topics that will not be published are reports of the activities of political ‗progressives‘ and the things they say during their demonstrations. The Observer might report that there had been a rally and it might say police broke it up, but it would not report details of the purpose of the demonstration. The Observer also shies away from using the term ‗the ruling class‘ in stories, unless readers confused the term to mean ‗the King‘. The Observer will not publish stories that embarrass the King. One example cited by many respondents was a car crash the King was involved in. The story was published on the front page of the Times of Swaziland, on 2 April 2008, but not published at all in the Observer. It was thought that publishing the report would offend His Majesty. The Observer will not report on the issue of polygamy as this may be interpreted as a criticism of the King (who has 13 wives). The Observer would not give advance reports of the King‘s activities, for example, a trip abroad, unless the King‘s office had officially announced it. To publish information known to the newspaper, but not officially announced by the King, would be deemed ‗disrespectful‘ to the King. Away from the Observer, arguments sometimes take place within media houses about how far they can go when reporting about the King. Caution usually wins. Some journalists say they would prefer to see how far they can go and ‗take a chance‘.

Media Censorship – What The Paper’s Say 7 July 2008 As expected, the Swazi media almost totally ignored the research published on Friday that said imposed censorship and self-censorship was rife in Swaziland. The research said that according to journalists and editors the biggest problem with censorship in Swaziland was the position taken by King Mswati III. Journalists are afraid to upset him for fear of retribution.

146

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland The research, which was undertaken by me on behalf of the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) Swaziland chapter, was presented on Friday (4 July 2008) to an audience made up of senior media figures, journalists and people from various NGOs in Swaziland.299 The only media house to give any meaningful coverage to the research was the Weekend Observer (5 July 2008) which devoted an entire page to it. However, the newspaper failed to mention at all the fear the media has about the king. It did however make a tantalising reference to it by reporting that ‗On self-censorship, the respondents highlighted fear of offending the authorities as the main cause.‘ For ‗authorities‘ read ‗king‘. I have some sympathy with the media over this lack of coverage. During the question and answer session at the report‘s launch, it became clear that there is a very deep rooted fear of the monarchy in Swaziland. One very senior media figure said that we had to remember that King Mswati III is above the law. This is true, even the new Swazi Constitution allows the king to be above the law. What this in effect means is that the king can do whatever he likes and if he decides to close down a newspaper he doesn‘t like – as he threatened to do300 with the Times of Swaziland group in March 2007 – he can. And he will. Another example of the fear of the monarchy emerged at the research report launch when one participant said that we should be careful letting the king know how afraid the media are of him. There was no discussion on this point, but one interpretation I would put on the comment is that if King Mswati knows he can get away with bullying the media he will use that power to cause trouble. The Weekend Observer report concentrated on the problems I had conducting the research. Some people in the media industries were reluctant to take part in the research for fear of retribution. All those who did take part were guaranteed anonymity. I think this tells us a great deal about the fear that people in Swaziland live under in their daily lives. People are simply scared to be seen to be criticising the status quo. This is especially so when it comes to criticising the monarchy. I outlined some of the problems I had with the research in the report itself. I wrote, ‗Swaziland is not a democracy and some people have genuine fears of victimisation if they express themselves on controversial matters. For this reason all information was given to the researcher on the condition of anonymity. ‗Before interviews began, some respondents expressed concerns that they would be able to be identified from the specific examples of censorship practice they gave. ‗This is a genuine concern and therefore special care had to be taken in writing the narrative of this report and in some instances detail has deliberately been deleted or obscured to protect the source.

299 300

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2008/07/censorship-and-swazi-media.html http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2007/11/closure-threat-to-times.html

147

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland ‗All interviews were recorded on the understanding that once the interview was transcribed the recording would be wiped.‘ Nobody from state-controlled radio or television agreed to take part in the research. I had a telling experience with state-controlled Swaziland Broadcasting and Information Services (SBIS) radio. One senior journalist agreed to meet with me, but when I arrived for the interview, declined to be interviewed. The journalist said permission would need to be sought from the management of the radio station before an interview would be forthcoming. Even though the interview was seeking the personal experiences of those who were being questioned, and not statements on behalf of the media organisation, the journalist felt unable to take part without the expressed permission of seniors. I was directed to also seek the permission of the Minister of Public Services and Information before making further requests of SBIS. I declined the invitation and subsequently nobody from SBIS was interviewed. This encounter speaks volumes about the state of censorship at SBIS. I personally wasn‘t responsible for choosing the respondents in the research. This was done on my behalf by MISA. I was told that some people declined to be interviewed by me for fear of the consequences, but they did give information about their experiences of censorship in Swaziland. I was later told that some of these stories were even more telling than those that eventually appeared in the final report. Censorship – Adverts and Libel 9 July 2008 I wrote last week301 about the research I had undertaken on censorship in the Swazi media. My conclusion that journalists felt that King Mswati III was the biggest cause of imposed and self-censorship in Swaziland didn‘t come as much of a surprise to media watchers. But, I want to make clear that although the monarchy is the main concern among media people in Swaziland it is not the only cause. My report, commissioned by the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) Swaziland chapter, also identified advertisers and the threat of libel action as significant worries. Below is an extract from the report called The Existence of Censorship in Newsrooms.302

