The People's United Democratic Movement of Swaziland PUDEMO International Office
Australia, Asian and the Pacific Region
E-mail: pudemo@yahoo.co.uk
April 16, 2006
Intensify the border blockade against Swaziland
On April 12, 2006 South African workers and supporters of the struggle for democracy in Swaziland staged successful blockades at all of Swaziland’s borders. The protest was in commemoration of the death of democracy on April 12, 1973. On this fateful day, the late King Sobhuza II suspended the Independence Constitution, declared an indefinite state of emergency and imposed a life ban on political parties. In the 2006 blockades, more than twenty people were arrested and some sustained injuries when the South African Police Service (SAPS) used rubber bullets to disperse the peaceful protest. Those arrested include senior members of the South African labour movement.
Condemn police violence
The People’s United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO) is extremely disturbed by the apartheid-style police violence against South African citizens who participated in a peaceful protest to support the struggle for democracy in Swaziland.
The police violence is abhorrent and unwarranted. It invokes painful memories of a pro-apartheid police establishment whose main goal was to sustain an evil system of government. We did not expect this from a post-apartheid police organisation governed by one of the most progressive democratic constitutions in the world. Police brutality against peaceful political protest is symptomatic of intolerant totalitarian regimes such as the absolute monarchy government of Swaziland. In the lead up to the border protest, the regime in Swaziland warned its citizens against participating in the protest and deployed troops and armed police at its border posts.
Through this brutality, the SAPS has disgraced the South African system of democracy, political tolerance and respect for human and political rights. Thus the conduct by the SAPS must be seen by all as a shameful act which warrants the strongest condemnation possible. Democratic forces around the world must register their disgust against this police violence. PUDEMO is pleased to learn that the police have now released all those who were arrested. However, it is not known whether charges have been preferred against the pro-democracy activists.
Border protest: a commitment to free Swaziland
The border protest, which was organised by the Swaziland Solidarity Network (SSN), is part of an ongoing commitment by the South African public to support the democratisation process in Swaziland. For ten years, SSN affiliated organisations such as The South African Congress of Trade Unions (COSATU) and the South African Communist Party (SACP) have relentlessly upheld their commitment to help free Swaziland. In pursuit of this commitment, SSN and its affiliates have, through peaceful public protest actions, demanded significant democratic change in Swaziland which takes cognisance of international requirements such as those established by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. On several occasions, the South African-based solidarity network joined the people of Swaziland in their protests against:
· the ban on political party participation in national politics
· the political discrimination embedded within the Commonwealth-sponsored constitution making process
· torture and violence against the democratic and worker’s movements
· political persecution and imprisonment of political and labour activists
· neglect of public responsibility, e.g., the failure to provide basic public healthcare and,
· misuse of public resources to satisfy obscenely lavish royal lifestyles
PUDEMO highly commends and unreservedly endorses the South African people’s support, including the recent border protest. We regard the action to blockade passage of goods and services to and from Swaziland as a form of legitimate public protest to force the monarchy regime to agree to long-standing demands for significant progress towards democratisation.
In view of the geo-economic position of Swaziland, this support is a valuable political asset to the Swazi struggle for democracy. Geographically, Swaziland is almost surrounded by South Africa with only one border with a second country – Mozambique. South Africa is Swaziland’s largest trading partner and Swaziland has a high degree of reliance on this partnership which accounts for about 60% of total exports and 96% of total imports.
Sustained economic action by the South African public, if combined with government policy to economically isolate the monarchy regime, has great potential to yield substantial political results in Swaziland. It is inconceivable that Swaziland would have the capacity to resist sustained economic pressure brought to bear on the regime by a combination of government and public action in South Africa. Such action has potential to generate space inside Swaziland for a business and public revolt against the monarchy regime.
Economic sanctions as effective political weapon: the anti-apartheid experience
Economic sanctions are a widely used form of peaceful protest against repugnant regimes which oppress and neglect their citizens. They were used successfully against the apartheid system in the 1980s. Increasingly, the effects of international sanctions compelled the business sector to enter public political debate. By mid 1980s, the South African business community and transnational corporations began to turn away from the apartheid government. For these corporations, the apartheid state had become a major liability to business because of its recalcitrant position on democratisation. Prospects for business recovery did not rest with the protection of apartheid but with joining the anti-apartheid movement in creating conditions for a stable democratic state. Thus, the way out of the continued impact of international economic sanctions was to retreat from apartheid.
It was against this backdrop that in 1985 a high profile business delegation began to work with the leading liberation movement, the African National Congress led tripartite alliance. This shift in political alliance was a major setback to the apartheid state as it desperately tried to resist demands for wide-ranging political change.
Although international economic sanctions were used successfully in the South African struggle, they were never perceived as the only panacea. Instead, they were part of multifaceted struggles incorporating various strategies including armed struggle, mass action and clandestine activities. Furthermore, support for economic sanctions was not without its critics. The pro-apartheid media (local and international, including the Swazi media) echoed the apartheid government’s opposition to economic sanctions. Foreign governments with strong economic interests in South Africa such as the United Kingdom and United States of America initially opposed economic sanctions but subsequently endorsed them because of a swell in international support for sanctions. Most importantly, fearful of local political backlash, the Thatcher and Regan administrations preferred to remain in office than continue resisting local and international pressure to isolate the apartheid regime. Opposition to economic sanctions was premised on one dominant discourse - that the sanctions would hurt the Black poor people they purported to help.
The ANC, SACP and COSATU rejected this argument as absurd because Black people had not benefited from the system of apartheid. Under apartheid, the socio-economic wellbeing of Black people was grossly and deliberately neglected. The apartheid state exercised minimal responsibility towards the political, social and economic development of the Black population. Instead, it was mostly preoccupied with the wellbeing of the white minority population. It created an oligarchic society characterised by a highly mobile white community with skills and wealth, on the one hand, and highly immobile Black community which had little apart from its labour which was exchanged for very poor recompense.
Swazi media and government reaction against the border protest
The resemblance between opposition to economic sanctions against apartheid and the reaction of the Swazi media against the recent border protest is striking. There are only two daily newspapers in Swaziland and both have opposed the border protest. One of these papers is the royal family-owned Swazi Observer. Given that this paper usually opposes political actions by unions, it was interesting to see the prominent coverage it gave to the Swaziland Federation of Trade Unions (SFTU)’s decision not to participate in the border protest.
Apparently, Jan Sithole, the SFTU’s Secretary General, issued a national notice against the protest claiming that his union was not involved in the planning process. On the day of the protest, the Swazi Observer (April12, 2006) describes Sithole as having acted “bravely”. King Mswati III praised the trade union leadership and workers for putting the country first by refusing to participate in the border protest. The King told the Weekend Swazi Observer (April 15, 2006) that he was:
…encouraged by reports that some leaders of the unions took a well considered decision not to participate.
This shows a sense of maturity and a consideration for the country and its people. Anything that seeks to undermine peace, the economy and the country’s security must be opposed by all.
Cabinet ministers have also commended the union leadership and have paraded the decision as a trophy. The regime’s comments have thus completely disregarded the SFTU’s explanation for its decision. Before and after the border protest, the SFTU leadership issued public statements that the decision not to participate was taken because of breakdown in communication and that it actually supports the border blockade (see Times of Swaziland, April, 13, 2006).
The Swazi Observer (April12, 2006) editorial comment predicted apocalyptic economic consequences of political actions targeting the economy and warns:
No amount of political demands and pressure should leave us a poorer country because then we would be undermining the interests of the people we purport to fight for.
Any action that frustrates trade and business activity is a one-way ticket to gross suffering and vulnerability and should be discouraged at all costs.
A day after the protest, the Times of Swaziland, a quasi-independent daily newsprint owned by a British conglomerate, echoed the Swazi Observer’s commentary. It described the border protest as unacceptable and calls for “serious action by the local and South African Governments” as well as the Southern African Development Cooperation (SADC). According to the Times of Swaziland, “…unions exceeded their mandate to cause untold harm to an economy that supports the workers in whose sympathy they staged the blockade.” These statements overlook the current political culture in South Africa established by the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 108 of 1996. Under the Constitution, South African citizens have rights and freedoms to protest. Constitutionally, the government cannot, as suggested by the Times of Swaziland commentary, punish its citizens for exercising their constitutional rights and freedoms.
The reaction to the border protest is thus reminiscent of the 1980s alliance between the monarchy regime and the Swazi media against international economic embargo on South Africa. During this period, the Swazi media joined hands with the Liqoqo regime and subsequently with the current government of King Mswati III to denounce economic sanctions against apartheid. The regime went further to collude with the South African “death squad” to hunt down anti-apartheid activists in Swaziland. Several ANC members were murdered and “kidnapped” from Swaziland police stations by apartheid agents. This criminal behaviour of the Government of Swaziland was never investigated and reported in the local media. Whilst other states in Southern Africa supported economic sanctions against the apartheid state and gave protection to anti-apartheid activists, the monarchy regime dined with the devil.
Dining with the devil
From the mid 1980s to the 1990s, Swaziland benefited from its pro-apartheid position by acting as a gateway to international markets for South African companies. Within this period, investment from the South African manufacturing sector boosted the Swazi economy which registered healthy growth at an average rate of 7% per annum (WTO, 1998: IMF, 2002). The monarchy spent lavishly on arms, royal palaces and luxurious automobiles.
However, the economy sharply decelerated after the collapse of the apartheid regime in 1994. During apartheid, South African manufacturers had moved to Swaziland to evade international economic sanctions but after 1994, they largely returned to South Africa. There was thus a massive flight of capital from Swaziland which left the Swazi economy in strife. In the early 1990s, the economy slowed down and growth fell to 2.1% at the beginning of the 21st century. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) Country Report of 2006, estimates real GDP growth in Swaziland to fall to 1.8% for the 2005/2006 financial year. This prediction was correct as the Swaziland Minister of Finance acknowledged in his recent budget speech that the 2005/2006 budget “…has been prepared under very hard economic conditions with barely a 2% GDP growth rate.”
Thus the benefits of the 1980s had created a false economy and the position of support for the apartheid economy was misconceived. The flight of capital has been compounded by other factors such as irresponsible public spending, lack of innovation, reliance on climatic economic activities, mismanagement, corruption and most importantly, the absence of political accountability.
Grim economic outlook and social neglect: indications of a failed state
Like the pro-apartheid media in the 1980s, the Swazi media ignores one important aspect of the debate about economic sanctions – that the majority of Swazis gain very little benefit from the current economic system and have much to gain from significant change in the way in which Swaziland is governed. The current system has driven the majority of Swazis into abject poverty. They have been caught in a treadmill and are hurting now.
Assessments of the level of poverty in Swaziland give a grim reading. Government budget records show that from 2002/3 to 2004/5 financial year, the number of people living below the poverty line (less than US$1 a day) has increased from 65% to 69%. In desperation, Swazis are increasingly resorting to informal loan sharks to survive and are being charged interest of up to 360% per annum. The King’s response has been to tell Swazis to improve their budgeting skills and to save part of their income for emergencies (see the Weekend Swazi Observer, April 15, 2006). He cautioned “his subjects” against “careless borrowing” and advised them to apply a “strict regime of ‘saving for rainy days’” (Ibid). King Mswati III has completely missed the point that Swazis have no money to buy bread today and certainly have no spare cash to save for later. For most Swazis, there are no financially sunny days any more – all are “rainy days”. The country is facing an economic meltdown and the proliferation of loan sharks is merely one of the more obvious signs of a failed state.
The King’s response symbolises the obscene disconnection between the rich and the poor in Swaziland. It is reminiscent of the comment which has come to symbolise the position of the aristocracy in the French Revolution. When told that the poor people had no bread, Marie Antoinette is reported to have said “let them eat cake”.
The King’s response is also profoundly unSwazi and again demonstrates the fraudulent nature of his claims to be the guardian and arbiter of Swazi culture. One of the strongest and deepest values of Swazi culture is Ubuntfu - a communal approach to life and deep sense of responsibility to others. Our tradition is to help people who are poor and struggling in life. Our tradition is not to criticise that person and call them stupid or lazy. Yet this is precisely what King Mswati III has done. He is telling the majority of Swazis who are living below the poverty line that their poverty is the result of their lack of budgeting, not due to his profligacy and contempt for the welfare of Swazi citizens.
Whilst the government spends lavishly on the royal family household and politicians, the majority of Swazis have no jobs, nothing to eat, are sick and dying because of the acute lack of healthcare services. Unemployment is estimated at 30% and much higher among the youth population (IMF, 2006; Government of Swaziland, 2006).
More than 20% of the population of approximately 1.1 million, an equivalent of 220, 000 people, are living with HIV/AIDS. In 2003 alone, 17, 000 adults and children died from HIV/AIDS (WHO, 2004). In Swaziland the death rate amongst adults is exacerbated by the high prevalence of tuberculosis, an infection that can be adequately contained and eradicated through effective health policies. The World Health Organisation (June, 2005) observes that with a ratio of 1:3 adults infected, “…Swaziland faces a generalised HIV/AIDS epidemic”.
However, WHO is incorrect in its assessment of government response to the HIV epidemic. According to WHO, “the Government of Swaziland has demonstrated a high level of political commitment to fight HIV/AIDS since the start of the epidemic” in 1987. Contrary to this observation, the high infection rate is a result of state neglect of its responsibility and duty of care to protect its citizens through effective containment policies. Swaziland authorities were very slow to understand the potential impact of HIV/AIDS and actually discouraged people from using condoms. Current neglect of the healthcare system by the government shows that there is still a serious lack of political commitment in fighting the epidemic.
In 2005, Swaziland’s authorities refused to join the rest of the world to commemorate the annual World Aids Day because it was held during the time of the sacred Incwala ceremony. Incwala is a sacred traditional ritual which represents the spiritual renewal of the nation and affirms our belief that life is sacred. Traditionally, it is a symbol of hope and healing, particularly when the nation is under siege from natural disasters such as drought and disease. The ceremony draws tens of thousands of young and old men, and many Swazis continue to appreciate its significance. HIV/AIDS campaigns share the core values of Incwala – renewal of the nation’s health and the protection of life. The coincidence of Incwala and World Aids Day presented an opportunity to the authorities and the HIV/AIDS campaigners to raise awareness of the epidemic and promote positive health messages. A combination of these ceremonies would have had long-lasting effects, particularly among the older generation and rural population which have strong sense of Swazi traditions. It would also have provided the King with a well-overdue opportunity to make amends for his disastrous initial response to HIV in which he declared the use of condoms to be “unSwazi”. The decision not to commemorate World Aids Day was short-sighted and yet again reveals the truly careless and incompetent response of the regime to the HIV epidemic. The failure to grasp the opportunities offered by the coincidence of Incwala and World Aids Day shows the absence of innovative ideas and leadership among the ruling elite and its determination to ignore the biggest threat ever faced by the Swazi nation.
With 70% of farmers engaged in subsistence food production, the high rate of HIV/AIDS has almost incapacitated the capacity of rural households to produce sufficient food supplies, even in good rainy seasons. Assessments by the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and World Food Programme (WFP) published in 2006 show that “many households are facing chronic and acute food insecurity, which is not merely caused by poor climatic conditions, but is also compounded by the effects of HIV/AIDS and a general economic decline.”
The healthcare service in Swaziland is a disgrace and the authorities should hang their heads in shame for this acute neglect. Health facilities such as the Mbabane Government Hospital illustrate the government’s complete failure to meet its responsibilities. Reports in the local media have revealed horrific conditions at the Mbabane Government Hospital including assault of patients, rat infestations, sanitation problems and inadequate pharmaceutical, food and water supplies. (see Times of Swaziland, 17/12/05; 28/12/05; 26/02/06). Investigative journalists from The Times of Swaziland (26/02/06) describe the situation at the Mbabane Government Hospital:
Instead of giving hope for life to patients, the place simply sucks life away from them day after day until they die. Once they are admitted there, there is simply no hope that they will come out alive.
The place is dirty and it stinks.
The smell is now permanent and there are allegations that some nurses are shunning this particular ward because of the terrible state it is in. This is where patients are made to drink water that is also used to flush away their waste. The same water is also used to wash the sick patients.
“We have no option but to wash them here because there is no other place where we can wash them,” commented one patient.
Just when he was speaking, a female came with a bucket full of human waste to deposit in the sink where he was washing his dishes.
“This is a norm, we have no other place where we can deposit our waste this is because the toilets do not flush and even if they did, there is no water to run the waste,” commented another patient.
On April 15, 2006, the Swazi News (Saturday Times of Swaziland) reported yet another water crisis at the Mankayane government hospital. The hospital has had no water for a week due to a burst pipe which could have been repaired within a day. However, this was not done and hospital authorities decided to send patients home as the crisis worsened. Meanwhile, the government had the audacity to spend over E200,000 (approx. US$33,000) of public funds on luxurious curtains for the Prime Minister’s residence. The cost of fixing the water crisis at the Mankayane hospital would come nowhere near the money spent on the curtains. Whilst public health facilities have no running water and Swazi citizens are denied the basic right to healthcare, the Prime Minister barricades himself behind luxurious curtains. The sick at Mankayane hospital have gone home to die and the Prime Minister cannot be seen behind his curtains –a symbol of visual separation and indifference to the painful experience of many Swazis.
The economic situation in Swaziland is grim and shows no signs of improving. Swaziland is digging deeper into international reserves to finance the waste of public resources and the lavish lifestyle of those in authority. According to the 2005/6 budget reports, the economy registered a deficit of 4.3% of GDP. Whilst the economic situation continues to decline, corruption, misuse of public resources, political neglect and financial mismanagement are on the increase. Recently, more than E50 million (approx. US$8.2m) has disappeared without trace and no one in government is willing to take responsibility. This money was earmarked for the purchase of a water drilling rig which would have made a difference in supplying water in rural areas where the bulk of the poverty stricken population lives.
In view of the economic trends over the past 10 years, it is inconceivable that a solution to the economic crisis can be found in the existing system of government. The Swaziland business community and foreign investors should realise that the current system of government has become a big liability to economic growth and business prosperity. As the South African business community realised in the 1980s, the solution to this crisis is the creation of a stable democratic state with a new social contract between citizens and structures of governance. It is in the interest of the Swazi business community to come out of their cocoons and help hasten the change to democracy.
Our people are dying, hungry and sick and their situation cannot be resolved through piecemeal political reforms such as the recently adopted national constitution. We all have the responsibility and moral obligation to give Swaziland a chance to rejuvenate.
Appeal to the Government of South Africa and South African citizens
For over twenty years now, PUDEMO has been relentless in its endeavour to fight for political change through peaceful engagement with the monarchy regime. We have appealed to the international community to seriously consider economic sanctions against this repressive regime. The emphasis of our appeal has been on South Africa because of its geo-economic position.
