International Press Institute

http://www.freemedia.at/cms/ipi/freedom_detail.html?cou
ntry=/KW0001/KW0006/KW0178/

2007

Swaziland

In late November of 2006, the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) noted with
concern a pattern of lawsuits against the media in Swaziland, particularly the Times,
the country’s only independent newspaper. The organisation indicated that the legal
proceedings were having a noticeable effect on the country’s journalistic standards,
with the media increasingly focusing on stories involving sex and murder instead of
political commentary and investigative pieces. The concern appeared well founded,
with developments this past year demonstrating a continued eagerness by both
private and public figures to use judicial procedures for purposes of stifling critical
reporting.
The remedy of choice continued to be criminal defamation lawsuits. In April, MISA’s
annual publication, "So this is Democracy? State of the Media in Southern Africa",
which records incidents of media freedom violations monitored in the previous year,
identified Swaziland as one of six African nations with a particularly high number of
such cases.
In March, the High Court of Swaziland dismissed a US$100,000 defamation lawsuit
against the Times of Swaziland newspaper for citing the wrong parties. The suit, filed
by Themba Msibi, the Minister for Education, was sparked by a November 2004
editorial. The court concluded that the wrong people were cited in the particulars of
claim and therefore dismissed the case with costs. However, the minister's attorney
immediately announced his intent to file new papers.
In June, businessman Kareem Ashraff sued the privately owned Nation magazine for
defamation, after a November 2005 article published therein claimed that his
company, which supplies goods to the Swaziland Defence Force, was "milking" the
government. The article was based on an earlier government report identifying a
number of local companies, including Ashraff’s, of inflating invoices and engaging in
other corrupt practices. Ashraff’s suit sought approximately US$750,000. In mid-June,
Ashraff filed supplementary papers in the case, prompting a request for a
postponement by counsel for the Nation, regarding which the Swaziland High Court
reserved judgment.
In July, Marwick Khumalo, a parliament member and former journalist, sued Bheki
Makhubu, editor of Nation magazine, for approx. US$500,000, alleging defamation.
Makhubu’s offending article, published in the magazine’s June edition, claimed that
Khumalo and two of his business associates, including a Cabinet Minister, attempted
to obtain a government pharmaceutical tender through corrupt means. The tender for
the supply of drugs to government hospitals and clinics was eventually suspended,
resulting in drastic consequences for the government, with hospitals and clinics
unable to provide drugs to their patients. A resulting parliamentary probe identified
Khumalo as one of those responsible for the crisis. Makhubu’s article criticised
Khumalo and his business associates for their alleged corrupt behaviour, and even
dared them to sue him for his opinion. The case is yet to be heard in court.
Defamation lawsuits were not the only judicial remedy used to interfere with the
media in Swaziland. In June, Njabulo Mabuza, the Minister for Health and Social
Welfare, simply banned the media from entering Swaziland’s biggest hospital, after
various publications published exposés alleging that a pattern of staff negligence and
drug shortages resulted in the death of a young girl. Similar accusations had been
published in the past, prompting Mabuza, a week earlier, to issue a government
memo to the hospital administration, instructing the same to deny media access to
the hospital premises without his permission.
On 23 June, Albert Masango, a photographer for the Times of Swaziland, was denied