Advertisers and financial interests of organisations The threat of losing advertising is real, this is especially so as the economy of Swaziland is declining. The privately owned media is dependent on advertising to survive, and since a small number of organisations spend so much the media houses give serious consideration every time there is a complaint from an advertiser. 301 302

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2008/07/censorship-and-swazi-media.html http://www.scribd.com/doc/18628577/Censorship-in-Newsrooms-in-Swaziland

148


Some advertisers are so important to the newspapers that a special relationship exists between the advertiser and the advertising department. The advertising department knows that some advertisers will never say ‗no‘ when approached to advertise. For example, if a newspaper is running a special themed advertising supplement, it might approach a regular advertiser to support it. If the advertiser has already spent the annual advertising budget, an advertisement would still be placed and the advertisement paid for at a later date, when funds are available to the advertiser. A number of companies and organisations were specifically cited as organisations that regularly tried to censor the content of newspapers. They were Swazi Bank; the cellphone company, MTN (‗a definite no-go area‘ and ‗you can‘t write about blackouts in the service‘); the Swaziland Electricity Company and Swaziland Posts and Telecommunications (SPTC). All the foregoing are major companies or parastatals in Swaziland. But smaller companies are also given special treatment. One such company that was mentioned more than once by respondents was the Why Not (a recreation and entertainment venue). In the case of the Why Not, respondents said they did not even feel able to publish a poor review of an act that appeared at the venue, for fear of losing advertising. Although media houses will keep stories about advertisers out of the media there is a limit to what they will not report. For example, one respondent said they would publish a story if a chief officer of an advertiser were accused of rape. Newspapers do not fear the withdrawal of advertising by government, although, according to the African Media Barometer, published by MISA, this has happened in the past. It is felt that government has little choice but to use the newspapers in order to get information out to the general public (although state-controlled radio, SBIS is also available for this). One respondent said that in the past when the government did withdraw advertising it was done by one small part of government and the ban lasted about one week. There was a minority view that advertisers did not cause problems for media houses because they understood that newspapers had a duty to publish. Advertisers were satisfied if the media house gave the advertiser a platform to give its side of the story. Libel Many respondents reported that hardly a day went by without somebody threatening to sue them in order to ‗scare them off‘. A letter from a lawyer often accompanied these threats. There was a general feeling that some people who claimed that they had been libelled by the media were ‗trying it on‘ to get the media house to agree on an apology and costs before the case got to court. The great time delay in getting cases to court could intimidate media houses. One respondent said a case could take up to two years before it went to court. Another said that lawyers, acting like ‗ambulance chasers‘, tried to keep a case going as long as they could. This guaranteed the lawyer an income, when lawyers had very few other opportunities to earn. Media houses sometimes settled cases, even those where they believed they had not committed a libel, for fear of the huge costs involved. Libel insurance to protect media houses was becoming prohibitively expensive in a climate where claims for libel could be as high as E3 million. This fear of the high cost if a case was lost has led to some stories being dropped or angles in stories being toned down.

149

Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland Media houses often settled out of court to avoid the protracted hassle and possible costs of pursuing a case to court. One respondent said settling out of court was a dangerous move for media houses. ‗Once you settle, you open the floodgates for everybody else.‘ Another respondent said, ‗Settling for fear of going to court has reduced the confidence of journalists and lowers the standards of journalism‘. This led newspapers to only go for soft targets (people who could not sue) and to leave larger, more important, targets alone. Sources The media protect their own sources by not publishing harmful stories about them, but this protection is not total. Some respondents revealed that they would not publish the story in their own newspaper, but would pass it on to another newspaper in the same media house, for them to follow up. Some respondents admitted to censoring stories about regular sources in order to ensure a future flow of stories from that source. When a regular source wants to keep something out of the media, a certain amount of negotiation takes place. There were a number of examples given where a source – often an official spokesperson for an organisation – offered the media house a ‗juicier‘ story in exchange for dropping a story that would reflect badly on the organisation that the journalist was working on. Sources often get their way, and many respondents revealed that they were given ‗better‘ stories in exchange. Taboos and cultural traditions Cultural traditions are said to be very important in Swaziland and there exists a duality in the legal system between constitutional law and cultural and traditional law. Despite the apparent importance of culture, most respondents said that they did not allow traditional leaders to interfere with the media‘s work. Some respondents said that there are no real cultural traditions in Swaziland. ‗We don‘t respect that cultural leaders are sincere,‘ one respondent said. Other comments included, ‗To Hell with culture – nobody has authority to challenge us.‘ ‗Nobody‘s practising culture in our country any more.‘ ‗Women in the villages are only doing it for survival, they don‘t really give a damn.‘ ‗I‘m here to break cultural taboos.‘ The only area in which culture was respected by the media, concerned the King. There are a number of things that culture dictates cannot be reported about annual ceremonies concerning the King (e.g. the Reed Dance and Incwala) and the media (reluctantly, according to respondents) censored themselves. It was clear from respondents that there were many stories from the Reed Dance and Incwala that were known to the media, that they would like to publish, but did not, for fear of the consequences from the King.

150

Unheard Voices, Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland - Richard Rooney

Recommend Documents