PUDEMO reiterates its appeal to the Government of South Africa to stand up for democracy in Swaziland and impose comprehensive economic sanctions against the monarchy regime. In our view, if comprehensive sanctions are imposed, it will take a relatively short period before the monarchy relents to demands to open up space for significant political change. The recent border blockade has reopened the debate on economic sanctions as a form of struggle with great potential to yield political outcomes. Results from the one-day border action are already evident. Government officials including the head of state, King Mswati III, have been drawn into the public debate about the political crisis in Swaziland. Comments from King Mswati and his ministers reveal their fear of economic sanctions. The hysteria about the border protest shows that economic sanctions have the capacity to bite deep into the regime. South African citizens together with their government can effectively exploit this vulnerability to hasten broader political change and decelerate the slide into socio-economic decay in Swaziland. A slide into further decay in Swaziland threatens peace and security in the region.
The South African public, led by SSN and its affiliates, has taken the initiative to help the people of Swaziland bring the repression and economic decay to an end. PUDEMO supports this and calls for the intensification of the economic blockade against the monarchy regime. We appeal to the South African public to stay the course and not to relent under scare tactics that economic sanctions will hurt the poor. Our people now look up to the Government of South Africa to seriously reconsider this issue and take a leadership role against the recalcitrant regime in Swaziland. For too long now, the world has turned a blind eye on the political crisis in Swaziland. King Mswati III and his ministers have been at leisure in their endeavour to undermine regional and international aspirations of responsible governance and democratic practices. Consequently, Swaziland has, for a considerable period, been a stagnant backwater where nothing happens because international organisations such as the Commonwealth have decreed that nothing must happen.
In reaction to the border protest, King Mswati was quick to refer to the Commonwealth endorsement of the constitution making process which he described as inclusive. He also claimed that there are structures in Swaziland through which citizens can express dissatisfaction with the political condition. The argument is ridiculous, nonsensical and grossly misleading. No one with knowledge of the political situation in Swaziland would believe it. It contradicts the Constitutional Review Commission Terms of Reference which prohibited political and civic organisation from participating in the constitution making process. The product of this process, the Constitution of the Kingdom of Swaziland Act, 2005 upholds the ban on party participating in national politics.
Political intolerance and hostility against critics are core elements of the current system of government founded upon the King’s Proclamation to the Nation on April 12, 1973. It is against this background that the government has refused to open dialogue with the pro-democracy movement in Swaziland and to constructively contribute to international efforts to improve the quality of governance. The prohibition of political party participation in national politics grossly undermines the principles and aspirations of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD). One of these aspirations is to see that “Africa adopts and implements principles of democracy and good political economic and corporate governance, and the protection of human rights becomes further entrenched in every African country” (NEPAD). It is regrettable that the Government of Swaziland has, to this date, not signed up to NEPAD’s Africa Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) designed to monitor and assist progress towards quality governance in Africa. This recalcitrant position is characteristic of a totalitarian and secretive regime determined to stifle regional progress. The absolute monarchy is a political system born of another age. The time to change it is well overdue and South Africa’s contribution to Swaziland’s development is absolutely crucial.
Signed:
Dr Jabulane Matsebula
PUDEMO Representative
Australia, Asia and the Pacific Region
Sunday, April 16, 2006
Friday, March 3, 2006
President Mario Masuku's briefing to diplomats
President Mario Masuku's briefing to diplomats
Invitation to all civilised humanity:
Join us in the march towards a new and democratic Swaziland
A turning point in the history of Swaziland
Distinguished guests,
Friends and allies in the struggle for human dignity,
Please receive, on behalf of the National Executive Committee of PUDEMO and all the struggling people of Swaziland in general, warm and fraternal greetings at this historic moment in the political life of our country. We take this opportunity to welcome all of you and appreciate your interest in this subject matter that has escaped international headlines for far too long.
1. Background to the political crisis in Swaziland
The country called Swaziland is in geo-political terms situated between South Africa and Mozambique with a population of about 1.2 million people and occupying a space of about 17 000 square kilometers. This means it is a relatively small country, but well endowed with natural resources and a rich heritage, as well as fairly good climate.
However, this small country is facing big political problems arising out of a crisis of royal hegemony and the failure of imposed authority by a system which vests all powers in the hands of a tiny minority to the total exclusion of the majority of the people.
The system of royal oppression takes the institutional form of a political architecture called “tinkhundla”. If apartheid used race to exclude other people and safeguard the privileges of one group over another, then tinkhundla uses “royal bona-fides” or royal relations to serve the same purpose. Therefore, if in the context of humanity’s resolve to broaden the frontiers of dignity for all apartheid was declared a crime against humanity on the grounds of its brutality against the majority of the
people, then there is no question whatsoever that the tinkhundla system is equally a crime against humanity.
With these few reflections, we do not only seek to raise uncomfortable questions about global standards of acceptable governance, but to further deepen discussion about the challenges facing the international community in resolving global conflicts and building a global society based on the
ideals of democracy, peace and justice.
The people of Swaziland, of necessity, are playing their part in this whole process of seeking to create a new and truly democratic Swaziland. They have defied all odds to mount a mass movement for democracy led by their political voice and proud representative, PUDEMO. Everywhere in Swaziland, the people are on their feet demanding justice; workers at the workplace, students in institutions of learning, the poor and unemployed
in communities, believers in churches, the landless masses in rural areas are all speaking in one voice, demanding an immediate end to the system that has caused untold suffering to our country and its people.
They are demanding a system that seeks to end; poverty, reckless spending, economic plunder, destruction of the environment, women and children abuse, and oppression in all its forms. All this is not possible without fundamental and thoroughgoing changes in the country’s political system. Tinkhundla must be removed and in its place, a truly democratic system must be created. This is the lasting solution to the crisis facing our
country. No amount of desperate quick-fix solution will bring about the desired stability and progress. No amount of military might and proficient strategy will bring about a real political solution, because the problem is political and not military, such that only through genuine political dialogue rooted in popular participation, can a lasting solution be found. Finally, like all other people, Swazis want progress and prosperity.
2. Historical development of the ruling system in Swaziland
Developments in Swaziland are primarily linked to developments in the whole Southern African region, particularly South Africa. This means, the historical development of the Swazi political system remains integrally linked to or can only be understood through tracing the development of the whole region, with more emphasis on South Africa.
There are three distinct periods in the development of the tinkhundla political system;
· Pre-colonial period and the making of a dynasty
· Colonial period and the making of a repressive modern state
· Post-colonial period and the consolidation of royal supremacy through the tinkhundla project
Swaziland was colonized by Britain (though we are told it was a
protectorate, as if it meant some form of benevolence) from 1902 until 1968 when the colonialists handed over power to the royal aristocracy of Swaziland. The British had left in place a constitution which by any standards allowed a fair space for democratic engagement, which was repealed by the monarchy in its desperate thirst for power in 1973 through a royal decree whose provisions entailed, inter alia;
· Banning of political parties
· Banning of the most basic rights and freedoms to associate, organize and speak, as well as all forms of political activity
· Proclamation of a perpetual state of emergency, which is effective to date.
Recently there has been speculation to the effect that the decree has been removed with the coming into force of the new royal constitution. It is important to clarify the confusion surrounding this matter, because what the regime has done is to formalize and institutionalize further the contents and provisions of this decree as a core element of the new
constitution being paraded as the heralding of democracy in our country.
In this sense, it may no longer need a separate document containing these, because the constitution is a revised version, though in advanced form, of the 1973 king’s decree. If this is what some commentators call victory for democracy, then we have a reason to be worried.
The scrapping of the 1968 constitution by the late king Sobhuza 11 and its replacement by the 1973 decree was also informed by the advice of the Afrkaner Broederbond Society through its agent Van Wyk De Vries, a Pretoria advocate. It must be remembered that the threat to the apartheid regime at the time was the liberation movement of South Africa, particularly the ANC-led Alliance, which prompted the apartheid regime to realize that its own survival lies in consolidating closer and stronger
ties with and supporting what it called “like-minded” regimes. Amongst these was Mobutu Seseseko of the then Zaire (now DRC), Hastings Kamuzu Banda of Malawi and the Swazi monarchy, who had come to constitute, together with their apartheid patrons, the axis of resistance to freedom and democracy.
After the banning of the constitution and political parties in particular, the system called tinkhundla came to constitute the political vehicle through which royal hegemony was to be entrenched by the monarchy. It was formally introduced in the political scene of Swazi society in 1978. Its official introduction came with an electoral system based on an electoral
college through which people were to elect at tinkhundla centers
(constituencies), electees who were to constitute the electoral college and not parliament.
Only the electoral college could elect parliamentarians from a list provided by the royal house, who were to then constitute the parliament of the kingdom of Swaziland. In this sense, it was guaranteed that the ultimate product of this process is composed of members of the ruling system or at least those blindly loyal and sympathetic to it. This is on top of a politically sophisticated parliamentary system, in which the
upper house, Senate comprised of the most staunch stalwarts of the system, particularly chiefs and princes, who had veto powers over the house of assembly in the case of “deviations” from the official line (royal interests). This parliamentary form of gate-keeping is still in command in the current system, though in an even more sophisticated and subtle form, as an upgraded model of the same.
3. The Road towards democracy begins:
The Birth of PUDEMO in 1983 as a watershed moment in the history of Swaziland
The consolidation of royal supremacy through the formalisation of tinkhundla as a political system of Swaziland left the people with no alternative or hope for change without waging a mass based struggle for democracy. This led to workers, students, rural and landless masses, women of different religious, racial and social backgrounds coming together on the 6th July, 1983 to form the People’s United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO) as their legitimate representative and co-ordinator of the struggle for democracy in Swaziland.
In its founding provisions, they proclaimed that, “We, the people of Swaziland met on the 6th July, 1983 to form the People’ s United Democratic Movement, to represent fully the interests of the people of Swaziland and to unite them against undemocratic governance, oppression, exploitation, unfair discrimination, corruption, nepotism and favouritism. We declare to the world that Swaziland belongs to all its people regardless of race, colour, sex, religion or social status and that
PUDEMO is our true representative. We dedicate ourselves to struggling together in unity until final victory”.
It must also be remembered that part of the basis for PUDEMO formation related to its internationalist duty to assist the liberation movement of South Africa in the struggle against the brutal clutches of apartheid, particularly after a realization that Swaziland can never be liberated or democratic while South Africa was still under apartheid, because of the well known policy of aggression by the apartheid regime.
The intensified persecution of anti-apartheid activists on Swazi soil by a joint force of the apartheid regime and their tinkhundla counterparts confirmed the need for a political intervention on Swazi soil. This persecution saw the deaths of many ANC cadres, amongst them; Zweli Nyanda, Mildred Msomi, Cassius Make, Paul Dikeledi just to mention a few (for
elaborate details please refer to the South African TRC report on Swaziland). This was not by accident, but a deliberate effort on the part of the Swazi regime and its apartheid ally, because as early as February, 1982 a secret non-aggression pact was signed between the two regimes, which was immediately followed in 1984 by the Extradition treaty, which allowed the apartheid regime to extradite cadres of the anti-apartheid movement from Swaziland to South Africa, most of who later died in the hands of the racist regime.
In this sense, the birth of PUDEMO in 1983 signalled two important and interlinked events:
- The beginning of organized resistance and challenge to the tinkhundla regime and the nearing end of royal oppression in Swaziland, and
- The organized challenge to the open collaboration between the tinkhundla and apartheid regimes, to accelerate the process of moving towards a free and democratic South Africa, ultimately leading to a free and democratic Southern Africa, with Swaziland included.
PUDEMO worked consistently from the underground to build a mass movement for democracy until the regime rounded up the leadership of the movement in the now famous treason trial of 1990. However, the trial did not succeed in dampening the fighting spirit of PUDEMO and the mass of the oppressed people of Swaziland in general, instead it bolstered their
confidence and inspired an unprecedented wave of mass activities for democracy and social justice throughout the whole country, as workers, students, rural masses, churches, women and all organs of social organization began to articulate their demands in an even more clearer way than before, all of which hinged on the need for fundamental change and democracy in the country.
This explains why today the whole Swazi society speak with one voice that, a day more without democracy means more unbearable suffering and terror against the democracy-loving people of our country. The struggle for democracy is at the heart of the solutions we need to build a new and prosperous Swaziland in all facets of our society.
4. The situation in Swaziland today
The tinkhundla regime is on the warpath against the democracy-loving people of Swaziland
The Swazi regime continues to inflict legislative and political terror upon the people as the political atmosphere in the country has become even more grim and threatening reflecting the growing insecurity of the regime, which despite its arrogant posture has never been so isolated not only from the mass of the people of our country, but also from world public opinion. Alarmingly, there are signs that, with the full connivance of the ruling authorities secret squads are beginning to operate in Swaziland.
The several attempts on individual comrades’ lives is one example of the numerous assaults, tortures, arbitrary arrests and all forms of persecution on men and women who refuse to bow to the tyranny of tinkhundla. Families of political activists are daily being terrorized by the regime in its desperate attempt to crush, through force of arms, the democratic movement and instill fear amongst the oppressed and struggling masses.
The tinkhundla ruling system of Swaziland is facing a deep irreversible crisis. Years of royal misrule has plunged our country into a permanent crisis of; economic decline, massive poverty and unemployment, the HIV and AIDS disaster, women and children abuse in the holy name of Swazi culture, as well as the all-round political instability characteristic of our country today.
In the recent past we have seen the following indicators of the worsening crisis;
- The intensified arrests of PUDEMO and SWAYOCO activists for holding peaceful demonstrations and spreading the message of liberation throughout all corners of the country
- The closure of two independent newspapers by the monarchy for reporting uncomfortable truths about Swaziland
- The overruling of judicial rulings by the king and the subsequent resignation of the whole bench of the Court of appeal
- The massive arrests of trade union leaders for demanding the right of workers to organize, as well as improved conditions of work
- The massive evacuation of communities in the eastern part of the country; Kamkhweli and Macetjeni for refusing the recognize an imposed royal puppet as their chief. These people were forced to flee the country for their safety and in the process lost their property and suffered serious disruption in their lives as workers, students and ordinary citizens of the country.
- The extravagant royal spending spree and intensified economic plunder that has caused severe economic bleeding and resulted in a social decay as regards social services for the majority
These are just some of the prime features of Swazi society today and they are explained in no better terms than the way the 2006 Budget presented by the minister of finance and those preceding it, have shown the continued skyrocketing military or security expenditure, presumably to safeguard people who are hungry. This means more and more security for less and less food. The indicators are terrifying to say the least;
· HIV and AIDS stand at around 40%
· Unemployment is around 40%
· Disinvestment and lack of new investment in the country have resulted in deepening socio-economic crisis
· Declining sources of revenue for government, which has resulted in the regime resorting to extreme anti-poor means of raising revenue. The decline and threat of ultimate loss of SACU (Southern African Customs Union) is a glaring example
· The alarming increase in the number of insecure, casual and highly inhumane jobs, which have tremendously lowered the dignity and living standards of our people
· The crisis of landlessness is on the increase and threatens the very future of stability, as the regime has resorted to the strategy of forceful evictions as a means to re-organise the economy or resolve the crisis
· The scourge of corruption has eaten into the core of our society and turned every sphere of Swazi society into an extension of the wholly corrupt system as a whole.
This situation has resulted in a new resolve by the oppressed people of Swaziland and a rejuvenated determination to find a lasting solution to the country, which unfortunately is not possible without the accompanying sacrifices of jail, torture, inhumane treatment and all sorts of suffering to which those who stand for justice must, of necessity go through.
On the other hand, people have resorted to all sorts of methods to secure their freedom, amongst others, an armed response to the perpetual violence of the state, which situation has given a justification to the regime to carry out its long held desire to militarise our country and turn the whole Swaziland into an army barrack.
As PUDEMO, we wish to state clearly and unequivocally that we are still committed to a negotiated settlement to rescue our country from the ills of tinkhundla crisis. We are still committed to methods of struggle that do not seek to divert us from our proven record of peaceful engagement. We however, want to warn seriously that our patience is not limitless. We love our country and our people and for that we are not prepared to bow down on our knees and tolerate suffering forever, we only hope sanity will prevail in the minds of the royal powers that be.
This leads us to the next issue of the massive arrests against PUDEMO and SWAYOCO activists whose only crime is that of their political affiliation and commitment to the cause of democracy, hence they are rotting in tinkhundla jails. Their arrests have nothing to do with what they did, but what they believe in. The ideas they stand for, as espoused by the movement, are so powerful, they threaten the very foundation of royal injustice and corruption.
About 18 activists of PUDEMO and SWAYOCO are facing charges of treason. They were immediately rounded up after the string of bombings that shook the whole Swaziland recently. The regime has failed to bring forward concrete evidence, except to link the political ideas of the comrades and their membership to PUDEMO to acts of treason, such that being a member of the movement is a treasonable offence in Swaziland. Instead, the regime has resorted to acts of terror against other activists outside jail to fabricate evidence and trump up charges, secured through torture to implicate other comrades.
I can testify myself to the unbearable conditions in Swazi jails, certainly because I have been a regular visitor myself. This imposes upon all of us the urgency of doing something practical NOW to secure their release.
But further, we must clarify that their release should not be for the sake of it, but as an integral element of the struggle to secure the release of all the people of Swaziland from the Royal prison called tinkhundla, which has suffocated our people for the past 33 years.
Torture, poor habitation conditions, poor diet and solitary confinement are the daily experiences faced by the comrades in jail. They are the conditions the regime learnt from their apartheid patrons over the years, which calls for immediate international attention and action. Amnesty International released a report on the abominable jail conditions in
Swaziland sometime back, but since then conditions have worsened even more. We have seen numerous deaths in jails relation to torture, amongst the most recent are the wife of one of the arrested comrades, Mduduzi Mamba, Mathousand Ngubeni and Mthokothoko Mamba, to mention a few. Deaths in jail are becoming a daily experience and “normal” feature of Swazi society, if not an integral part of our country’s life.
While the focus is on those who are in jail, we also have those who have been forced out of their own country into exile by the same conditions, with the most recent group having left Swaziland a few days away. On top of that, we have those who are still inside the country but whose lives are nothing less than hell itself. They are daily victims of police raids, instant detention and torture after which they are immediately released,
those who are daily subjected to police surveillance in their private and general lives, etc. All these are pointers of a society that has become militarized to the core. The question is what should be done. I am sure none of us does not know what should be done, because the answer to that is; we should all intensify our efforts to support the movement for democracy in Swaziland, practically. We have neither the luxury of time
nor the leisure of academic debates about it.