access to the hospital pursuant to the ban. Security personnel pulled Masango out of
the premises and carried him out to the gate, telling him that a new law required
journalists to obtain permission from the minister or his principal secretary. The
Minister later confirmed the new order. While he promised to issue a letter providing
the Times access to the hospital, MISA learned that the government had also banned
hospital staff from talking to the media about anything at the hospital. Media
organisations including MISA Swaziland soon announced their intention to meet the
minister to protest the ban.
Swaziland’s media was this year also confronted with a more surprising source of
harassment. On 2 March, Justice Dlamini, a controversial church pastor, declared
during a sermon that he was praying for the death of two journalists, Times of
Swaziland managing editor Martin Dlamini and reporter Nhlanhla Mathunjwa, several
days after the publication of a story detailing a squabble between the pastor and one
of his subordinates over a church vehicle. Dlamini, who insisted the story "lowered his
dignity," said he had prayed to God to remove the two journalists from the face of the
earth "to teach the media a lesson," adding that this would also be a lesson to other
journalists tempted to write "badly" about church ministers. The remarks triggered
widespread condemnation, including from Cabinet Ministers present at the sermon, a
Times editorial on the matter, and a public statement by MISA Swaziland,
emphasising that such threats undermined the principle of freedom of expression and
calling on Dlamini to follow more appropriate channels for addressing his gripes
against journalists.
Swaziland’s journalistic community also received some favourable attention, with the
Index on Censorship, an organisation that issues annual awards to those who use
journalism, literature, whistleblowing, films or campaigns to defend freedom of
expression, selecting Swazilad’s Siphiwe Hlophe for the campaigning award, based on
her work on behalf of HIV-infected women.
Similarly, the ultimate outcome of a parliamentary-initiated investigation suggested
that there is room for positive developments. On 4 July, members of parliament
passed a resolution to probe Mbongeni Mbingo, editor of Times of Swaziland, for an
article of his that discussed an alleged decision by the Cabinet and the Swazi National
Council Standing Committee (SNCSC) to secretly amend certain provisions of the
country’s Constitution, without informing its citizens and without following the
applicable legal requirements. The article questioned the Speaker’s decision to block a
motion by a parliamentarian seeking to challenge the amendment plans. The House
responded by appointing a five-member Select Committee to investigate the editor
and his publication for alleged contempt of parliament, which carries a maximum jail
term of two years or a fine of about US$600.
However, on 10 October 2007, Mbingo was cleared of the contempt charges. The
Select Committee concluded that the editor did not in any way abuse freedom of the
press, but instead was legitimately expressing his journalistic opinion, protected by
the country’s Bill of Rights. During its investigation, the Select Committee summoned
MISA Swaziland, which spoke on Mbingo’s right to express his opinions. The
organisation expressed delight with the committee’s conclusion, noting that its
"advocacy agenda, as well as our resolve to educate the members of Parliament on
freedom of expression, is bearing fruits." MISA also appealed to the House to commit
to several specific statutory reforms, including the enactment of legislation to enable
live broadcasting and telecasting of House and Committee debates and proceedings
and repealing the provisions of the parliament’s so-called "Standing Order", which
addresses punishment by the entity for breaches of privilege and contempt.