As we talk, we have a comrade, Brian Shaw, who was shot by the police for no other reason than their own desperacy and frustration about the case that can't produce tangible evidence, hence putting them in the spotlight about fabricating lies about PUDEMO. He has been refused access to lawyers, his parents denied access to him, comrades could not be allowed to see him, and everybody else could not see him for days. This was part
of the strategy to ensure that by the time everybody else sees him, he should have recovered from the wounds of the bullet, so as to destroy all evidence against the state. Brian was shot by the police who then later tried to criminalise his case and claim he was running away on criminal charges. The list goes on and on about the acts of terror that we are daily subjected to in the country we call home.
Finally, we seek to clarify the situation with regard to the on-going constitutional crisis as an element of the political crisis in general.
The tinkhundla royal constitution has gone through several stages;
· Announcement of several Royal commissions, purportedly to gather the views of the people about the direction the country should take in political terms, which was in response to the pressure PUDEMO and the mass democratic movement as a whole, with the trade union movement as a key player, were putting for change and a new constitutional dispensation for Swaziland
· Consolidation of those views gathered under very politically hostile conditions of intimidation, police terror and state of emergency
· Formal introduction of the finished product to the public and the world
In all these stages, there have been key characteristics, such as attempts to buy time and divert the issues from the core matters facing the country into some artificial and trivial discussions about our country, whipping up values of prejudice against democracy as foreign and unSwazi, as well as intimidating all those whose views differ with the system, including their frequent arrests and victimization from work, as well as in their places of residence.
The regime tried to silence PUDEMO and the trade union movement by co-opting some of us into the process as commissioners, but it could not succeed as the principled character of PUDEMO came to the fore, when the National Congress of the movement resolved that we can only participate in a constitutional process under pinned by the following conditions:
Time-frames and clear processes for a national forum of all stakeholders in Swaziland to discuss the future of the country; political parties, trade unions, women and youth organisations, religious and faith-based organisations, business, professional and academic institutions, etc;
Time-frames for the removal of all laws that militate against democratic change, in particular the most problematic elements of the 1973 king’s decree;
Time-frames for a transitional authority in Swaziland to oversee the smooth process of change;
Immediate guarantee of the most basic rights for all; free expression, free assembly, free organisation, etc;
But on the contrary, the conditions that gave birth to the current constitutional product of the regime have been;
Hostile political environment; arrests, detentions, torture and systematic persecution of innocent people for their belief in democracy
Lack of basic freedoms to expression, assembly, organisation and the general state of fear and reign of terror enforced by the 1973 king’s decree
Systematic and organised offensive against any semblance of judicial independence, media criticism, worker’s organised power and all the institutions that work to protect the interest of the people, in the absence of formal political space in the form of political parties
Continued dominance of the political stage by members of the royal family and their friends, hence the overwhelming dominance of princes, chiefs, princesses and hangers-on of the system in the constitutional team and related commissions.
Systematic propaganda demonising multiparty democratic as evil, foreign and divisive in order to instil a sense of loyalty to the tinkhundla system. This was made possible by the regime’s limitless access to the media which became the key instrument of character assassination against the progressive movement which enjoys no access to the media.
Civic education of a special type, which in actual fact was state propaganda meant to instil tinkhundla values amongst the people.
Political parties and political space in general remain closed, such that free political debate has not been possible to ensure the mass involvement of the majority of the people of Swaziland.
These and many other reasons led to the principled stand and position of the progressive movement in general, PUDEMO in particular, which said that the process cannot deliver the real solution to the serious political and constitutional problems of the country. The overwhelming majority of the people of Swaziland in their organised and unorganised forums expressed
their unequivocal rejection of the process, as a window-dressing mechanism of the system to renew, rather than abolish the system of royal oppression.
On the issue of a constitution, as PUDEMO we have consistently remained primarily committed to genuine dialogue as expressed in our document entitled, “Wayforward towards a Constituent Assembly through a negotiated settlement”, whose provisions states clearly that,
‘In keeping with this noble resolve, we welcome any genuine invitation to all organised formations, registered and unregistered, to a properly constituted and representative constitutional forum that will be mandated to work the wayforward for Swaziland. However, to safeguard against a
repeat of the political blackmail and socio-economic evils of the tinkhundla legacy, there are important pre-conditions that should be satisfied.”
The satisfaction of these pre-conditions is of utmost importance to us, because we have learnt through bitter experiences what kind of a regime is the tinkhundla royal regime.
We cannot take chances about people’s lives and raise their hopes and expectations beyond what is real, to such an extent that the people lose faith in the very cause of democracy and justice.
5. Towards a free and democratic Swaziland through intensified mass action and international solidarity
Our goal is very clear; to destroy the system of tinkhundla royal supremacy and in its stead, establish a truly democratic society.
It was on the 12th April, 1973, when the late king Sobhuza 11 proclaimed to the nation that, `
“Now therefore I, Sobhuza 11, king of Swaziland, hereby declare that, in collaboration with my cabinet ministers and supported by the whole nation, I have assumed supreme power in the kingdom of Swaziland and that all legislative, executive and judicial power is now vested in myself and shall, for the meantime by excercised in collaboration with my cabinet ministers. I further declare that to ensure the continued maintenance of peace, order and good government, my armed forces have been posted to all strategic places and have taken charge of all government places and all public services” (section 3)…………………………………………all political parties and similar bodies that cultivate and bring about disturbances and ill-feelings within the nation are hereby dissolved and prohibited” (section 11, 1973 King’s decree to the nation).
Any struggle cannot progress until the people have the courage to organise and fight and the will to sacrifice and readiness, if needs be, to die! Our will and determination to be free has now gone beyond the point of general remarks into concrete and clear time-frames for democratic change.
The issue today is not whether or not freedom will come. The question is on which side you should be – whether to perish with tinkhundla or to triumph with the forces of democracy and change. Freedom is within sight, the horizons of democracy are ever drawing nearer on a daily basis.
Therefore, anyone seeking refuge in the tinkhundla house shall perish with it. The flames of revolution and justice are unstoppable. This is why anyone talking dialogue with a violent and treacherous system can only succeed in misleading the people and betraying the ideals for which our movement was formed. This is not the time for tea breaks, but the moment we have been waiting for all along, to bury the royal demon once and for
all.
By refusing to be bullied into acceptance of the enemy’s constitutional schemes, we reaffirmed our determination to defend the integrity of the Swazi people in pursuit of a common victory against a common enemy. We are asserting the truth that freedom is indivisible, that democracy for some is democracy for none, and hence, that no section of the people can be free while another is oppressed.
On the shoulders of the tinkhundla regime rest such crimes as the scandalously high infant mortality rate amongst our children, the HIV and AIDS genocide, the unemployment disaster and the general crisis that bring about endless misery for our people in their own country. Swaziland is littered with graves of young men and women, patriots of our nation and future hopefuls of our country who are victims of the viciousness of the system. Therefore, we have no reason to relax, our nation is dying out slowly like a candle in the wind.
Swaziland is in flames and no one can afford to sit by and watch as the royal regime massacre agents of hope and democracy. Who can deny that time is against us in the quest for human dignity. We are individually and collectively responsible for all lives lost to tinkhundla brutality, therefore, we must act NOW to save a whole nation from a looming catastrophe and possibly, a civil war.
6. The future belongs to the people!
The Programme towards a new and democratic Swaziland
The Swazi regime is daily arming itself with the most dangerous weapons of war, which constitutes a threat to world peace. Yet the tinkhundla regime, in its turn is only able to continue its murderous system and piracy because of the support it receives from “like-minded” regimes throughout the world.
This is where the international solidarity initiative comes in, providing the momentum for an intensification of the campaign to cut links with the brutal regime of Swaziland. As the crisis mounts to its peak, let all humanity vow that it will tolerate no further delay in the application of effective pressure against Swaziland in support of the suffering and struggling masses of our country.
The young people of Swaziland, organized workers and freedom fighters in the ranks of the democratic movement, are daily demonstrating their courage and determination, their willingness to sacrifice in the fight for freedom. It is not only in their interests, but in the interests of progress and human security for all of the world’s peoples, that PUDEMO and the mass democratic movement in general are calling for a meaningful
response to the call for anti-tinkhundla solidarity. The agony of tinkhundla must be ended. We urge all democracy-loving people to recognize their responsibility to do something practical NOW to help bring an end to it.
To this end, we have identified pillars of our short-term programme in the current period, which are;
· Rolling mass action to demand the release of all political prisoners through mass rallies and other forms of mass activities
· Creation of mass awareness through exploring alternative media and information avenues to counter the misinformation campaign of the tinkhundla regime
· Deepen our work amongst all organs of social mobilization to build a mass movement against tinkhundla, in the country and internationally
· Build PUDEMO to assume fully its role as the hope of the Swazi people, ready and capable of leading the whole country towards a new and democratic society
These elements of our programme forms the basis of our continued struggle on the ground, but they do not substitute our will to engage in dialogue, whenever reasonable and dignified people.
Finally, we shall be convening an urgent Conference of the movement to clearly outline our medium-to-long term programme, which envisages a real and qualitative advance to people’s power in Swaziland.
We cannot delay any further, we must adopt concrete measures in our search for an alternative system to the crisis of tinkhundla. This programme shall include all elements and stages of a real challenge to the system for a lasting solution in our country. We are sure after that Conference, the history of Swaziland shall be written anew.
We thank you all!
Invitation to all civilised humanity:
Join us in the march towards a new and democratic Swaziland
A turning point in the history of Swaziland
Distinguished guests,
Friends and allies in the struggle for human dignity,
Please receive, on behalf of the National Executive Committee of PUDEMO and all the struggling people of Swaziland in general, warm and fraternal greetings at this historic moment in the political life of our country. We take this opportunity to welcome all of you and appreciate your interest in this subject matter that has escaped international headlines for far too long.
1. Background to the political crisis in Swaziland
The country called Swaziland is in geo-political terms situated between South Africa and Mozambique with a population of about 1.2 million people and occupying a space of about 17 000 square kilometers. This means it is a relatively small country, but well endowed with natural resources and a rich heritage, as well as fairly good climate.
However, this small country is facing big political problems arising out of a crisis of royal hegemony and the failure of imposed authority by a system which vests all powers in the hands of a tiny minority to the total exclusion of the majority of the people.
The system of royal oppression takes the institutional form of a political architecture called “tinkhundla”. If apartheid used race to exclude other people and safeguard the privileges of one group over another, then tinkhundla uses “royal bona-fides” or royal relations to serve the same purpose. Therefore, if in the context of humanity’s resolve to broaden the frontiers of dignity for all apartheid was declared a crime against humanity on the grounds of its brutality against the majority of the
people, then there is no question whatsoever that the tinkhundla system is equally a crime against humanity.
With these few reflections, we do not only seek to raise uncomfortable questions about global standards of acceptable governance, but to further deepen discussion about the challenges facing the international community in resolving global conflicts and building a global society based on the
ideals of democracy, peace and justice.
The people of Swaziland, of necessity, are playing their part in this whole process of seeking to create a new and truly democratic Swaziland. They have defied all odds to mount a mass movement for democracy led by their political voice and proud representative, PUDEMO. Everywhere in Swaziland, the people are on their feet demanding justice; workers at the workplace, students in institutions of learning, the poor and unemployed
in communities, believers in churches, the landless masses in rural areas are all speaking in one voice, demanding an immediate end to the system that has caused untold suffering to our country and its people.
They are demanding a system that seeks to end; poverty, reckless spending, economic plunder, destruction of the environment, women and children abuse, and oppression in all its forms. All this is not possible without fundamental and thoroughgoing changes in the country’s political system. Tinkhundla must be removed and in its place, a truly democratic system must be created. This is the lasting solution to the crisis facing our
country. No amount of desperate quick-fix solution will bring about the desired stability and progress. No amount of military might and proficient strategy will bring about a real political solution, because the problem is political and not military, such that only through genuine political dialogue rooted in popular participation, can a lasting solution be found. Finally, like all other people, Swazis want progress and prosperity.
2. Historical development of the ruling system in Swaziland
Developments in Swaziland are primarily linked to developments in the whole Southern African region, particularly South Africa. This means, the historical development of the Swazi political system remains integrally linked to or can only be understood through tracing the development of the whole region, with more emphasis on South Africa.
There are three distinct periods in the development of the tinkhundla political system;
· Pre-colonial period and the making of a dynasty
· Colonial period and the making of a repressive modern state
· Post-colonial period and the consolidation of royal supremacy through the tinkhundla project
Swaziland was colonized by Britain (though we are told it was a
protectorate, as if it meant some form of benevolence) from 1902 until 1968 when the colonialists handed over power to the royal aristocracy of Swaziland. The British had left in place a constitution which by any standards allowed a fair space for democratic engagement, which was repealed by the monarchy in its desperate thirst for power in 1973 through a royal decree whose provisions entailed, inter alia;
· Banning of political parties
· Banning of the most basic rights and freedoms to associate, organize and speak, as well as all forms of political activity
· Proclamation of a perpetual state of emergency, which is effective to date.
Recently there has been speculation to the effect that the decree has been removed with the coming into force of the new royal constitution. It is important to clarify the confusion surrounding this matter, because what the regime has done is to formalize and institutionalize further the contents and provisions of this decree as a core element of the new
constitution being paraded as the heralding of democracy in our country.
In this sense, it may no longer need a separate document containing these, because the constitution is a revised version, though in advanced form, of the 1973 king’s decree. If this is what some commentators call victory for democracy, then we have a reason to be worried.
The scrapping of the 1968 constitution by the late king Sobhuza 11 and its replacement by the 1973 decree was also informed by the advice of the Afrkaner Broederbond Society through its agent Van Wyk De Vries, a Pretoria advocate. It must be remembered that the threat to the apartheid regime at the time was the liberation movement of South Africa, particularly the ANC-led Alliance, which prompted the apartheid regime to realize that its own survival lies in consolidating closer and stronger
ties with and supporting what it called “like-minded” regimes. Amongst these was Mobutu Seseseko of the then Zaire (now DRC), Hastings Kamuzu Banda of Malawi and the Swazi monarchy, who had come to constitute, together with their apartheid patrons, the axis of resistance to freedom and democracy.
After the banning of the constitution and political parties in particular, the system called tinkhundla came to constitute the political vehicle through which royal hegemony was to be entrenched by the monarchy. It was formally introduced in the political scene of Swazi society in 1978. Its official introduction came with an electoral system based on an electoral
college through which people were to elect at tinkhundla centers
(constituencies), electees who were to constitute the electoral college and not parliament.
Only the electoral college could elect parliamentarians from a list provided by the royal house, who were to then constitute the parliament of the kingdom of Swaziland. In this sense, it was guaranteed that the ultimate product of this process is composed of members of the ruling system or at least those blindly loyal and sympathetic to it. This is on top of a politically sophisticated parliamentary system, in which the
upper house, Senate comprised of the most staunch stalwarts of the system, particularly chiefs and princes, who had veto powers over the house of assembly in the case of “deviations” from the official line (royal interests). This parliamentary form of gate-keeping is still in command in the current system, though in an even more sophisticated and subtle form, as an upgraded model of the same.
3. The Road towards democracy begins:
The Birth of PUDEMO in 1983 as a watershed moment in the history of Swaziland
The consolidation of royal supremacy through the formalisation of tinkhundla as a political system of Swaziland left the people with no alternative or hope for change without waging a mass based struggle for democracy. This led to workers, students, rural and landless masses, women of different religious, racial and social backgrounds coming together on the 6th July, 1983 to form the People’s United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO) as their legitimate representative and co-ordinator of the struggle for democracy in Swaziland.
In its founding provisions, they proclaimed that, “We, the people of Swaziland met on the 6th July, 1983 to form the People’ s United Democratic Movement, to represent fully the interests of the people of Swaziland and to unite them against undemocratic governance, oppression, exploitation, unfair discrimination, corruption, nepotism and favouritism. We declare to the world that Swaziland belongs to all its people regardless of race, colour, sex, religion or social status and that
PUDEMO is our true representative. We dedicate ourselves to struggling together in unity until final victory”.
It must also be remembered that part of the basis for PUDEMO formation related to its internationalist duty to assist the liberation movement of South Africa in the struggle against the brutal clutches of apartheid, particularly after a realization that Swaziland can never be liberated or democratic while South Africa was still under apartheid, because of the well known policy of aggression by the apartheid regime.
The intensified persecution of anti-apartheid activists on Swazi soil by a joint force of the apartheid regime and their tinkhundla counterparts confirmed the need for a political intervention on Swazi soil. This persecution saw the deaths of many ANC cadres, amongst them; Zweli Nyanda, Mildred Msomi, Cassius Make, Paul Dikeledi just to mention a few (for
elaborate details please refer to the South African TRC report on Swaziland). This was not by accident, but a deliberate effort on the part of the Swazi regime and its apartheid ally, because as early as February, 1982 a secret non-aggression pact was signed between the two regimes, which was immediately followed in 1984 by the Extradition treaty, which allowed the apartheid regime to extradite cadres of the anti-apartheid movement from Swaziland to South Africa, most of who later died in the hands of the racist regime.
In this sense, the birth of PUDEMO in 1983 signalled two important and interlinked events:
- The beginning of organized resistance and challenge to the tinkhundla regime and the nearing end of royal oppression in Swaziland, and
- The organized challenge to the open collaboration between the tinkhundla and apartheid regimes, to accelerate the process of moving towards a free and democratic South Africa, ultimately leading to a free and democratic Southern Africa, with Swaziland included.
PUDEMO worked consistently from the underground to build a mass movement for democracy until the regime rounded up the leadership of the movement in the now famous treason trial of 1990. However, the trial did not succeed in dampening the fighting spirit of PUDEMO and the mass of the oppressed people of Swaziland in general, instead it bolstered their
confidence and inspired an unprecedented wave of mass activities for democracy and social justice throughout the whole country, as workers, students, rural masses, churches, women and all organs of social organization began to articulate their demands in an even more clearer way than before, all of which hinged on the need for fundamental change and democracy in the country.
This explains why today the whole Swazi society speak with one voice that, a day more without democracy means more unbearable suffering and terror against the democracy-loving people of our country. The struggle for democracy is at the heart of the solutions we need to build a new and prosperous Swaziland in all facets of our society.
4. The situation in Swaziland today
The tinkhundla regime is on the warpath against the democracy-loving people of Swaziland
The Swazi regime continues to inflict legislative and political terror upon the people as the political atmosphere in the country has become even more grim and threatening reflecting the growing insecurity of the regime, which despite its arrogant posture has never been so isolated not only from the mass of the people of our country, but also from world public opinion. Alarmingly, there are signs that, with the full connivance of the ruling authorities secret squads are beginning to operate in Swaziland.
The several attempts on individual comrades’ lives is one example of the numerous assaults, tortures, arbitrary arrests and all forms of persecution on men and women who refuse to bow to the tyranny of tinkhundla. Families of political activists are daily being terrorized by the regime in its desperate attempt to crush, through force of arms, the democratic movement and instill fear amongst the oppressed and struggling masses.
The tinkhundla ruling system of Swaziland is facing a deep irreversible crisis. Years of royal misrule has plunged our country into a permanent crisis of; economic decline, massive poverty and unemployment, the HIV and AIDS disaster, women and children abuse in the holy name of Swazi culture, as well as the all-round political instability characteristic of our country today.
In the recent past we have seen the following indicators of the worsening crisis;
- The intensified arrests of PUDEMO and SWAYOCO activists for holding peaceful demonstrations and spreading the message of liberation throughout all corners of the country
- The closure of two independent newspapers by the monarchy for reporting uncomfortable truths about Swaziland
- The overruling of judicial rulings by the king and the subsequent resignation of the whole bench of the Court of appeal
- The massive arrests of trade union leaders for demanding the right of workers to organize, as well as improved conditions of work
- The massive evacuation of communities in the eastern part of the country; Kamkhweli and Macetjeni for refusing the recognize an imposed royal puppet as their chief. These people were forced to flee the country for their safety and in the process lost their property and suffered serious disruption in their lives as workers, students and ordinary citizens of the country.
- The extravagant royal spending spree and intensified economic plunder that has caused severe economic bleeding and resulted in a social decay as regards social services for the majority
These are just some of the prime features of Swazi society today and they are explained in no better terms than the way the 2006 Budget presented by the minister of finance and those preceding it, have shown the continued skyrocketing military or security expenditure, presumably to safeguard people who are hungry. This means more and more security for less and less food. The indicators are terrifying to say the least;
· HIV and AIDS stand at around 40%
· Unemployment is around 40%
· Disinvestment and lack of new investment in the country have resulted in deepening socio-economic crisis
· Declining sources of revenue for government, which has resulted in the regime resorting to extreme anti-poor means of raising revenue. The decline and threat of ultimate loss of SACU (Southern African Customs Union) is a glaring example
· The alarming increase in the number of insecure, casual and highly inhumane jobs, which have tremendously lowered the dignity and living standards of our people
· The crisis of landlessness is on the increase and threatens the very future of stability, as the regime has resorted to the strategy of forceful evictions as a means to re-organise the economy or resolve the crisis
· The scourge of corruption has eaten into the core of our society and turned every sphere of Swazi society into an extension of the wholly corrupt system as a whole.
This situation has resulted in a new resolve by the oppressed people of Swaziland and a rejuvenated determination to find a lasting solution to the country, which unfortunately is not possible without the accompanying sacrifices of jail, torture, inhumane treatment and all sorts of suffering to which those who stand for justice must, of necessity go through.
On the other hand, people have resorted to all sorts of methods to secure their freedom, amongst others, an armed response to the perpetual violence of the state, which situation has given a justification to the regime to carry out its long held desire to militarise our country and turn the whole Swaziland into an army barrack.
As PUDEMO, we wish to state clearly and unequivocally that we are still committed to a negotiated settlement to rescue our country from the ills of tinkhundla crisis. We are still committed to methods of struggle that do not seek to divert us from our proven record of peaceful engagement. We however, want to warn seriously that our patience is not limitless. We love our country and our people and for that we are not prepared to bow down on our knees and tolerate suffering forever, we only hope sanity will prevail in the minds of the royal powers that be.
This leads us to the next issue of the massive arrests against PUDEMO and SWAYOCO activists whose only crime is that of their political affiliation and commitment to the cause of democracy, hence they are rotting in tinkhundla jails. Their arrests have nothing to do with what they did, but what they believe in. The ideas they stand for, as espoused by the movement, are so powerful, they threaten the very foundation of royal injustice and corruption.
About 18 activists of PUDEMO and SWAYOCO are facing charges of treason. They were immediately rounded up after the string of bombings that shook the whole Swaziland recently. The regime has failed to bring forward concrete evidence, except to link the political ideas of the comrades and their membership to PUDEMO to acts of treason, such that being a member of the movement is a treasonable offence in Swaziland. Instead, the regime has resorted to acts of terror against other activists outside jail to fabricate evidence and trump up charges, secured through torture to implicate other comrades.
I can testify myself to the unbearable conditions in Swazi jails, certainly because I have been a regular visitor myself. This imposes upon all of us the urgency of doing something practical NOW to secure their release.
But further, we must clarify that their release should not be for the sake of it, but as an integral element of the struggle to secure the release of all the people of Swaziland from the Royal prison called tinkhundla, which has suffocated our people for the past 33 years.
Torture, poor habitation conditions, poor diet and solitary confinement are the daily experiences faced by the comrades in jail. They are the conditions the regime learnt from their apartheid patrons over the years, which calls for immediate international attention and action. Amnesty International released a report on the abominable jail conditions in
Swaziland sometime back, but since then conditions have worsened even more. We have seen numerous deaths in jails relation to torture, amongst the most recent are the wife of one of the arrested comrades, Mduduzi Mamba, Mathousand Ngubeni and Mthokothoko Mamba, to mention a few. Deaths in jail are becoming a daily experience and “normal” feature of Swazi society, if not an integral part of our country’s life.
While the focus is on those who are in jail, we also have those who have been forced out of their own country into exile by the same conditions, with the most recent group having left Swaziland a few days away. On top of that, we have those who are still inside the country but whose lives are nothing less than hell itself. They are daily victims of police raids, instant detention and torture after which they are immediately released,
those who are daily subjected to police surveillance in their private and general lives, etc. All these are pointers of a society that has become militarized to the core. The question is what should be done. I am sure none of us does not know what should be done, because the answer to that is; we should all intensify our efforts to support the movement for democracy in Swaziland, practically. We have neither the luxury of time
nor the leisure of academic debates about it.
As we talk, we have a comrade, Brian Shaw, who was shot by the police for no other reason than their own desperacy and frustration about the case that can't produce tangible evidence, hence putting them in the spotlight about fabricating lies about PUDEMO. He has been refused access to lawyers, his parents denied access to him, comrades could not be allowed to see him, and everybody else could not see him for days. This was part
of the strategy to ensure that by the time everybody else sees him, he should have recovered from the wounds of the bullet, so as to destroy all evidence against the state. Brian was shot by the police who then later tried to criminalise his case and claim he was running away on criminal charges. The list goes on and on about the acts of terror that we are daily subjected to in the country we call home.
Finally, we seek to clarify the situation with regard to the on-going constitutional crisis as an element of the political crisis in general.
The tinkhundla royal constitution has gone through several stages;
· Announcement of several Royal commissions, purportedly to gather the views of the people about the direction the country should take in political terms, which was in response to the pressure PUDEMO and the mass democratic movement as a whole, with the trade union movement as a key player, were putting for change and a new constitutional dispensation for Swaziland
· Consolidation of those views gathered under very politically hostile conditions of intimidation, police terror and state of emergency
· Formal introduction of the finished product to the public and the world
In all these stages, there have been key characteristics, such as attempts to buy time and divert the issues from the core matters facing the country into some artificial and trivial discussions about our country, whipping up values of prejudice against democracy as foreign and unSwazi, as well as intimidating all those whose views differ with the system, including their frequent arrests and victimization from work, as well as in their places of residence.
The regime tried to silence PUDEMO and the trade union movement by co-opting some of us into the process as commissioners, but it could not succeed as the principled character of PUDEMO came to the fore, when the National Congress of the movement resolved that we can only participate in a constitutional process under pinned by the following conditions:
Time-frames and clear processes for a national forum of all stakeholders in Swaziland to discuss the future of the country; political parties, trade unions, women and youth organisations, religious and faith-based organisations, business, professional and academic institutions, etc;
Time-frames for the removal of all laws that militate against democratic change, in particular the most problematic elements of the 1973 king’s decree;
Time-frames for a transitional authority in Swaziland to oversee the smooth process of change;
Immediate guarantee of the most basic rights for all; free expression, free assembly, free organisation, etc;
But on the contrary, the conditions that gave birth to the current constitutional product of the regime have been;
Hostile political environment; arrests, detentions, torture and systematic persecution of innocent people for their belief in democracy
Lack of basic freedoms to expression, assembly, organisation and the general state of fear and reign of terror enforced by the 1973 king’s decree
Systematic and organised offensive against any semblance of judicial independence, media criticism, worker’s organised power and all the institutions that work to protect the interest of the people, in the absence of formal political space in the form of political parties
Continued dominance of the political stage by members of the royal family and their friends, hence the overwhelming dominance of princes, chiefs, princesses and hangers-on of the system in the constitutional team and related commissions.
Systematic propaganda demonising multiparty democratic as evil, foreign and divisive in order to instil a sense of loyalty to the tinkhundla system. This was made possible by the regime’s limitless access to the media which became the key instrument of character assassination against the progressive movement which enjoys no access to the media.
Civic education of a special type, which in actual fact was state propaganda meant to instil tinkhundla values amongst the people.
Political parties and political space in general remain closed, such that free political debate has not been possible to ensure the mass involvement of the majority of the people of Swaziland.
These and many other reasons led to the principled stand and position of the progressive movement in general, PUDEMO in particular, which said that the process cannot deliver the real solution to the serious political and constitutional problems of the country. The overwhelming majority of the people of Swaziland in their organised and unorganised forums expressed
their unequivocal rejection of the process, as a window-dressing mechanism of the system to renew, rather than abolish the system of royal oppression.
On the issue of a constitution, as PUDEMO we have consistently remained primarily committed to genuine dialogue as expressed in our document entitled, “Wayforward towards a Constituent Assembly through a negotiated settlement”, whose provisions states clearly that,
‘In keeping with this noble resolve, we welcome any genuine invitation to all organised formations, registered and unregistered, to a properly constituted and representative constitutional forum that will be mandated to work the wayforward for Swaziland. However, to safeguard against a
repeat of the political blackmail and socio-economic evils of the tinkhundla legacy, there are important pre-conditions that should be satisfied.”
The satisfaction of these pre-conditions is of utmost importance to us, because we have learnt through bitter experiences what kind of a regime is the tinkhundla royal regime.
We cannot take chances about people’s lives and raise their hopes and expectations beyond what is real, to such an extent that the people lose faith in the very cause of democracy and justice.
5. Towards a free and democratic Swaziland through intensified mass action and international solidarity
Our goal is very clear; to destroy the system of tinkhundla royal supremacy and in its stead, establish a truly democratic society.
It was on the 12th April, 1973, when the late king Sobhuza 11 proclaimed to the nation that, `
“Now therefore I, Sobhuza 11, king of Swaziland, hereby declare that, in collaboration with my cabinet ministers and supported by the whole nation, I have assumed supreme power in the kingdom of Swaziland and that all legislative, executive and judicial power is now vested in myself and shall, for the meantime by excercised in collaboration with my cabinet ministers. I further declare that to ensure the continued maintenance of peace, order and good government, my armed forces have been posted to all strategic places and have taken charge of all government places and all public services” (section 3)…………………………………………all political parties and similar bodies that cultivate and bring about disturbances and ill-feelings within the nation are hereby dissolved and prohibited” (section 11, 1973 King’s decree to the nation).
Any struggle cannot progress until the people have the courage to organise and fight and the will to sacrifice and readiness, if needs be, to die! Our will and determination to be free has now gone beyond the point of general remarks into concrete and clear time-frames for democratic change.
The issue today is not whether or not freedom will come. The question is on which side you should be – whether to perish with tinkhundla or to triumph with the forces of democracy and change. Freedom is within sight, the horizons of democracy are ever drawing nearer on a daily basis.
Therefore, anyone seeking refuge in the tinkhundla house shall perish with it. The flames of revolution and justice are unstoppable. This is why anyone talking dialogue with a violent and treacherous system can only succeed in misleading the people and betraying the ideals for which our movement was formed. This is not the time for tea breaks, but the moment we have been waiting for all along, to bury the royal demon once and for
all.
By refusing to be bullied into acceptance of the enemy’s constitutional schemes, we reaffirmed our determination to defend the integrity of the Swazi people in pursuit of a common victory against a common enemy. We are asserting the truth that freedom is indivisible, that democracy for some is democracy for none, and hence, that no section of the people can be free while another is oppressed.
On the shoulders of the tinkhundla regime rest such crimes as the scandalously high infant mortality rate amongst our children, the HIV and AIDS genocide, the unemployment disaster and the general crisis that bring about endless misery for our people in their own country. Swaziland is littered with graves of young men and women, patriots of our nation and future hopefuls of our country who are victims of the viciousness of the system. Therefore, we have no reason to relax, our nation is dying out slowly like a candle in the wind.
Swaziland is in flames and no one can afford to sit by and watch as the royal regime massacre agents of hope and democracy. Who can deny that time is against us in the quest for human dignity. We are individually and collectively responsible for all lives lost to tinkhundla brutality, therefore, we must act NOW to save a whole nation from a looming catastrophe and possibly, a civil war.
6. The future belongs to the people!
The Programme towards a new and democratic Swaziland
The Swazi regime is daily arming itself with the most dangerous weapons of war, which constitutes a threat to world peace. Yet the tinkhundla regime, in its turn is only able to continue its murderous system and piracy because of the support it receives from “like-minded” regimes throughout the world.
This is where the international solidarity initiative comes in, providing the momentum for an intensification of the campaign to cut links with the brutal regime of Swaziland. As the crisis mounts to its peak, let all humanity vow that it will tolerate no further delay in the application of effective pressure against Swaziland in support of the suffering and struggling masses of our country.
The young people of Swaziland, organized workers and freedom fighters in the ranks of the democratic movement, are daily demonstrating their courage and determination, their willingness to sacrifice in the fight for freedom. It is not only in their interests, but in the interests of progress and human security for all of the world’s peoples, that PUDEMO and the mass democratic movement in general are calling for a meaningful
response to the call for anti-tinkhundla solidarity. The agony of tinkhundla must be ended. We urge all democracy-loving people to recognize their responsibility to do something practical NOW to help bring an end to it.
To this end, we have identified pillars of our short-term programme in the current period, which are;
· Rolling mass action to demand the release of all political prisoners through mass rallies and other forms of mass activities
· Creation of mass awareness through exploring alternative media and information avenues to counter the misinformation campaign of the tinkhundla regime
· Deepen our work amongst all organs of social mobilization to build a mass movement against tinkhundla, in the country and internationally
· Build PUDEMO to assume fully its role as the hope of the Swazi people, ready and capable of leading the whole country towards a new and democratic society
These elements of our programme forms the basis of our continued struggle on the ground, but they do not substitute our will to engage in dialogue, whenever reasonable and dignified people.
Finally, we shall be convening an urgent Conference of the movement to clearly outline our medium-to-long term programme, which envisages a real and qualitative advance to people’s power in Swaziland.
We cannot delay any further, we must adopt concrete measures in our search for an alternative system to the crisis of tinkhundla. This programme shall include all elements and stages of a real challenge to the system for a lasting solution in our country. We are sure after that Conference, the history of Swaziland shall be written anew.
We thank you all!
Monday, February 13, 2006
The Government of Swaziland parades “state witness” against political prisoners
The People's United Democratic Movement of Swaziland
PUDEMO International Office
Australia, Asian and the Pacific Region
E-mail: pudemo@yahoo.co.uk
February 13, 2006
Smoking Gun or a Replica?
The Government of Swaziland parades “state witness” against political prisoners
On February 7, 2006, the office of the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) unexpectedly brought the high treason case against Mduduzi Dlamini for trial. Mduduzi is one of the 16 pro-democracy activists arrested between December 2005 and January 2006 when the Royal Swaziland Police pounced on members of The People’s United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO) and its youth wing The Swaziland Youth Congress (SWAYOCO). The pro-democracy
activists were charged with a string of offences ranging from arson to high treason. They are accused of petrol bombing state buildings and private property belonging to members of the ruling regime. Some of the detainees, including Mduduzi, are due to appear before the High Court for a hearing on their bail applications on March 7, 2005.
The case against Mduduzi was heard by a single judge, Justice Mbutfo Mamba. Mduduzi pleaded guilty to the charge of treason and was sentenced to two years in prison with an option of E10 000 (approximately $US1, 600). Half of the sentence was suspended and the High Court deferred payment of the fine (approximately US$800) to March 31, 2006. After the
brief trial, Mduduzi was released pending payment of the fine by the due date. This was an extremely lenient sentence and generous conditions of payment, given the seriousness of the charge which carries a possible death penalty or life imprisonment.
In a surprising twist, the DPP did not oppose the lenient sentence. Earlier, the DPP strongly opposed applications for bail arguing that the public is frightened of the detainees and that “they will endanger the maintenance of Law and Order and national security” (see The Swazi Observer, January 1, 2006). On January 17, 2006, the acting Director in the DPP’s office, Mumsy Dlamini, again opposed applications for bail and pleaded with the High Court not to release the detainees including Mduduzi. The reason for this change of heart is obvious – the DPP will now use Mduduzi as its trump card and an example of the existence of the “bomber”.
We don’t know what prompted Mduduzi to plead guilty to the charge of high treason and to implicate PUDEMO but we have reason to believe that he might have been coerced. According to local media reports (see The Times of Swaziland and The Swazi Observer, February 8, 2006), Mduduzi told the Court that he was acting with other PUDEMO members under orders from the organisation’s leadership to attack state infrastructure. In his plea of guilty, Dlamini asserted that he:
…unlawfully engaged in conduct with the intent to overthrow the Kingdom and/or coerce the Kingdom by violence into certain actions. I acted with hostile intent against the government. I am a sympathiser of The People's United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO). At a PUDEMO meeting in March 2005, with senior members of the organisation, I decided to embark on a campaign of bombing government structures in order to overthrow the
Kingdom or coerce it into accepting political change. On the evening of August 6, 2005 I met with members of PUDEMO in Mbabane.
We travelled to Sidzakeni in a vehicle of which the registration plates had been removed. Our intent was to throw a petrol bomb at the Sandleni Inkhundla, a government structure, in furtherance of our hostile intent.
In the late hours of the same day we arrived at our destination. I opened the gate and the vehicle entered. I followed in foot. An accomplice and myself spilled petrol on the door and the accomplice set the petrol alight by means of a petrol saturated cloth. We left the scene while the doors were still burning” (The Swazi Observer, February 8, 2006)
There are a number of anomalies in this statement, particularly the last paragraph. Firstly, parts of the first and second paragraphs read as if they are directly lifted from the charge sheet which reads:
The accused persons each or both of them acting jointly in furtherance of a common purpose did, unlawfully and with hostile intent against the kingdom to overthrow or coerce the government of the kingdom.