International Press Institute

World Press Freedom Review

2006
Swaziland

Swaziland is a country ruled tightly by its royal family. Freedom of the press is
restricted in matters concerning the king, his family and politics in general.
Journalists have little in the way of legal protection when carrying out their work and
there are several laws limiting the right to report. Among them, the 1938 Sedition
and Subversive Activities Act that forbids the publication of any criticism of the
monarchy–as a result, most reporting concerning the king’s activities involve self-
censorship.
The Proscribed Publications Act also gives the government the right to ban
publications, if they are deemed "prejudicial or potentially prejudicial to the interests
of defence, public safety, public order, public morality, or public health." This law has
been used on several occasions against the press. Moreover, journalists face harsh
defamation laws, often invoked by politicians against critical media outlets.
This year, however, the Minister for Public Service and Information, Themba Msibi,
announced that work would start on a draft Freedom of Information Act. Swaziland
currently has no legislation providing for freedom of information, and there are
stringent screening conditions and bureaucratic barriers for those requesting
information from public institutions.
There are two main newspapers in the country: Times of Swaziland and the Swazi
Observer. The former is independent and has in the past been subject to various
efforts to subdue its occasional critical coverage. The government has withheld
advertising in the newspaper and created financial difficulties as a result. This year,
the newspaper was targeted in several lawsuits, and on 9 March, the Times of
Swaziland was charged with contempt of Parliament, following an article criticising
MPs for allegedly interfering in the administration of the state broadcaster.
The Parliament has power "to discipline" the media from its Standing Orders, of which
number 195 reads: "Any member complaining in the House of a statement in a
newspaper ... should be prepared to give the name of the printer or publisher, and
also submit a substantive motion declaring the person in question to have been guilty
of contempt [of Parliament]."
On 5 October, the parliamentary committee charged with investigating whether the
Times of Swaziland had committed an offence found that the article in question had
indeed "damaged the dignity and reputation of Parliament" and stated that the
newspaper "must unconditionally apologise to the Parliament of the Kingdom of
Swaziland with immediate effect."
The past year also saw a spate of lawsuits. At the beginning of February, the Times of
Swaziland Sunday was sued for almost US$200,000 by the Minister for Information,
Themba Msibi, for alleged defamation. In November 2005, the newspaper had
published a copy of the Msibi’s payslip, which reflected a net income of zero. The
article also contained allegations that the minister was in serious financial debt, and
that the government was deducting money from his salary to repay the debts.
On 16 February 2006, two journalists with the newspaper were attacked and
detained; they also had their equipment confiscated. The incident took place at a
handicraft-training centre. Journalists Phinda Sihlongonyane and Albert Masango were
manhandled by lecturers at the training centre where they were on assignment. Both
journalists were then dragged to the institution's library where they were interrogated
and threatened.
The other main newspaper, Swazi Observer, is connected to the royal family through
its ownership structure; however, it has been critical of the government. The king
however, is seldom criticised.
Broadcasting is government-controlled, with the exception of one private radio
station, Voice of the Church, which mainly broadcasts religious content. The state
broadcaster does transmit content from international outlets such as the BBC without
censorship. The Internet is largely unrestricted, but accessible to few due to the costs
involved.
Politicians have also publicly criticised the media for being biased. One such incident
occurred on 28 May, when the Director of Sports and Culture, Maswazi Shongwe,
lambasted the media for publishing articles he deemed insulting to the new Minister
for Health, Njabulo Mabuza.
The appointment had been criticised by the media on grounds that the new minister
did not have the necessary education to administrate the portfolio of health. Shongwe
lashed out against the media in general, and the Times Sunday in particular, at a
public meeting, calling on the media to "respect" the new minister.
In May, the editor-in-chief of the Swazi Observer, Musa Ndlangamandla, announced
that he had been subjected to death threats. He believes they are connected to a
series of articles about moneylenders charging high interests to poor Swazis. He said
he had received several phone calls from anonymous individuals urging him to stop
writing about the issue. The matter was reported to the police.
On two consecutive days, two sports journalists, both with the Times of Swaziland,
were attacked while covering soccer games. On 15 July, a soccer player assaulted
Sabelo Ndzinisa during a match at Rocklands stadium in Pigg's Peak. The player,
Dumisa Masika, claimed that the newspaper "had written negative stories" about him.
Masika had not taken part in the match, but had spotted the journalist, while
watching from the stands. He went over to the journalist and proceeded to hit him
repeatedly. The following day Ntokozo Magongo was assaulted by fans at Mayaluka
stadium in Big Bend. The attack occurred after Magongo had photographed a riot
initiated by rival soccer fans.
On August 24, the minister for public service and information, Themba Msibi, lashed
out against the media, criticising them for being critical of the king. The verbal attack
followed a live radio programme in which Thulani Maseko, a human rights lawyer,
criticised the king's sweeping constitutional powers. The programme was aired on the
state broadcaster and the day after, Msibi responded on the air.
In his speech, Msibi warned the media against criticising the king, saying they should
"exercise respect and avoid issues that seek to question the king or his powers." The
minister also voiced his concern over what he saw as a worrying trend of growing
criticism against the king; "when he should be above criticism and public scrutiny." He
also directly threatened staff with the state broadcaster, saying that he would stop its
operations if they do not "toe the line."
On 8 November, The Times of Swaziland was found guilty of defamation and ordered
by the High Court to pay damages to the former attorney general, Phesheya Dlamini.
The court found that an article published in 2003, accusing Dlamini of improper and
unethical practices, was considered libellous.
On 9 November, the newspaper published a retraction, apologising to the lawyer and
others concerned. The newspaper was also sued by a man accused of bombing
government structures and who is facing high treason charges at the High Court of
Swaziland. The newspaper had published a picture of the man on the front page next
to a headline saying "Bomber" in bold typeface. The newspaper said the publication
was erroneous and that it had no intention of publishing the man’s identity. It also
published an apology on the following day.
2005