Secondly, a vehicle travelling at night with its registration plates removed would obviously arouse suspicion and attract police attention. Oddly, Dlamini is claiming to have deliberately acted in a manner which would attract the attention of the police, at the very time that he was also engaged in clandestine activity for which the penalty may be death.
Furthermore, the entry of the vehicle into the premises of the Sandleni Inkhundla constituency would have undoubtedly alerted the security guard.
Mduduzi states that he opened the gate and gives the impression that the gate was unlocked at the time. As Tinkhundla constituency premises are used for storing valuable material for community development projects, it is normal practice to secure these premises with a fenced structure, a lockable gate and the services of a security guard. It is therefore not clear why a gate of a secured facility was unlocked at the time of the
alleged attack.
Thirdly, it has been alleged by the police, the DPP and the media that the accused persons used explosive devices to commit the offences. At no time have these institutions publicly explained what, in their view constitutes an explosive device. The terms “bomb”and “explosive device/charge” have been widely used to generate public fear and give credibility to state
allegations of terrorist threats.
Mduduzi’s statement exposes the abuse of these terms. There is nothing in his statement that suggests that a bomb or an explosive device/charge was used to set fire to the Sandleni Tinkhundla constituency. For example, he indicates that the building was set alight by spilling petrol and setting
it alight with a petrol-saturated piece of cloth. The Worldreference.com English Dictionary defines explosive device as “device that bursts with sudden violence from internal energy”. Explosive charge is defined as “quantity of explosive to be set off at one time.”
Yet the Honourable Justice Mamba appears to be labouring under the belief that Mduduzi did use an explosive device. Thus, the honourable Judge erred in law by failing to closely examine the defendant’s statement. It appears that he convicted Mduduzi not on the evidence of the accused and his accusers but on the advice of the defendant’s lawyer. In his judgement, as
reported in The Swazi Observer (February 8, 2006), Justice Mamba
commented:
Your lawyer has advised me that you are a sympathiser of the People's United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO) though I have not been told its ideals and the change that you wanted.
What I have been told is that you wanted to destroy government structures and overthrow the Kingdom. I have not been told that you wanted change, whether for the better or worst.
Your lawyer has further informed me that you were in the company of others you conspired with to destroy the Sandleni constituency by throwing an explosive charge. It was submitted that the door to the structure was damaged, but I was not told to what extent. According to the Times of Swaziland (February 8, 2006), the defence lawyer also advised the Judge that “the accused was coerced in the participation of the offence.” However, this allegation does not appear in Mduduzi’s statement as it is given in The Swazi Observer (February 8, 2006).
Justice Mamba’s statement raises important questions about the defence lawyer’s advice to the court and as a consequence, about the authenticity of the defendant’s plea of guilty. For example, was the defendant in the right state of mind to make the decision? Did he have adequate knowledge of the charge and the DPP’s evidence against him? Did he receive proper legal advice about the implications of incriminating himself in a charge
of this nature? Did Mduduzi jump or was he pushed? Did the legal system provide adequate protection to Mduduzi against compulsory
self-incrimination?
PUDEMO leadership is treating the events relating to this hearing with extreme caution and a high degree of suspicion. We are waiting for a copy of the court transcript to determine the full nature of this case. Given the regime’s reputation of torture, we have reason to believe that the plea of guilty was made under duress. In the 1990 treason trial against
PUDEMO members, the state coerced two people to give false testimonies in court. This backfired when the two confessed in court that the testimonies were made under extreme duress.
It is puzzling that Mduduzi was brought in for trial before his
application for bail was heard. As noted earlier in this document, Mduduzi was among the detainees awaiting the hearing of their bail application in the High Court on March 7, 2006. It is not yet clear when this pending hearing was removed from the registrar.
Furthermore, like the other detainees, Mduduzi was charged with a string of offences including high treason, sedition, attempted murder and malicious damage to property. However, he was tried and convicted on one charge - high treason. Again, it is not yet clear whether or not the other charges have been withdrawn or the DPP is keeping them as a dagger in its back pocket.
Combined, the events associated with this trial arouse curiosity about the intentions of the state. For a while now we have harboured suspicions that the state was working hard to turn Mduduzi into a state witness. Since his arrest in December 2005, he has been completely isolated from the rest of the detainees and PUDEMO officials were prohibited from making contacts
with him. Unlike the rest of the detainees, Mduduzi instructed his own legal representative making it extremely difficult for PUDEMO to access information about the case. At the time of the trial, PUDEMO had made arrangement to get power of attorney from Mduduzi to transfer the case to lawyers instructed by the organisation to represent the detainees. The state pre-empted this arrangement and conspired with Mduduzi’s legal
representative to secretly bring the case to court without due public notice. There was no hint whatsoever that a high profile case such as this one was scheduled for hearing. In anyone’s imagination, this was speedy trial which is uncharacteristic of the speed at which courts in the country deal with cases.
The plea of guilty is not the smoking gun the government is hoping to use to generate public fear and tarnish the good name of PUDEMO but a replica which presents no threat to our reputation as a peaceful movement for democracy. It is a throw away line from a regime desperate to salvage its badly damaged political image. Corruption, misuse of public monies, poor
economic performance and neglect of basic public services have badly damaged the government’s credibility to govern. The government is now trying desperately to hide behind an illusion of a terrorist threat to avoid dealing with these issues. The government can keep looking for the smoking gun but it won’t find one because there isn’t one. Through this plea of guilty, the state hopes to make the terrorist illusion stick to the public psyche. We will fight this act of political bastardry by
exposing the true intention behind the Mduduzi case.
We have confidence in the people of Swaziland that they will view this latest development for what it is – a cheap shot and crude plot against political parties and those who represent progress in Swaziland. In 1973, the monarchy government under the leadership of King Sobhuza II lied and conspired against the Ngwane National Liberation Congress (NNLC). Today they are abusing the judicial system to concoct lies about PUDEMO in an
attempt to resuscitate the 1973 discourse about political parties as destructive and disruptive.
There is not an ounce of truth and credibility in Mduduzi’s statement that senior PUDEMO officials discussed and approved a policy of violence to coerce the state. From the 1990s to date, PUDEMO has publicly defended accusations from the local media, the police and government officials that it is responsible for petrol bomb attacks against state infrastructure. Unlike the government, we have a clear policy of resolving the political
crisis at a non-violent political level. We have invited the government for talks but it has refused to open dialogue with PUDEMO and the broader movement for multi-party democracy.
As stated previously, the government has no strategy other than violence and innuendoes to engage with political parties at a political level. Under the 1973 King’s Proclamation, the state violently suppressed political parties wishing they would go away. Realising that political parties would never go away and are now an integral part of Swazi society, the regime invented a lie about terrorism to justify the exclusion of party politics from the Constitution.
The Commonwealth Secretariat, a recent major player in Swaziland politics, also ignored PUDEMO’s call for a collective peaceful approach to the political crisis. Instead, the Commonwealth under the leadership of Don McKinnon, advised the Government of Swaziland to shut out political parties from the constitution making process. Consequently, the process delivered a constitution which bans democracy and political parties. On
February 10, 2006, McKinnon was in Swaziland to celebrate the death of democracy at the inauguration of the Constitution.
Let it be known that PUDEMO is a disciplined and transparent organisation with a clear political direction and policies guiding our action. We collectively pledge to liberate the people of Swaziland from the absolute monarchy repression through peaceful means. This policy has not changed and remains the mainstay of our struggle for multi-party democracy and
responsible governance. As a disciplined organisation, PUDEMO has rules and all members abide by these rules. Those who decide to deviate from these rules and engage in activities that are contrary to our policies effectively remove themselves from the organisation. PUDEMO and SWAYOCO are therefore NOT GUILTY, your Honour !
Dr. Jabulane Matsebula
PUDEMO Representative
Australia, Asia and the Pacific Region
PUDEMO International Office
Australia, Asian and the Pacific Region
E-mail: pudemo@yahoo.co.uk
February 13, 2006
Smoking Gun or a Replica?
The Government of Swaziland parades “state witness” against political prisoners
On February 7, 2006, the office of the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) unexpectedly brought the high treason case against Mduduzi Dlamini for trial. Mduduzi is one of the 16 pro-democracy activists arrested between December 2005 and January 2006 when the Royal Swaziland Police pounced on members of The People’s United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO) and its youth wing The Swaziland Youth Congress (SWAYOCO). The pro-democracy
activists were charged with a string of offences ranging from arson to high treason. They are accused of petrol bombing state buildings and private property belonging to members of the ruling regime. Some of the detainees, including Mduduzi, are due to appear before the High Court for a hearing on their bail applications on March 7, 2005.
The case against Mduduzi was heard by a single judge, Justice Mbutfo Mamba. Mduduzi pleaded guilty to the charge of treason and was sentenced to two years in prison with an option of E10 000 (approximately $US1, 600). Half of the sentence was suspended and the High Court deferred payment of the fine (approximately US$800) to March 31, 2006. After the
brief trial, Mduduzi was released pending payment of the fine by the due date. This was an extremely lenient sentence and generous conditions of payment, given the seriousness of the charge which carries a possible death penalty or life imprisonment.
In a surprising twist, the DPP did not oppose the lenient sentence. Earlier, the DPP strongly opposed applications for bail arguing that the public is frightened of the detainees and that “they will endanger the maintenance of Law and Order and national security” (see The Swazi Observer, January 1, 2006). On January 17, 2006, the acting Director in the DPP’s office, Mumsy Dlamini, again opposed applications for bail and pleaded with the High Court not to release the detainees including Mduduzi. The reason for this change of heart is obvious – the DPP will now use Mduduzi as its trump card and an example of the existence of the “bomber”.
We don’t know what prompted Mduduzi to plead guilty to the charge of high treason and to implicate PUDEMO but we have reason to believe that he might have been coerced. According to local media reports (see The Times of Swaziland and The Swazi Observer, February 8, 2006), Mduduzi told the Court that he was acting with other PUDEMO members under orders from the organisation’s leadership to attack state infrastructure. In his plea of guilty, Dlamini asserted that he:
…unlawfully engaged in conduct with the intent to overthrow the Kingdom and/or coerce the Kingdom by violence into certain actions. I acted with hostile intent against the government. I am a sympathiser of The People's United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO). At a PUDEMO meeting in March 2005, with senior members of the organisation, I decided to embark on a campaign of bombing government structures in order to overthrow the
Kingdom or coerce it into accepting political change. On the evening of August 6, 2005 I met with members of PUDEMO in Mbabane.
We travelled to Sidzakeni in a vehicle of which the registration plates had been removed. Our intent was to throw a petrol bomb at the Sandleni Inkhundla, a government structure, in furtherance of our hostile intent.
In the late hours of the same day we arrived at our destination. I opened the gate and the vehicle entered. I followed in foot. An accomplice and myself spilled petrol on the door and the accomplice set the petrol alight by means of a petrol saturated cloth. We left the scene while the doors were still burning” (The Swazi Observer, February 8, 2006)
There are a number of anomalies in this statement, particularly the last paragraph. Firstly, parts of the first and second paragraphs read as if they are directly lifted from the charge sheet which reads:
The accused persons each or both of them acting jointly in furtherance of a common purpose did, unlawfully and with hostile intent against the kingdom to overthrow or coerce the government of the kingdom.
Secondly, a vehicle travelling at night with its registration plates removed would obviously arouse suspicion and attract police attention. Oddly, Dlamini is claiming to have deliberately acted in a manner which would attract the attention of the police, at the very time that he was also engaged in clandestine activity for which the penalty may be death.
Furthermore, the entry of the vehicle into the premises of the Sandleni Inkhundla constituency would have undoubtedly alerted the security guard.
Mduduzi states that he opened the gate and gives the impression that the gate was unlocked at the time. As Tinkhundla constituency premises are used for storing valuable material for community development projects, it is normal practice to secure these premises with a fenced structure, a lockable gate and the services of a security guard. It is therefore not clear why a gate of a secured facility was unlocked at the time of the
alleged attack.
Thirdly, it has been alleged by the police, the DPP and the media that the accused persons used explosive devices to commit the offences. At no time have these institutions publicly explained what, in their view constitutes an explosive device. The terms “bomb”and “explosive device/charge” have been widely used to generate public fear and give credibility to state
allegations of terrorist threats.
Mduduzi’s statement exposes the abuse of these terms. There is nothing in his statement that suggests that a bomb or an explosive device/charge was used to set fire to the Sandleni Tinkhundla constituency. For example, he indicates that the building was set alight by spilling petrol and setting
it alight with a petrol-saturated piece of cloth. The Worldreference.com English Dictionary defines explosive device as “device that bursts with sudden violence from internal energy”. Explosive charge is defined as “quantity of explosive to be set off at one time.”
Yet the Honourable Justice Mamba appears to be labouring under the belief that Mduduzi did use an explosive device. Thus, the honourable Judge erred in law by failing to closely examine the defendant’s statement. It appears that he convicted Mduduzi not on the evidence of the accused and his accusers but on the advice of the defendant’s lawyer. In his judgement, as
reported in The Swazi Observer (February 8, 2006), Justice Mamba
commented:
Your lawyer has advised me that you are a sympathiser of the People's United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO) though I have not been told its ideals and the change that you wanted.
What I have been told is that you wanted to destroy government structures and overthrow the Kingdom. I have not been told that you wanted change, whether for the better or worst.
Your lawyer has further informed me that you were in the company of others you conspired with to destroy the Sandleni constituency by throwing an explosive charge. It was submitted that the door to the structure was damaged, but I was not told to what extent. According to the Times of Swaziland (February 8, 2006), the defence lawyer also advised the Judge that “the accused was coerced in the participation of the offence.” However, this allegation does not appear in Mduduzi’s statement as it is given in The Swazi Observer (February 8, 2006).
Justice Mamba’s statement raises important questions about the defence lawyer’s advice to the court and as a consequence, about the authenticity of the defendant’s plea of guilty. For example, was the defendant in the right state of mind to make the decision? Did he have adequate knowledge of the charge and the DPP’s evidence against him? Did he receive proper legal advice about the implications of incriminating himself in a charge
of this nature? Did Mduduzi jump or was he pushed? Did the legal system provide adequate protection to Mduduzi against compulsory
self-incrimination?
PUDEMO leadership is treating the events relating to this hearing with extreme caution and a high degree of suspicion. We are waiting for a copy of the court transcript to determine the full nature of this case. Given the regime’s reputation of torture, we have reason to believe that the plea of guilty was made under duress. In the 1990 treason trial against
PUDEMO members, the state coerced two people to give false testimonies in court. This backfired when the two confessed in court that the testimonies were made under extreme duress.
It is puzzling that Mduduzi was brought in for trial before his
application for bail was heard. As noted earlier in this document, Mduduzi was among the detainees awaiting the hearing of their bail application in the High Court on March 7, 2006. It is not yet clear when this pending hearing was removed from the registrar.
Furthermore, like the other detainees, Mduduzi was charged with a string of offences including high treason, sedition, attempted murder and malicious damage to property. However, he was tried and convicted on one charge - high treason. Again, it is not yet clear whether or not the other charges have been withdrawn or the DPP is keeping them as a dagger in its back pocket.
Combined, the events associated with this trial arouse curiosity about the intentions of the state. For a while now we have harboured suspicions that the state was working hard to turn Mduduzi into a state witness. Since his arrest in December 2005, he has been completely isolated from the rest of the detainees and PUDEMO officials were prohibited from making contacts
with him. Unlike the rest of the detainees, Mduduzi instructed his own legal representative making it extremely difficult for PUDEMO to access information about the case. At the time of the trial, PUDEMO had made arrangement to get power of attorney from Mduduzi to transfer the case to lawyers instructed by the organisation to represent the detainees. The state pre-empted this arrangement and conspired with Mduduzi’s legal
representative to secretly bring the case to court without due public notice. There was no hint whatsoever that a high profile case such as this one was scheduled for hearing. In anyone’s imagination, this was speedy trial which is uncharacteristic of the speed at which courts in the country deal with cases.
The plea of guilty is not the smoking gun the government is hoping to use to generate public fear and tarnish the good name of PUDEMO but a replica which presents no threat to our reputation as a peaceful movement for democracy. It is a throw away line from a regime desperate to salvage its badly damaged political image. Corruption, misuse of public monies, poor
economic performance and neglect of basic public services have badly damaged the government’s credibility to govern. The government is now trying desperately to hide behind an illusion of a terrorist threat to avoid dealing with these issues. The government can keep looking for the smoking gun but it won’t find one because there isn’t one. Through this plea of guilty, the state hopes to make the terrorist illusion stick to the public psyche. We will fight this act of political bastardry by
exposing the true intention behind the Mduduzi case.
We have confidence in the people of Swaziland that they will view this latest development for what it is – a cheap shot and crude plot against political parties and those who represent progress in Swaziland. In 1973, the monarchy government under the leadership of King Sobhuza II lied and conspired against the Ngwane National Liberation Congress (NNLC). Today they are abusing the judicial system to concoct lies about PUDEMO in an
attempt to resuscitate the 1973 discourse about political parties as destructive and disruptive.
There is not an ounce of truth and credibility in Mduduzi’s statement that senior PUDEMO officials discussed and approved a policy of violence to coerce the state. From the 1990s to date, PUDEMO has publicly defended accusations from the local media, the police and government officials that it is responsible for petrol bomb attacks against state infrastructure. Unlike the government, we have a clear policy of resolving the political
crisis at a non-violent political level. We have invited the government for talks but it has refused to open dialogue with PUDEMO and the broader movement for multi-party democracy.
As stated previously, the government has no strategy other than violence and innuendoes to engage with political parties at a political level. Under the 1973 King’s Proclamation, the state violently suppressed political parties wishing they would go away. Realising that political parties would never go away and are now an integral part of Swazi society, the regime invented a lie about terrorism to justify the exclusion of party politics from the Constitution.
The Commonwealth Secretariat, a recent major player in Swaziland politics, also ignored PUDEMO’s call for a collective peaceful approach to the political crisis. Instead, the Commonwealth under the leadership of Don McKinnon, advised the Government of Swaziland to shut out political parties from the constitution making process. Consequently, the process delivered a constitution which bans democracy and political parties. On
February 10, 2006, McKinnon was in Swaziland to celebrate the death of democracy at the inauguration of the Constitution.
Let it be known that PUDEMO is a disciplined and transparent organisation with a clear political direction and policies guiding our action. We collectively pledge to liberate the people of Swaziland from the absolute monarchy repression through peaceful means. This policy has not changed and remains the mainstay of our struggle for multi-party democracy and
responsible governance. As a disciplined organisation, PUDEMO has rules and all members abide by these rules. Those who decide to deviate from these rules and engage in activities that are contrary to our policies effectively remove themselves from the organisation. PUDEMO and SWAYOCO are therefore NOT GUILTY, your Honour !