Swaziland

2005 World Press Freedom Review

By Sarah Adler
The Kingdom of Swaziland, a small country with a population of just over one million,
is a hereditary monarchy where the King rules by decree and where freedom of the
media is severely circumscribed.
The government regulates almost all radio and TV stations, although a few media
outlets such as a Christian radio station, the private television station Channel Swazi
and a private daily operate outside state control.
On 7 April, in a meeting with editors and owners of the Swazi media, MISA-Swaziland
and several officials, Prime Minister Absalom Themba Dlamini said the media should
give favourable coverage to King Mswati III. Qhawe Mamba, the owner of the private
television station Channel Swazi, was not at the meeting.
On 29 July, the High Court of Swaziland cracked down on a newspaper for writing an
article that cast a senior official in a bad light. The court ruled in favour of Deputy
Prime Minister Albert Shabangu in a lawsuit against the Times of Swaziland
newspaper. Shabangu was fined US$116,000, an extraordinarily high fine. The court
ruled that an article written by the late Times Sunday editor Vusi Ginindza four years
ago implying that Shabangu was a member of the Ngwane Liberator Congress (NNLC)
was defamatory.
The NNLC is a proscribed party in Swaziland since political parties were prohibited by
a 1973 decree.
In another case of suppression of the press, the High Court ruled on 19 August that
an article citing the involvement of Myzo Magagula, chief executive officer of the
state-owned Swazi Observer newspaper, in a business deal that went sour between
Tibiyo TakaNgwane, head of the Swazi Observer and Ahmed Latif, an Egyptian
businessman, was defamatory. The court ruling prohibited publication of the article.
The Times of Swaziland Sunday appealed the ruling.
Government accusations also affected media when Prime Minister Absalom Themba
Dlamini blamed the press on 16 September for sensationalism and false reporting. In
particular, he complained of having been misquoted. The offending article reported
Dlamini had said that money belonging to his company and confiscated by police as
evidence in a robbery case should be returned to him. Dlamini denied having made
these comments. He also said that this inaccuracy was not an isolated case. According
to him, there had recently been a series of sensationalist articles. In addition, Dlamini
threatened to monitor the press. The organisation MISA-Swaziland took the threats
seriously, claiming that it could be the start of overt attempts to censor media
freedom.
In another incident, police stood by as a journalist was harassed. On 16 October,
Times of Swaziland sports journalist Douglas Dlaminin was assaulted by a soccer
player for publishing a court report in which the player had been charged with drunk
driving. What could have escalated into a full-scale assault on the journalist was
prevented by the timely intervention of other journalists and soccer officials.
However, nearby police officers failed to take action.
Harassment occurred again when, on 26 October, a member of parliament, who was
appearing in court on fraud charges, threatened Times of Swaziland photojournalist
Mkhulisi Magongo with violence and prevented Magongo from covering the
proceedings.
However, in a case where a newspaper resisted pressure against it, senior journalist
Alec Lushaba from the Weekend Observer went ahead and published a story on 17
September exposing alleged corruption in the dealings of lawyer Lindifa Mamba and
then Attorney General Phesheya Dlamini. The report claimed that Mamba had
purchased a luxury vehicle from South Africa, and not declared its full value to
customs. He then sold the vehicle to Dlamini under questionable circumstances.
Mamba was suspected of transferring the vehicle to Dlamini as a token of appreciation
for previous dealings. Mamba had tried to stop publication of the story by intimidating
Lushaba and editor Wilton Mamba through verbal abuse and threats.
In addition, on a positive note, MISA-Swaziland, the editors’ forum and the Swaziland
National Association of Journalists are assisting the Swazi media in developing a
common code of ethical and self-regulatory mechanisms.

2004 World Press Freedom Review

By Ömer Oguz
The tiny mountain kingdom of Swaziland has a bad reputation when it comes to press
freedom and citizens' rights to express themselves. The lack of freedom of expression
and democracy are two issues that the king consistently has made clear are not up for
discussion. The government keeps a tight leash on information, and freedom of
expression is severely restricted, especially when it comes to political issues or
matters concerning the royal family.

The law prohibits the publication of any criticism of the monarchy, and the ban is
occasionally enforced with criminal defamation charges. Those journalists that have
an ambition to cover news from a more objective angle have a hard time gaining
access to official information. The broadcast media is almost exclusively in the hands
of the government, and self-censorship is widespread. The most reliable source of
objective information comes from abroad: from the South African print and broadcast
media.

Over the years, attacks on journalists by government officials have been

commonplace. Dire economic straits also present a problem for the Swazi media,
exacerbated by the government's withholding of advertising from the independent
press. In addition, the standards of journalism leave much to be desired.

The government media also saw to it that the debate on the country's draft
constitution, granting power to the King to veto certain decisions, was both limited
and biased. National television and radio stations do not cover anything that has a
negative bearing on the government or the king. Small community radio stations have,
however, started to mushroom around the country in recent years, posing a challenge
to the government's monopoly on broadcast media.

The ban on negative content, enforced in various ways, has also reached the local
levels of government. Last year, one such incident was reported. On 18 July,
journalist Timothy Simelane and photographer Thulani Ndwadwe, both working for
the Swazi Observer, were harassed by former Ludzidzini governor Dibanisa Mavuso.
The incident took place at the residence of the late chief prince Maguga, in
Macetsheni, about 30 kilometres east of Manzini.