Dr. Jabulane Matsebula
PUDEMO Representative
Australia, Asia and the Pacific Region
Thursday, February 9, 2006
MEMORANDUM: PUDEMO’s RESPONSE TO MEDIA REPORTS
MEMORANDUM: PUDEMO’s RESPONSE TO MEDIA REPORTS.
SUBJECT:‘BOMB SUSPECT ADMITS TO HAVE TAKEN PART IN BOMBING OF INKHUNDLA’.
DATE: 9th FEBRUARY 2006.
1.0. Introduction.
The current state of affairs in Swaziland comes in the backdrop of a situation where Comrade Mduduzi Dlamini, one of the suspects in the bombing case that has drawn local and international attraction, was arrested and incarcerated ALONE for long periods at the remote Nhlangano Prison. It comes from the scenario of constant harassment, torture,
insults, beatings of suspects, intimidation and the threat to evictions by traditional authorities of families and relatives of the suspects. The wife to Mduduzi Mamba, one of the suspects sadly died of trauma immediately following interrogation by the royal Swaziland police (who admitted in their response to inquiries that she had been uncooperative during the interrogation).
The state fails to establish a reasonably prosecutable case against any of the suspects, save only to bundle up their investigations and please the Mswati regime who had instructed the police to arrest as many PUDEMO and SWAYOCO members as possible before the end of 2005. We have proof that more than four of our members have been coerced by Khethokwakhe Ndlangamandla and others into making self-incriminating statements and to ‘volunteer’ to be state witnesses. Most of these comrades have rejected the offers with the contempt they deserve. Comrade Mduduzi Dlamini may not have had that opportunity to withstand that pressure.
Even though political party affiliation is prohibited by law in Swaziland, Mduduzi Dlamini has a right to enjoy his fundamental freedoms, including those of association, expression and assembly and, therefore, his membership or not to the People’s United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO).
2.0. The State Of the Suspects.
The comrades in Mbabane, Matsapha Central, Nhlangano and Manzini prisons are strong and principled members of the organization, and we do not doubt their allegiance and commitment to the organization’s objectives. We stand by them, and are in contact with them and their families whenever possible. In spite of continued attempts to by the state, and other people who claim to be messiahs, to manipulate the comrades’ lack of legal
understanding, the suspects are consistent on their principles.
3.0. The Justice Course.
PUDEMO acknowledges that the members currently in custody are innocent until proven guilty, and the onus lies on the crown to prove their guilt. We have no reason to doubt the capability of the presiding judicial officers in this case and believe that they are honorable enough to uphold the principles of an independent justice in an environment respecting the rule of law.
We, however, have strong reservations on the manner comrade Mduduzi Dlamini was secretly hauled into the High Court for a confession when he (and the rest) were still to argue for bail, let alone plead. The statements that he allegedly made are so clear that he was spoon-fed to not only incriminate him but the other co-accused. This practice is
common in undemocratic states as previously seen in Mozambique, Zimbabwe and The Republic Of South Africa recently.
We also find it strange that a suspect charged for high treason together with 15 others, is eventually singled out and ‘tried’ separately. We also note that the comrade did not make these admissions under oath, and still, they were admissible in court. Our observations here are not with intentions against Mduduzi Dlamini, but on the commissions and omissions by the prosecution and the judicial processes which all raise doubts about
the ‘trial’.
4.0. PUDEMO and Its Position.
We reiterate that at this moment the issue is not and should not be who is responsible for the attacks, but what their root cause is. The country is in such deep crisis due to the arrogance and intransigence of the royal tinkhundla regime, and this crisis gives birth to the people’s actions in quest for their freedoms. The people in Swaziland are angry for many reasons; from the rapid job losses, abject poverty, education system, evictions, declining standard of living, independence of the three arms of government, violation of the fundamental human rights and the overall lack of good governance. For these core demands, PUDEMO believes that people will vent their anger in any way at their disposal, and history teaches us that constructive dialogue and negotiation help avoid such situations.
In 1992, PUDEMO issued a document entitled The Way Forward To A Constituent Assembly Through A Negotiated Settlement as a proven mechanism for a sustainable people-driven, all-inclusive and owned transition to a democratic Swaziland. The royalist regime arrogantly rejected this peaceful program, and opted for a unilateral Mswati driven reform process sponsored by the Commonwealth Of Nations, the European Commission,
cessationist Taiwan and other proponents of repression and custodians of perpetual suffering of the poor African masses. PUDEMO is ready for any round table negotiations for a peaceful settlement in spite of the constant violent response on our unarmed members during peaceful marches and rallies.
We reaffirm our position on the current constitution that irrespective of whatever reforms that may have been unilaterally done in exclusion of representative stake-holders, the process MUST go back to the people through democratic processes of a national forum up to a constituent assembly stage for the people’s full ownership. Anything short thereof is nothing but cosmetic and will only be to the benefit of the monarchy and its surrogates. We call on the local and international community to see and view this position, and also the royal tinkhundla regime visa vis the conventions it is signatory to eg; the NEPAD and its APRM, the Harare Declaration, the African Charter and People’s Rights, the ACP/EU Cotonou Protocol the only way it is – dictatorial.
5.0. Conclusion.
The arrests and recent admission by Mduduzi Dlamini are nothing else but attempts by the regime to silence the voice of opposition in Swaziland, in particular, PUDEMO and its youth league, SWAYOCO. We are not shaken by these clandestine moves, but they only strengthen our resolve to have a constitutional multi-party democracy in Swaziland. We are ready for talks towards this goal, but time is not on our side, and time comes when people say enough is enough and when time for such dialogue wanes.
We are waiting!
Official Statement Of PUDEMO
From the President’s Office.
09th February 2006. Ref.PR17/06PO
SWAZILAND CANNOT BE AN ISLAND OF DICTATORSHIP AND REPRESSION IN A SEA OF DEMOCRACY.
SUBJECT:‘BOMB SUSPECT ADMITS TO HAVE TAKEN PART IN BOMBING OF INKHUNDLA’.
DATE: 9th FEBRUARY 2006.
1.0. Introduction.
The current state of affairs in Swaziland comes in the backdrop of a situation where Comrade Mduduzi Dlamini, one of the suspects in the bombing case that has drawn local and international attraction, was arrested and incarcerated ALONE for long periods at the remote Nhlangano Prison. It comes from the scenario of constant harassment, torture,
insults, beatings of suspects, intimidation and the threat to evictions by traditional authorities of families and relatives of the suspects. The wife to Mduduzi Mamba, one of the suspects sadly died of trauma immediately following interrogation by the royal Swaziland police (who admitted in their response to inquiries that she had been uncooperative during the interrogation).
The state fails to establish a reasonably prosecutable case against any of the suspects, save only to bundle up their investigations and please the Mswati regime who had instructed the police to arrest as many PUDEMO and SWAYOCO members as possible before the end of 2005. We have proof that more than four of our members have been coerced by Khethokwakhe Ndlangamandla and others into making self-incriminating statements and to ‘volunteer’ to be state witnesses. Most of these comrades have rejected the offers with the contempt they deserve. Comrade Mduduzi Dlamini may not have had that opportunity to withstand that pressure.
Even though political party affiliation is prohibited by law in Swaziland, Mduduzi Dlamini has a right to enjoy his fundamental freedoms, including those of association, expression and assembly and, therefore, his membership or not to the People’s United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO).
2.0. The State Of the Suspects.
The comrades in Mbabane, Matsapha Central, Nhlangano and Manzini prisons are strong and principled members of the organization, and we do not doubt their allegiance and commitment to the organization’s objectives. We stand by them, and are in contact with them and their families whenever possible. In spite of continued attempts to by the state, and other people who claim to be messiahs, to manipulate the comrades’ lack of legal
understanding, the suspects are consistent on their principles.
3.0. The Justice Course.
PUDEMO acknowledges that the members currently in custody are innocent until proven guilty, and the onus lies on the crown to prove their guilt. We have no reason to doubt the capability of the presiding judicial officers in this case and believe that they are honorable enough to uphold the principles of an independent justice in an environment respecting the rule of law.
We, however, have strong reservations on the manner comrade Mduduzi Dlamini was secretly hauled into the High Court for a confession when he (and the rest) were still to argue for bail, let alone plead. The statements that he allegedly made are so clear that he was spoon-fed to not only incriminate him but the other co-accused. This practice is
common in undemocratic states as previously seen in Mozambique, Zimbabwe and The Republic Of South Africa recently.
We also find it strange that a suspect charged for high treason together with 15 others, is eventually singled out and ‘tried’ separately. We also note that the comrade did not make these admissions under oath, and still, they were admissible in court. Our observations here are not with intentions against Mduduzi Dlamini, but on the commissions and omissions by the prosecution and the judicial processes which all raise doubts about
the ‘trial’.
4.0. PUDEMO and Its Position.
We reiterate that at this moment the issue is not and should not be who is responsible for the attacks, but what their root cause is. The country is in such deep crisis due to the arrogance and intransigence of the royal tinkhundla regime, and this crisis gives birth to the people’s actions in quest for their freedoms. The people in Swaziland are angry for many reasons; from the rapid job losses, abject poverty, education system, evictions, declining standard of living, independence of the three arms of government, violation of the fundamental human rights and the overall lack of good governance. For these core demands, PUDEMO believes that people will vent their anger in any way at their disposal, and history teaches us that constructive dialogue and negotiation help avoid such situations.
In 1992, PUDEMO issued a document entitled The Way Forward To A Constituent Assembly Through A Negotiated Settlement as a proven mechanism for a sustainable people-driven, all-inclusive and owned transition to a democratic Swaziland. The royalist regime arrogantly rejected this peaceful program, and opted for a unilateral Mswati driven reform process sponsored by the Commonwealth Of Nations, the European Commission,
cessationist Taiwan and other proponents of repression and custodians of perpetual suffering of the poor African masses. PUDEMO is ready for any round table negotiations for a peaceful settlement in spite of the constant violent response on our unarmed members during peaceful marches and rallies.
We reaffirm our position on the current constitution that irrespective of whatever reforms that may have been unilaterally done in exclusion of representative stake-holders, the process MUST go back to the people through democratic processes of a national forum up to a constituent assembly stage for the people’s full ownership. Anything short thereof is nothing but cosmetic and will only be to the benefit of the monarchy and its surrogates. We call on the local and international community to see and view this position, and also the royal tinkhundla regime visa vis the conventions it is signatory to eg; the NEPAD and its APRM, the Harare Declaration, the African Charter and People’s Rights, the ACP/EU Cotonou Protocol the only way it is – dictatorial.
5.0. Conclusion.
The arrests and recent admission by Mduduzi Dlamini are nothing else but attempts by the regime to silence the voice of opposition in Swaziland, in particular, PUDEMO and its youth league, SWAYOCO. We are not shaken by these clandestine moves, but they only strengthen our resolve to have a constitutional multi-party democracy in Swaziland. We are ready for talks towards this goal, but time is not on our side, and time comes when people say enough is enough and when time for such dialogue wanes.
We are waiting!
Official Statement Of PUDEMO
From the President’s Office.
09th February 2006. Ref.PR17/06PO
SWAZILAND CANNOT BE AN ISLAND OF DICTATORSHIP AND REPRESSION IN A SEA OF DEMOCRACY.
Monday, January 30, 2006
Justice delayed, justice denied
The People's United Democratic Movement of Swaziland
On January 20, 2006, the office of the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) succeeded in delaying the bail hearing for the sixteen political activists facing high treason charges in Swaziland. The hearing was rescheduled for March 7, 2006 after the DPP argued that it was unable to proceed because the South African-based prosecution team was not ready.
This is the first stage of the DPP's plan to use its South African prosecutors to do the regime's dirty work. In this instance, the DPP is hiding behind the hired prosecutors to deny justice to the sixteen detainees. We regard the DPP's argument as a time-buying exercise, which has three objectives.
Firstly , the DPP has not thus far come up with a credible explanation to support its opposition to the bail application. We believe that the DPP has no credible explanation and is playing for time in the hope that it, or the South African lawyers it has employed, will come up with something which will not be laughed out in court. The rescheduling of the bail hearing allows the DPP time to cast about for some credible argument. In the interim, the state will continue to use the media to create a powerful public image of the detainees as serious threats with an established local and external network. As shown in numerous official statements, the intention is to convince the public that the danger is real and there are still "bombers" out there who are intent on continuing the "bombing".
The recent petrol bombing of two public schools (see The Times of Swaziland, January 24, 2006) presents an opportunity for the state to strengthen this image and justify more arrests and the continued detention of the sixteen pro-democracy activists. In every society schools are important symbols of nation building and they are places used by children. In Swaziland, ordinary families largely fund public schools and it is they who will be required to pay for the damage. Many of these families are poverty stricken and will be hard hit by these unexpected costs. Occurring just a few days before the beginning of the new term, the recent incidents are highly likely to generate anger and panic in the community. The nightmare spectre of further petrol bombings will haunt many parents. The state is hoping to use the recent incidents to generate maximum public panic by portraying them as an attack against progress, the community and most importantly as an attack and threat against the vulnerable - children.
The school attacks are likely to achieve the state's objective to generate mass public panic. Swazis are now being told that there are "bombers" who are threatening the country and who have even targeted their children. On the other hand, their government is committing torture and arresting more and more people without having to justify these arrests under law. It is well-known that the aim of torture and mass arrest is primarily to subdue and oppress the mass population. By subjecting a few pro-democracy activists to inhumane conditions, the majority is frightened into submission. As the regime plays out its show, the population will become more and more frightened and traumatised - threatened both by the spectre of the "bombers" on one side and state terrorism on the other.
Any population experiencing this kind of fear is vulnerable to manipulation and increased control by the ruling regime. People will often agree to government actions that they would have previously resisted - they will pay almost any price if they think that it will buy them safety from the threats. We expect that the regime will exploit this vulnerability to the full.
Secondly , the new date for the bail application case is of particular interest to political observers. The date for the rescheduled hearing falls after the official opening of parliament in February 10, 2006. At this ceremony, the King delivers his annual state of the nation address. Undoubtedly, the "bombings" and the detention of the sixteen people will be on the King's agenda as he lays the ground for declaring a state of emergency. It is expected that the King will validate dominant official discourses that the "bombings" and the detainees present a real threat to the public.
It would have not been in the state's interest to allow the case to proceed because the government is anxious to maintain the current conditions until the official opening of parliament. If it had allowed the bail application to be heard as scheduled, the state would have taken enormous risks tantamount to playing Russian roulette. The prosecution's case is extremely weak and a decision in favour of the bail applicants would have seriously damaged the credibility of state propaganda and this in turn would have threatened the rule of law. Since the first arrests, the state has been relentless in its attempt to create and validate an image of the detainees as a danger to the public. If the detainees were released on bail, the state's credibility, particularly the argument that the public is fearful of the detainees, would have suffered a severe blow.
The 2-year judicial crisis, which ran from 2002 to 2004, demonstrated that the state has no respect for the rule of law and does not accept the jurisdiction of the courts to rule on the regime's actions. Thus, it is probable that the regime would have disobeyed the decision of the High Court and refused to release the detainees. This would have created another rule of law crisis.
The regime learned a bitter lesson during the 2002-4 crisis - that overt interference in the administration of justice is a bad strategy. During this crisis, the government wobbled under sustained local and international criticism and demand to restore the rule of law. In 2004, it was ultimately rescued by the Commonwealth Secretariat, which created the impression that it had helped solve the crisis. This is far from the truth as the government never agreed to respect the 2002 rulings of the Court of Appeal. For example, the Commissioner of Police and the Ubombo Regional Police Commander were never committed to prison for contempt of court as per the ruling of the Court of Appeal. In relation to the 200 families and their two chiefs who were evicted from their homes by royal order, the Court of Appeal ruled that they be allowed to return without conditions. Some of the families who returned after the Commonwealth intervention did not do so under the terms of the Court of Appeal ruling but under terms prescribed by the royal family. For example, they had to apologise to the King for supposedly bringing the "good" name of the monarchy into disrepute. The Commonwealth Secretariat made much of its partial success in persuading the Government of Swaziland to repeal the controversial Non-Bailable Order, which partially contributed to the 2002/4 rule of law crises. Under this law, people held for offences such as high treason, murder or attempted murder were denied the right to apply for bail.
It is obvious that the regime has no more respect for the rule of law in 2006 than it did in previous years. It has simply learned to be a little more covert and devious in its repression because it has learned that overt intimidation of the judiciary has costs. Thus, although the Non Bailable Order was repealed, the regime has simply used new tactics to achieve the same goal. Currently, the regime's tactic is to abuse established legal procedures in order to detain suspects for prolonged periods without the inconvenience of having to justify these detentions in court. This is clearly illustrated in the current case, where the regime's capacity to delay the bail hearings without good cause has achieved the same outcome as the Non-Bailable law. The bail hearing is scheduled for March and by that time, some of the detainees will have been in prison for 3 months.
The regime has thus sought to indirectly bypass and emasculate the judicial process rather than direct interference. Whereas the regime has previously sought to control the judiciary by direct physical intimidation, now it seeks control through abuse of legal processes and its power as an employer. Most senior judicial officers, particularly judges of the High Court, serve under short-term contract arrangements. These conditions are counter-productive to the ethos of the independence of the judiciary and have placed members of the judiciary on a tight leash. Consequently, judicial activism in Swaziland is virtually nonexistent and the courts are helpless in protecting their integrity and Swazi citizens against state abuse. Whether by the Non-Bailable Order or by the current tactics, the outcome is that sixteen people are being tortured in prison without even hearing a detailed account of the charges against them.
Thirdly , as argued in our previous analysis of the arrests, the prolonged detentions constitute severe punishment against citizens who as yet have been convicted of no crime. By delaying the case, the state is abusing the court process to inflict as much pain as possible on the detainees. The detainees are held in degrading conditions with appalling sanitation facilities. At the Big Bend Remand Centre , where PUDEMO's Secretary-General is held, 70 prisoners share one toilet which is often blocked because of overuse. Buckets are then used in overcrowded holding cells as alternatives. There are also reports of continued beatings in detention. PUDEMO Treasurer-General, Vusi Mnisi, was granted a rare visit to the Big Bend Remand Centre. Detainees there told him that they have no clean drinking water, they are being denied access to medical services and are exposed to life-threatening diseases such as malaria. Some of them have injuries sustained during torture and have not been taken to a doctor for more than a month. Prison officers have refused offers from relatives and friends to bring clean drinking water and food to the detainees. By delaying the bail hearing, the government is able to force the detainees to serve another month in inhumane conditions.
Lawyers representing well-known PUDEMO activist, Mphandlana Shongwe, complained at the Manzini Magistrate Court during a remand hearing that their client is being held in solitary confinement at the Matsapa Maximum Security Prison (see Swazi Observer, January 26, 2006). They expressed serious concerns about Shongwe's health and requested the Court to issue an order to have him removed from solitary confinement. The prosecution pretended to be ignorant and used the usual delaying tactic by requesting more time to investigate this issue. Magistrate, Nondumiso Simelane, ruled in favour of the prosecution and rescheduled the matter to 2nd February. Meanwhile Shongwe remains in complete solitary confinement in a very small holding cell. According to The Swazi Observer (Ibid), prison authorities claim that Shongwe is a security risk because they suspect that he might incite a prison revolt.
In essence, the regime is carrying out a sentence on the detainees without ever having the case heard in court. Furthermore, we believe that the detainees are suffering psychological torture in many respects, including the indefinite nature of the detentions and the way in which the regime is able to abuse the judicial system with apparent ease. Denying detainees access to medical services, clean drinking water, exposing them to health hazards and holding a person in solitary confinement is inhuman. It is premeditated cruelty and degrading treatment intended to punish the detainees. All these amounts to physical and psychological torture. Article 1(1) of The UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment defines torture as:
…any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.
In his speech marking the International Human Rights Day on December 10, 2005, Commonwealth Secretary-General Don McKinnon, called for collective action against torture:
wherever it rears its ugly head, and to champion the cause of protecting and aiding those who fall victim to torture…We must remember and champion the rights of any person facing persecution, torture and other human rights abuses. We must acknowledge, too, that inexcusable human rights abuses continue to occur and we must use every resource available to bring such practices to an end.
However, under the leadership of Don McKinnon, the Commonwealth Secretariat has stood in the way of the pro-democracy movement in Swaziland and provided unwavering support to a regime that practices torture. Many international organisations have raised concerns about the detention of pro-democracy activists and the practice of torture in Swaziland. It is astounding that the Commonwealth Secretariat has never questioned gross violations of human rights in Swaziland including the recent torture to death of an innocent woman married to one of the detained pro-democracy activists. The Commonwealth seems unconcerned as it shockingly continues to promote the regime as a symbol of democracy. On its website, the Commonwealth Secretariat displays a caption of King Mswati III presenting the Draft Constitution in 2003 to promote the organisation's ideal of democracy and good governance.
On the other hand, the Commonwealth refuses to work with the pro-democracy movement and actively frustrates efforts by the broader Swazi community to bring about meaningful democratic changes in Swaziland. From 1996 to 2005, the Commonwealth supported and defended a royal family stage-managed constitution making exercise that discriminated against the pro-democracy movement and all civic groups. From its inception, the exercise suffered massive legitimacy problems as the majority of Swazis rejected the discriminatory practices and lack of direction associated with this exercise.
As evidenced in recent developments, this crisis and lack of direction have deepened. When King Mswati III signed the Constitution Bill of 2005 into law, he told the public that the Constitution would come into effect after six months without giving a specific date. However, no legal instrument was ever published to stay the operation of the Constitution to a specific date. The phrase "after six months" is incredibly vague and the public was left to assume that the Constitution would take effect a day after the end of the six month period. Even the Prime Minister made this assumption and embarrassed himself when he told the President of Tanzania that the Constitution would come into effect on January 26, 2005 (see The Swazi Observer, January 24, 2006). After his return from the African Union summit in Sudan, the Prime Minister, Themba Dlamini, was made to eat humble pie when he was hauled in to the royal palace for disciplinary action. The king is the only person who has the final say over the date on which the Constitution will come into effect and he, incredibly, is silent.
This is just another example of how King Mswati III holds the Swazi nation in contempt. It shows that he has ownership of the constitution, not the people. On January 26, 2006, civic and pro-democracy organisations led by the trade union movement presented a petition to communicate just that - that the Swazi nation renounces the constitution. Combined, these formations represent a significant section of the population. From previous experience, it is certain that the government will ignore this because it is not accountable to the public. Even if this petition does not result in immediate action by the government, it is a critical development because it has delegitimised the Constitution and recorded for posterity the Swazi people's resistance and refusal to be silenced. The current regime will not stand in the face of gathering local and international exasperation with the regime's lack of genuine change. The so-called "constitution-making exercise" has been a smokescreen for the regime for 8 years but it no longer has this to hide behind. Its fraudulent pretence at change is becoming painfully obvious to even the most reluctant observers and the Swazi people must know that change will come.
While the regime is in power, it may feel to the Swazi people and to members of the regime that it is going to last forever. But this is not the case and history tells us that even the most oppressive regimes eventually fall. And when they do fall, those who have participated in crimes against humanity, those who have tortured and oppressed their fellow citizens, will be eventually held to account. PUDEMO and other pro-democracy organisations are strong and growing in strength. We WILL bring new governance to Swaziland and provide a system based on law and humanitarian values. Swazis must look forward to that time and although sorely oppressed at this time, can prepare for the changes ahead. Victims and families of victims can keep records of crimes against humanity, of oppression and injustice. These records can include dates, times, places, people and the nature of the crimes. In a functioning democracy, all levels of government are accountable for their actions. This includes the head of government, the police commanders and others in authority who order and permit crimes against humanity as well as those who commit those crimes. There will be no individuals who are untouchable. All are accountable and will be held accountable under the rule of law. All around the world, in Africa and Europe, those who commit such heinous crimes are eventually brought to account.
It is scandalous that the regime continues to find comfort from international organisations such as the Commonwealth. This is one factor helping to delay the inevitable changes ahead for Swaziland. On several occasions, we have challenged the Commonwealth Secretariat to justify and explain its continued support of this evil empire. However, like the regime in Swaziland, the Commonwealth has refused to open dialogue with the pro-democracy movement.
PUDEMO and SWAYOCO appeal to international human rights and humanitarian organisations to write to the Commonwealth and condemn its behaviour in relation to Swaziland. Please also write to the Government of Swaziland demanding that it must, as a matter of urgency, remove Mphandlana Shongwe from solitary confinement and allow all the detainees immediate access to medical services, clean drinking water, food and sanitation.
Address your concerns to:
Mr Don McKinnon
The Commonwealth Secretary-General
Commonwealth Secretariat
Marlborough House, Pall Mall
London SW1Y 5HX
UK
E-mail: info@commonwealth.int
Rabab Fatima
Head of Human Rights Unit
Commonwealth Secretariat
Marlborough House, Pall Mall
London SW1Y 5HX
UK
E-mail: r.fatima@commonwealth.int
Phone: +44 (0)20 7747 6500
Fax: +44(0)20 7930 0827
Letters demanding action for Mphandlana Shongwe and urgent access to medical services clean drinking water, food and sanitation should be addressed to:
Mr Absalom Themba Dlamini
The Prime Minister of Swaziland
Hospital Hill
P.O. Box 395 Mbabane
Swaziland
Southern Africa
E-mail: (Secretary to Cabinet): sec-tocab@realnet.co.sz
OR
msppcu@realnet.co.sz
Phone: +268 404 2251/3
Fax: +268 404 3943
Signed:
Dr. Jabulane Matsebula
PUDEMO Representative
Australia, Asia and the Pacific Region.
For more information contact
Kislon P. Shongwe
Deputy Secretary General PUDEMO based in Swaziland
Cell: 268-611-2351
In South African Contact
Dr Gabriel Mkhumane
PUDEMO representative in Africa based in Johannesburg
Cell: 27-82-707-8384 or 27-72-040-8484
Justice delayed, justice denied
On January 20, 2006, the office of the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) succeeded in delaying the bail hearing for the sixteen political activists facing high treason charges in Swaziland. The hearing was rescheduled for March 7, 2006 after the DPP argued that it was unable to proceed because the South African-based prosecution team was not ready.
This is the first stage of the DPP's plan to use its South African prosecutors to do the regime's dirty work. In this instance, the DPP is hiding behind the hired prosecutors to deny justice to the sixteen detainees. We regard the DPP's argument as a time-buying exercise, which has three objectives.
Firstly , the DPP has not thus far come up with a credible explanation to support its opposition to the bail application. We believe that the DPP has no credible explanation and is playing for time in the hope that it, or the South African lawyers it has employed, will come up with something which will not be laughed out in court. The rescheduling of the bail hearing allows the DPP time to cast about for some credible argument. In the interim, the state will continue to use the media to create a powerful public image of the detainees as serious threats with an established local and external network. As shown in numerous official statements, the intention is to convince the public that the danger is real and there are still "bombers" out there who are intent on continuing the "bombing".
The recent petrol bombing of two public schools (see The Times of Swaziland, January 24, 2006) presents an opportunity for the state to strengthen this image and justify more arrests and the continued detention of the sixteen pro-democracy activists. In every society schools are important symbols of nation building and they are places used by children. In Swaziland, ordinary families largely fund public schools and it is they who will be required to pay for the damage. Many of these families are poverty stricken and will be hard hit by these unexpected costs. Occurring just a few days before the beginning of the new term, the recent incidents are highly likely to generate anger and panic in the community. The nightmare spectre of further petrol bombings will haunt many parents. The state is hoping to use the recent incidents to generate maximum public panic by portraying them as an attack against progress, the community and most importantly as an attack and threat against the vulnerable - children.
The school attacks are likely to achieve the state's objective to generate mass public panic. Swazis are now being told that there are "bombers" who are threatening the country and who have even targeted their children. On the other hand, their government is committing torture and arresting more and more people without having to justify these arrests under law. It is well-known that the aim of torture and mass arrest is primarily to subdue and oppress the mass population. By subjecting a few pro-democracy activists to inhumane conditions, the majority is frightened into submission. As the regime plays out its show, the population will become more and more frightened and traumatised - threatened both by the spectre of the "bombers" on one side and state terrorism on the other.
Any population experiencing this kind of fear is vulnerable to manipulation and increased control by the ruling regime. People will often agree to government actions that they would have previously resisted - they will pay almost any price if they think that it will buy them safety from the threats. We expect that the regime will exploit this vulnerability to the full.
Secondly , the new date for the bail application case is of particular interest to political observers. The date for the rescheduled hearing falls after the official opening of parliament in February 10, 2006. At this ceremony, the King delivers his annual state of the nation address. Undoubtedly, the "bombings" and the detention of the sixteen people will be on the King's agenda as he lays the ground for declaring a state of emergency. It is expected that the King will validate dominant official discourses that the "bombings" and the detainees present a real threat to the public.
It would have not been in the state's interest to allow the case to proceed because the government is anxious to maintain the current conditions until the official opening of parliament. If it had allowed the bail application to be heard as scheduled, the state would have taken enormous risks tantamount to playing Russian roulette. The prosecution's case is extremely weak and a decision in favour of the bail applicants would have seriously damaged the credibility of state propaganda and this in turn would have threatened the rule of law. Since the first arrests, the state has been relentless in its attempt to create and validate an image of the detainees as a danger to the public. If the detainees were released on bail, the state's credibility, particularly the argument that the public is fearful of the detainees, would have suffered a severe blow.
The 2-year judicial crisis, which ran from 2002 to 2004, demonstrated that the state has no respect for the rule of law and does not accept the jurisdiction of the courts to rule on the regime's actions. Thus, it is probable that the regime would have disobeyed the decision of the High Court and refused to release the detainees. This would have created another rule of law crisis.
The regime learned a bitter lesson during the 2002-4 crisis - that overt interference in the administration of justice is a bad strategy. During this crisis, the government wobbled under sustained local and international criticism and demand to restore the rule of law. In 2004, it was ultimately rescued by the Commonwealth Secretariat, which created the impression that it had helped solve the crisis. This is far from the truth as the government never agreed to respect the 2002 rulings of the Court of Appeal. For example, the Commissioner of Police and the Ubombo Regional Police Commander were never committed to prison for contempt of court as per the ruling of the Court of Appeal. In relation to the 200 families and their two chiefs who were evicted from their homes by royal order, the Court of Appeal ruled that they be allowed to return without conditions. Some of the families who returned after the Commonwealth intervention did not do so under the terms of the Court of Appeal ruling but under terms prescribed by the royal family. For example, they had to apologise to the King for supposedly bringing the "good" name of the monarchy into disrepute. The Commonwealth Secretariat made much of its partial success in persuading the Government of Swaziland to repeal the controversial Non-Bailable Order, which partially contributed to the 2002/4 rule of law crises. Under this law, people held for offences such as high treason, murder or attempted murder were denied the right to apply for bail.
It is obvious that the regime has no more respect for the rule of law in 2006 than it did in previous years. It has simply learned to be a little more covert and devious in its repression because it has learned that overt intimidation of the judiciary has costs. Thus, although the Non Bailable Order was repealed, the regime has simply used new tactics to achieve the same goal. Currently, the regime's tactic is to abuse established legal procedures in order to detain suspects for prolonged periods without the inconvenience of having to justify these detentions in court. This is clearly illustrated in the current case, where the regime's capacity to delay the bail hearings without good cause has achieved the same outcome as the Non-Bailable law. The bail hearing is scheduled for March and by that time, some of the detainees will have been in prison for 3 months.
The regime has thus sought to indirectly bypass and emasculate the judicial process rather than direct interference. Whereas the regime has previously sought to control the judiciary by direct physical intimidation, now it seeks control through abuse of legal processes and its power as an employer. Most senior judicial officers, particularly judges of the High Court, serve under short-term contract arrangements. These conditions are counter-productive to the ethos of the independence of the judiciary and have placed members of the judiciary on a tight leash. Consequently, judicial activism in Swaziland is virtually nonexistent and the courts are helpless in protecting their integrity and Swazi citizens against state abuse. Whether by the Non-Bailable Order or by the current tactics, the outcome is that sixteen people are being tortured in prison without even hearing a detailed account of the charges against them.
Thirdly , as argued in our previous analysis of the arrests, the prolonged detentions constitute severe punishment against citizens who as yet have been convicted of no crime. By delaying the case, the state is abusing the court process to inflict as much pain as possible on the detainees. The detainees are held in degrading conditions with appalling sanitation facilities. At the Big Bend Remand Centre , where PUDEMO's Secretary-General is held, 70 prisoners share one toilet which is often blocked because of overuse. Buckets are then used in overcrowded holding cells as alternatives. There are also reports of continued beatings in detention. PUDEMO Treasurer-General, Vusi Mnisi, was granted a rare visit to the Big Bend Remand Centre. Detainees there told him that they have no clean drinking water, they are being denied access to medical services and are exposed to life-threatening diseases such as malaria. Some of them have injuries sustained during torture and have not been taken to a doctor for more than a month. Prison officers have refused offers from relatives and friends to bring clean drinking water and food to the detainees. By delaying the bail hearing, the government is able to force the detainees to serve another month in inhumane conditions.
Lawyers representing well-known PUDEMO activist, Mphandlana Shongwe, complained at the Manzini Magistrate Court during a remand hearing that their client is being held in solitary confinement at the Matsapa Maximum Security Prison (see Swazi Observer, January 26, 2006). They expressed serious concerns about Shongwe's health and requested the Court to issue an order to have him removed from solitary confinement. The prosecution pretended to be ignorant and used the usual delaying tactic by requesting more time to investigate this issue. Magistrate, Nondumiso Simelane, ruled in favour of the prosecution and rescheduled the matter to 2nd February. Meanwhile Shongwe remains in complete solitary confinement in a very small holding cell. According to The Swazi Observer (Ibid), prison authorities claim that Shongwe is a security risk because they suspect that he might incite a prison revolt.
In essence, the regime is carrying out a sentence on the detainees without ever having the case heard in court. Furthermore, we believe that the detainees are suffering psychological torture in many respects, including the indefinite nature of the detentions and the way in which the regime is able to abuse the judicial system with apparent ease. Denying detainees access to medical services, clean drinking water, exposing them to health hazards and holding a person in solitary confinement is inhuman. It is premeditated cruelty and degrading treatment intended to punish the detainees. All these amounts to physical and psychological torture. Article 1(1) of The UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment defines torture as:
…any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.
In his speech marking the International Human Rights Day on December 10, 2005, Commonwealth Secretary-General Don McKinnon, called for collective action against torture:
wherever it rears its ugly head, and to champion the cause of protecting and aiding those who fall victim to torture…We must remember and champion the rights of any person facing persecution, torture and other human rights abuses. We must acknowledge, too, that inexcusable human rights abuses continue to occur and we must use every resource available to bring such practices to an end.
However, under the leadership of Don McKinnon, the Commonwealth Secretariat has stood in the way of the pro-democracy movement in Swaziland and provided unwavering support to a regime that practices torture. Many international organisations have raised concerns about the detention of pro-democracy activists and the practice of torture in Swaziland. It is astounding that the Commonwealth Secretariat has never questioned gross violations of human rights in Swaziland including the recent torture to death of an innocent woman married to one of the detained pro-democracy activists. The Commonwealth seems unconcerned as it shockingly continues to promote the regime as a symbol of democracy. On its website, the Commonwealth Secretariat displays a caption of King Mswati III presenting the Draft Constitution in 2003 to promote the organisation's ideal of democracy and good governance.
On the other hand, the Commonwealth refuses to work with the pro-democracy movement and actively frustrates efforts by the broader Swazi community to bring about meaningful democratic changes in Swaziland. From 1996 to 2005, the Commonwealth supported and defended a royal family stage-managed constitution making exercise that discriminated against the pro-democracy movement and all civic groups. From its inception, the exercise suffered massive legitimacy problems as the majority of Swazis rejected the discriminatory practices and lack of direction associated with this exercise.
As evidenced in recent developments, this crisis and lack of direction have deepened. When King Mswati III signed the Constitution Bill of 2005 into law, he told the public that the Constitution would come into effect after six months without giving a specific date. However, no legal instrument was ever published to stay the operation of the Constitution to a specific date. The phrase "after six months" is incredibly vague and the public was left to assume that the Constitution would take effect a day after the end of the six month period. Even the Prime Minister made this assumption and embarrassed himself when he told the President of Tanzania that the Constitution would come into effect on January 26, 2005 (see The Swazi Observer, January 24, 2006). After his return from the African Union summit in Sudan, the Prime Minister, Themba Dlamini, was made to eat humble pie when he was hauled in to the royal palace for disciplinary action. The king is the only person who has the final say over the date on which the Constitution will come into effect and he, incredibly, is silent.