The two journalists were covering the funeral procedures of the Prince Maguga when
security personnel approached them and confiscated the memory card of Ndwadwe's
digital camera. The two men were then taken into custody and brought before a
traditional court, where Mavuso accused the journalists of producing negative
coverage about the late prince. The two journalists told MISA-Swaziland that they
were interrogated for over two hours and warned by Mavuso to stop writing negative
reports about Maguga.

top

| Back to Africa selection | Back to World selection |

2003 World Press Freedom Review

When the commonwealth held its technology conference in the tiny mountain kingdom of
Swaziland this year, the government fiercely attacked protesters who wanted to use
international media interest on the event to focus attention on the lack of democracy and
freedom of expression in the Swazi Kingdom. Eight protesters were severely injured and one
reportedly killed by police using tear gas, batons and rubber bullets to keep them off the
streets of the capital city, Mbabane.

With an unstable economy, mass unemployment and attacks on the media, journalists find it
difficult to survive a system controlled by the country's monarch, King Mswati III. Increasing
internal pressures from the small but vocal trade unions and the Peoples' United Democratic
Movement ("PUDEMO") for democratisation in Swaziland is being met by intransigence from
the Swazi government and its monarch. The government media also tightly controlled the
debates on the country's draft constitution granting power to the King to veto certain
decisions.

Attacks on journalists by disgruntled civilians and government officials are commonplace.

According to the Swazi Observer, on 19 January, Phiwokwakhe Ngidi, a journalist with the
Times of Swaziland was attacked and seriously beaten by Bongani Mamba, chairman of
Ligcabho Lebuhle Eswatini, an organisation that organises beauty pageants in Swaziland.
The Swazi Observer newspaper also reported that an article published in the 14 January
edition of the Times of Swaziland carrying Ngidi's by-line aggrieved Mamba.

Reportedly, Ngidi's article stated that on 11 January, Mamba was intoxicated and in the
company of women in his vehicle when an accident occurred at Lobamba, approximately 15
kilometres east of the capital, Mbabane. MISA and IFEX reports also indicated that Mamba
was also angered that his car registration number was mentioned in the same article. It was
also reported that Mamba punched the reporter several times. Although police confirmed that
they would launch an investigation into the incident, little has been heard from them.

Adding to their fear of being victimised, Swazi journalists also faced another problem when
the newly appointed Minister of Information, Abednego Ntshangase, announced a new
censorship policy on 8 April for the state media. According to the United Nations' Integrated
Regional Information Networks ("IRIN"), Ntshangase said, "The national television and radio
stations are not going to cover anything that has a negative bearing on government."

He also emphasised that non-supporters of government policies would be banned from

broadcasting their opinions on state media. According to news sources, the ban on negative
content is applicable to the Swaziland Broadcasting and Information Services, which operates
the only news-carrying radio channels in the country, and to Swazi TV, the country's only
television station.

Information provided to IPI also stated that on April 13, Ntshangase explicitly indicated that
state broadcasters would no longer be allowed to cover the controversy surrounding the
government's recent purchase of a luxury jet for King Mswati III, who has ruled Swaziland
since 1986. However, government critics argued that the purchase of the jet comes amid the
increasing AIDS pandemic and famine in the country. Media censorship is routine in the
mountain kingdom. In 2000, King Mswati III, attempted to decree a 10- year prison sentence
for any individual insulting state authorities. Although South African President, Thabo Mbeki
recently told an editors' forum "There is a situation in Swaziland which is of major concern to
the region, some things need to be done," the Swazi government is still slow in reacting to its
censorship problem.

On 29 July, the government doubled it efforts to impose a five-year jail term on journalists
found guilty of contravening the country's proposed Secrecy Act. The proposed act bars
journalists and media outlets from publishing information regarded by government officials as
top secret. Likewise, civil servants found guilty of disclosing such information face the same
punishment. Media critics say that the new regulations are intended to force journalists and
media outlets to reveal their news sources as and when requested by the authorities.

To make the government position clear, Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs
Spokesman David Lukhele said: "If a journalist is found in possession of confidential
government documents, the government will seek a court order forcing that particular
journalist or media house to disclose the source of the information. This is a new trend the
government has been forced to take." Another cabinet source said, "If a journalist is convicted
of contravening the Secrecy Act, he or she faces a minimum [fine] of more than US $3,000 or
five years in jail." He then added, "However, a judge is still at liberty to exercise his or her
discretion when delivering the sentence. This will depend on the extent of the damages
caused by [the] publication of the confidential information."