This is just another example of how King Mswati III holds the Swazi nation in contempt. It shows that he has ownership of the constitution, not the people. On January 26, 2006, civic and pro-democracy organisations led by the trade union movement presented a petition to communicate just that - that the Swazi nation renounces the constitution. Combined, these formations represent a significant section of the population. From previous experience, it is certain that the government will ignore this because it is not accountable to the public. Even if this petition does not result in immediate action by the government, it is a critical development because it has delegitimised the Constitution and recorded for posterity the Swazi people's resistance and refusal to be silenced. The current regime will not stand in the face of gathering local and international exasperation with the regime's lack of genuine change. The so-called "constitution-making exercise" has been a smokescreen for the regime for 8 years but it no longer has this to hide behind. Its fraudulent pretence at change is becoming painfully obvious to even the most reluctant observers and the Swazi people must know that change will come.
While the regime is in power, it may feel to the Swazi people and to members of the regime that it is going to last forever. But this is not the case and history tells us that even the most oppressive regimes eventually fall. And when they do fall, those who have participated in crimes against humanity, those who have tortured and oppressed their fellow citizens, will be eventually held to account. PUDEMO and other pro-democracy organisations are strong and growing in strength. We WILL bring new governance to Swaziland and provide a system based on law and humanitarian values. Swazis must look forward to that time and although sorely oppressed at this time, can prepare for the changes ahead. Victims and families of victims can keep records of crimes against humanity, of oppression and injustice. These records can include dates, times, places, people and the nature of the crimes. In a functioning democracy, all levels of government are accountable for their actions. This includes the head of government, the police commanders and others in authority who order and permit crimes against humanity as well as those who commit those crimes. There will be no individuals who are untouchable. All are accountable and will be held accountable under the rule of law. All around the world, in Africa and Europe, those who commit such heinous crimes are eventually brought to account.
It is scandalous that the regime continues to find comfort from international organisations such as the Commonwealth. This is one factor helping to delay the inevitable changes ahead for Swaziland. On several occasions, we have challenged the Commonwealth Secretariat to justify and explain its continued support of this evil empire. However, like the regime in Swaziland, the Commonwealth has refused to open dialogue with the pro-democracy movement.
PUDEMO and SWAYOCO appeal to international human rights and humanitarian organisations to write to the Commonwealth and condemn its behaviour in relation to Swaziland. Please also write to the Government of Swaziland demanding that it must, as a matter of urgency, remove Mphandlana Shongwe from solitary confinement and allow all the detainees immediate access to medical services, clean drinking water, food and sanitation.
Address your concerns to:
Mr Don McKinnon
The Commonwealth Secretary-General
Commonwealth Secretariat
Marlborough House, Pall Mall
London SW1Y 5HX
UK
E-mail: info@commonwealth.int
Rabab Fatima
Head of Human Rights Unit
Commonwealth Secretariat
Marlborough House, Pall Mall
London SW1Y 5HX
UK
E-mail: r.fatima@commonwealth.int
Phone: +44 (0)20 7747 6500
Fax: +44(0)20 7930 0827
Letters demanding action for Mphandlana Shongwe and urgent access to medical services clean drinking water, food and sanitation should be addressed to:
Mr Absalom Themba Dlamini
The Prime Minister of Swaziland
Hospital Hill
P.O. Box 395 Mbabane
Swaziland
Southern Africa
E-mail: (Secretary to Cabinet): sec-tocab@realnet.co.sz
OR
msppcu@realnet.co.sz
Phone: +268 404 2251/3
Fax: +268 404 3943
Signed:
Dr. Jabulane Matsebula
PUDEMO Representative
Australia, Asia and the Pacific Region.
For more information contact
Kislon P. Shongwe
Deputy Secretary General PUDEMO based in Swaziland
Cell: 268-611-2351
In South African Contact
Dr Gabriel Mkhumane
PUDEMO representative in Africa based in Johannesburg
Cell: 27-82-707-8384 or 27-72-040-8484
Sunday, January 1, 2006
Swazi political activists face death
The People's United Democratic Movement of Swaziland
Australia, Asian and the Pacific Region
E-mail: pudemo@yahoo.co.uk
January 1, 2006
Holding the bastards accountable
Two weeks before Christmas, Swaziland police arrested thirteen PUDEMO and SWAYOCO members on various trumped-up charges ranging from arson to attempted murder. These charges have now been upgraded to High Treason which carries a possible sentence of death or life imprisonment. The original charges have been upgraded for no apparently good reason. We challenge the government to explain what it is the activists are alleged to have done and how this can possibly be regarded as treason.
The Director of Public Prosecution, Mumsy Dlamini, has now sought the services of a South African lawyer to prosecute the charges because she knows that these are trumped up charges and she would find it extremely difficult to prove the case against the thirteen. The DDP’s decision also reflects the inefficiency, incompetence and irresponsible spending of this government. Why should taxpayers pay a South African lawyer to do the DDP’s dirty work? There is no justification whatsoever for this spending of public funds which will run into hundreds of thousands of dollars.
This recent development is tragic and sends an unambiguous message to the Swazi nation of the regime’s intent to ruthlessly suppress the movement for democracy. It ends a year in which the Swazi nation witnessed the arrogant imposition of the Commonwealth-sponsored Constitution of the Kingdom of Swaziland Act, 2005. The enactment of this Constitution occurred against the backdrop of massive public disenchantment with the constitution making exercise, particularly the exclusion of political and civic organisations from the process, the absence of public education on constitutional matters and the failure to embrace democracy.
With absolute control over the constitution making exercise and undivided support from the Commonwealth Secretariat, the royal family government was able to enshrine its ruthless policies in the new Constitution. These include the death penalty for treason and violent suppression of political dissent. Section 15(c) of The Constitution of the Kingdom of Swaziland Act, 2005 gives authority to state security forces to kill Swazis “for the purpose of suppressing a riot”. Many people would be horrified to know that the Commonwealth Secretariat helped to develop and gave its seal of approval to a constitution that enshrines the death penalty and gives power to security forces to murder Swazis. The Constitution of the Kingdom of Swaziland Act, 2005 casts serious doubts over the Commonwealth’s claim that it is genuinely committed to the principles of democracy and human rights.
At the 2005 Commonwealth Heads of Government (CHOGM) in Malta, the Commonwealth Secretary General, Don McKinnon, let the cat out of the bag in his infamous statement in which he claimed that “…people are beginning to ask…whether building a democracy is really the road to prosperity. Does democracy put food on our tables, clothe our children, put roofs over our heads and give us a future?” (November 25, 2005). It not clear to which people the Secretary General was referring because the call for democracy, a framework for good governance, socio-economic progress and respect for human rights, is a common theme throughout the world. McKinnon is a politician renown for his conservative views in his home country New Zealand, and it is obvious that on this occasion, he was speaking on behalf of tyrants. His statement is a coup against the Commonwealth Harare Declaration of 1991 which places primary emphasis on democracy. It gives comfort to tyrannical regimes within the Commonwealth club which can now confidently use the cliché “people can’t eat democracy” to justify crimes against their people.
As demonstrated in the recent arrests of pro-democracy activists in Swaziland, the Commonwealth-sponsored Constitution has given strength to the government’s violent rage. We are extremely concerned about the thirteen political prisoners and the support the Commonwealth continues to render to this murderous regime. This support has contributed enormously to the destabilisation of our society. Supporting tyrants never creates stability and it does not make sense morally and politically to continue insulating this cruel regime. Through this support, the Commonwealth Secretariat has effectively declared itself an enemy of democracy and a defacto oppressor of our nation. As a liberation movement, we hold the Commonwealth responsible for the arrest and torture of the pro-democracy activists and the continued repression of our people. PUDEMO and SWAYOCO will fight the Commonwealth by intensifying the international campaign to expose the organisation’s agenda to aid repression in Swaziland.
We appeal to the broader international community to condemn and express disgust at the Commonwealth’s support of the repressive regime in Swaziland. The Commonwealth must shape up or ship out of Swaziland if it is not willing to help build democracy by enforcing compliance with the Commonwealth Harare Declaration of 1991. The recent political arrests and the enactment of an anti-democratic constitution seriously undermines the fundamental principles of the Harare Declaration against political persecution, torture, repressive governance and neglect.
Events in the past year indicate that repression in Swaziland and neglect of political responsibility will continue into 2006 and beyond. Swaziland is a failing state with a track-record of years of social, political and economic neglect. Corruption is rife and embedded in most economic and political sectors. Private companies collude with government departments and individuals to plunder the economy through fictitious services and exorbitant costings. Recently, we saw a consultant accounting company collude with the government to award politicians an exorbitant pay rise. There is escalating HIV/AIDS infection with no effective intervention strategy in sight. More than 40% of the population of just over a million people is HIV positive and about 70 000 children are now orphans because of the epidemic. The responsibility for responding to this epidemic has been left to inadequately resourced non-government organisations. Healthcare services in public facilities have declined to an alarming level with patients sharing wards with rats. All the authorities could say is that they are planning to do something about the rat plague at the Mbabane Government Hospital (see The Times of Swaziland December 28, 2005). The rate of poverty continues to rise and there is no long-term strategic plan to reduce the deficit and encourage growth in the economy apart from reducing the public sector workforce by 10,000. This strategy is not visionary for two reasons. Firstly, it is highly possible that the redundancy programme would mostly affect low paid employees and exacerbate the problem of poverty and unemployment. Secondly, the decision ignores the key areas responsible for the deficit and negative economic growth – the current political system, lack of leadership and irresponsible spending by politicians and the royal family household.
This is not our vision for Swaziland. It is our strong belief that the current political system is at the core of the currently disastrous state of the nation. Fixing the political system and building a strong system of responsible governance is PUDEMO’s priority. Unlike the Commonwealth, we strongly believe that democracy can bring social, economic and political prosperity. Swaziland has enormous potential to grow economically but this has been suppressed by bad governance, self-interest and the absence of a bigger vision among generations of politicians. Hence, Swaziland has not been able to aggressively diversify the economy and continues to rely on highly fluid economic industries such as agriculture and textiles. The recent collapse of the world sugar price and closure of a number of local textile industries are testimony to the instability of these investments. Diversification of the economy, eg., expanding from traditional investments such as agriculture to new areas of economic activity remains an elusive vision in Swaziland. The intellectual potential of the nation has not been adequately explored as an economic resource as there has been little investment in technology and other areas of intellectual activity. Furthermore, lack of state leadership has resulted in the failure to develop a culture of efficiency and accountability. Brain drain from Swaziland is a huge problem. Professionals leave Swaziland in large numbers because the political system suppresses intellectual development and freedom. Through fear of reprimand, many intellectuals who stay in Swaziland are trapped in their small cocoons and rarely venture out to express alternative visions for Swaziland.
The arrests of the thirteen pro-democracy activists are an important part of the total strategy to suppress intellectual freedom. In their daily activities in the pro-democracy movement, the thirteen political prisoners have contributed valuable intellectual material to the progress of our nation. We honour and respect this contribution. Their incarceration is a tragic end to a bad year and another step backwards for social, political and economic development. These charges have no basis and we will fight them all the way to the Court of Appeal.
As a liberation movement with strong conviction to act for the good of our nation, we will continue to pursue the royal family government and hold it accountable for its actions. The incarceration of our members is an act of bastardisation and will not defeat our resolve to overthrow this illegitimate regime and make a difference to Swaziland.
Signed:
Dr Jabulane Matsebula
PUDEMO Representative
Australia, Asia and the Pacific Region.
PUDEMO
International OfficeAustralia, Asian and the Pacific Region
E-mail: pudemo@yahoo.co.uk
January 1, 2006
Holding the bastards accountable
Two weeks before Christmas, Swaziland police arrested thirteen PUDEMO and SWAYOCO members on various trumped-up charges ranging from arson to attempted murder. These charges have now been upgraded to High Treason which carries a possible sentence of death or life imprisonment. The original charges have been upgraded for no apparently good reason. We challenge the government to explain what it is the activists are alleged to have done and how this can possibly be regarded as treason.
The Director of Public Prosecution, Mumsy Dlamini, has now sought the services of a South African lawyer to prosecute the charges because she knows that these are trumped up charges and she would find it extremely difficult to prove the case against the thirteen. The DDP’s decision also reflects the inefficiency, incompetence and irresponsible spending of this government. Why should taxpayers pay a South African lawyer to do the DDP’s dirty work? There is no justification whatsoever for this spending of public funds which will run into hundreds of thousands of dollars.
This recent development is tragic and sends an unambiguous message to the Swazi nation of the regime’s intent to ruthlessly suppress the movement for democracy. It ends a year in which the Swazi nation witnessed the arrogant imposition of the Commonwealth-sponsored Constitution of the Kingdom of Swaziland Act, 2005. The enactment of this Constitution occurred against the backdrop of massive public disenchantment with the constitution making exercise, particularly the exclusion of political and civic organisations from the process, the absence of public education on constitutional matters and the failure to embrace democracy.
With absolute control over the constitution making exercise and undivided support from the Commonwealth Secretariat, the royal family government was able to enshrine its ruthless policies in the new Constitution. These include the death penalty for treason and violent suppression of political dissent. Section 15(c) of The Constitution of the Kingdom of Swaziland Act, 2005 gives authority to state security forces to kill Swazis “for the purpose of suppressing a riot”. Many people would be horrified to know that the Commonwealth Secretariat helped to develop and gave its seal of approval to a constitution that enshrines the death penalty and gives power to security forces to murder Swazis. The Constitution of the Kingdom of Swaziland Act, 2005 casts serious doubts over the Commonwealth’s claim that it is genuinely committed to the principles of democracy and human rights.
At the 2005 Commonwealth Heads of Government (CHOGM) in Malta, the Commonwealth Secretary General, Don McKinnon, let the cat out of the bag in his infamous statement in which he claimed that “…people are beginning to ask…whether building a democracy is really the road to prosperity. Does democracy put food on our tables, clothe our children, put roofs over our heads and give us a future?” (November 25, 2005). It not clear to which people the Secretary General was referring because the call for democracy, a framework for good governance, socio-economic progress and respect for human rights, is a common theme throughout the world. McKinnon is a politician renown for his conservative views in his home country New Zealand, and it is obvious that on this occasion, he was speaking on behalf of tyrants. His statement is a coup against the Commonwealth Harare Declaration of 1991 which places primary emphasis on democracy. It gives comfort to tyrannical regimes within the Commonwealth club which can now confidently use the cliché “people can’t eat democracy” to justify crimes against their people.
As demonstrated in the recent arrests of pro-democracy activists in Swaziland, the Commonwealth-sponsored Constitution has given strength to the government’s violent rage. We are extremely concerned about the thirteen political prisoners and the support the Commonwealth continues to render to this murderous regime. This support has contributed enormously to the destabilisation of our society. Supporting tyrants never creates stability and it does not make sense morally and politically to continue insulating this cruel regime. Through this support, the Commonwealth Secretariat has effectively declared itself an enemy of democracy and a defacto oppressor of our nation. As a liberation movement, we hold the Commonwealth responsible for the arrest and torture of the pro-democracy activists and the continued repression of our people. PUDEMO and SWAYOCO will fight the Commonwealth by intensifying the international campaign to expose the organisation’s agenda to aid repression in Swaziland.
We appeal to the broader international community to condemn and express disgust at the Commonwealth’s support of the repressive regime in Swaziland. The Commonwealth must shape up or ship out of Swaziland if it is not willing to help build democracy by enforcing compliance with the Commonwealth Harare Declaration of 1991. The recent political arrests and the enactment of an anti-democratic constitution seriously undermines the fundamental principles of the Harare Declaration against political persecution, torture, repressive governance and neglect.
Events in the past year indicate that repression in Swaziland and neglect of political responsibility will continue into 2006 and beyond. Swaziland is a failing state with a track-record of years of social, political and economic neglect. Corruption is rife and embedded in most economic and political sectors. Private companies collude with government departments and individuals to plunder the economy through fictitious services and exorbitant costings. Recently, we saw a consultant accounting company collude with the government to award politicians an exorbitant pay rise. There is escalating HIV/AIDS infection with no effective intervention strategy in sight. More than 40% of the population of just over a million people is HIV positive and about 70 000 children are now orphans because of the epidemic. The responsibility for responding to this epidemic has been left to inadequately resourced non-government organisations. Healthcare services in public facilities have declined to an alarming level with patients sharing wards with rats. All the authorities could say is that they are planning to do something about the rat plague at the Mbabane Government Hospital (see The Times of Swaziland December 28, 2005). The rate of poverty continues to rise and there is no long-term strategic plan to reduce the deficit and encourage growth in the economy apart from reducing the public sector workforce by 10,000. This strategy is not visionary for two reasons. Firstly, it is highly possible that the redundancy programme would mostly affect low paid employees and exacerbate the problem of poverty and unemployment. Secondly, the decision ignores the key areas responsible for the deficit and negative economic growth – the current political system, lack of leadership and irresponsible spending by politicians and the royal family household.
This is not our vision for Swaziland. It is our strong belief that the current political system is at the core of the currently disastrous state of the nation. Fixing the political system and building a strong system of responsible governance is PUDEMO’s priority. Unlike the Commonwealth, we strongly believe that democracy can bring social, economic and political prosperity. Swaziland has enormous potential to grow economically but this has been suppressed by bad governance, self-interest and the absence of a bigger vision among generations of politicians. Hence, Swaziland has not been able to aggressively diversify the economy and continues to rely on highly fluid economic industries such as agriculture and textiles. The recent collapse of the world sugar price and closure of a number of local textile industries are testimony to the instability of these investments. Diversification of the economy, eg., expanding from traditional investments such as agriculture to new areas of economic activity remains an elusive vision in Swaziland. The intellectual potential of the nation has not been adequately explored as an economic resource as there has been little investment in technology and other areas of intellectual activity. Furthermore, lack of state leadership has resulted in the failure to develop a culture of efficiency and accountability. Brain drain from Swaziland is a huge problem. Professionals leave Swaziland in large numbers because the political system suppresses intellectual development and freedom. Through fear of reprimand, many intellectuals who stay in Swaziland are trapped in their small cocoons and rarely venture out to express alternative visions for Swaziland.
The arrests of the thirteen pro-democracy activists are an important part of the total strategy to suppress intellectual freedom. In their daily activities in the pro-democracy movement, the thirteen political prisoners have contributed valuable intellectual material to the progress of our nation. We honour and respect this contribution. Their incarceration is a tragic end to a bad year and another step backwards for social, political and economic development. These charges have no basis and we will fight them all the way to the Court of Appeal.
As a liberation movement with strong conviction to act for the good of our nation, we will continue to pursue the royal family government and hold it accountable for its actions. The incarceration of our members is an act of bastardisation and will not defeat our resolve to overthrow this illegitimate regime and make a difference to Swaziland.
Signed:
Dr Jabulane Matsebula
PUDEMO Representative
Australia, Asia and the Pacific Region.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)