The nation is slowly become disgruntled with its monarch for not giving priorities to the needs
of the ordinary Swazi. In recent times, King Mswati III, who chooses a new wife each year at
the annual reed dance, asked for US $15m to build 11 palaces for each of his 11 wifes
according to the Times of Swaziland. An amount which critics say is equivalent to the
country's 2002 health budget. Many want the government to allocate such an amount to fight
drought and the HIV increase in Swaziland. Mswati, whose government controls the state
media, is not pleased with such reports in newspapers across the country.

top

| Back to Africa selection | Back to World selection |

2002 World Press Freedom Review

In Swaziland, the King is allowed to have many wives, in the name of tradition. But he
appears to have less regard for the citizens’ rights, particularly those of his tenth wife, who,
according to media reports, was allegedly abducted from school. Lindiwe Dlamini, the new
wife’s mother sued palace officials for a "criminal offence". The story, according to the king’s
palace aides, was not fit for publication in the newspaper as it is based on the cultural and
traditional practices of Swaziland. This has tarnished the relationship between the
government and the courts and the media in the country.

In a puzzling situation, Chief Justice Stanley Sapire of the Swazi High Court was relieved
from his position for not dismissing the pending case of Dlamini. A three-judge panel led by
Justice Sapire was expected to dismiss the case. Sources say the case and the decision of
the judges to hear it angered the palace. Reportedly, attorney general Phesheya Dlamini
visited the judges in their chamber together with heads of the army, the police and the prisons
in an attempt to force the judges into dropping the case. The attorney general’s visit was
followed with letters to the judges on the following day ordering them to drop the case.

As the case gathered steam, attorney-general Dlamini sent letters to three judges ordering
them to resign from their posts. But the Director of Public Prosecution, Lincoln Ng’arua,
reportedly charged the attorney-general with "sedition" for causing the Swazi government to
be viewed with contempt and hatred at home and abroad". The issue did not end there.
Lincoln Ng'arua was instructed to resign unless he dropped the sedition charges against the
attorney-general.

The case has left ordinary Swazi’s longing for justice. Justice Stanley Sapire said, "No
constitution, which can emerge >from the current exercise, can work effectively unless there
is a will for it so to do". Last year, a royal decree was issued forbidding court challenges to the
rulings of traditional leaders or the policies of government officials, at a time when Swaziland
was formulating a new constitution. Sapire added, "The decree was a blatant negation of
constitutionalism, an assault to the rule of law, and the independence of the judiciary, and,
among other things, a denial of free
speech."

Sapire also argued that "Those who sponsored the decree have starkly revealed their lack of
commitment to constitutionalism, the rule of law, the independence of the judiciary, and the
upholding of human rights". A month after signing the decree, Swaziland’s King Mswati III
repealed the measure to make it into law, following increasing domestic and foreign criticism
and threats by the International Labour Organisation to lobby for economic sanctions against
Swaziland.

In February, Mario Masuku, the leader of the People United Democratic Movement
(PUDEMO) was charged with sedition, having "uttered words that were understood to be
likely to incite violence against King Mswati III and his ministers." The charge stemmed >from
an incident when Masuku allegedly shouted "Down with King Mswati’s government, away with
it!" at a bus stop. Lincoln Ngarua, from the DPP said, "Masuku’s utterances were setting the
king against his subjects and likely to make people arm themselves against politicians".
Though Ngarua offered to withdraw charges if Masuku apologised, the political leader refused
to do so. Opposition parties continue to operate underground as they are banned from
holding public assembly by a 1973 decree.

In June, Dr Barnabas Sibusiso, Swaziland's Prime Minister, stated his intentions of tabling the
Draft Internal Security Bill in the Swazi parliament. According to Swazi journalists, the Bill
provides the Prime Minister with excessive powers which have grave implications for freedom
of expression in the country. The draft Internal Security Bill outlaws the following, gatherings
in public places or public gatherings of any uniformed person or persons wearing distinctive
dress which signify an association with a political organisations, or which seem to be
promoting a specific political agenda. Breaches of the law can mean that a person can be
fined US $1,017 or face imprisonment not exceeding five years. The police will be
empowered to disband such meetings and persons found guilty of holding such a meeting
may face a prison term of up to 20 years.

Furthermore, a person can be imprisoned for 15 years for a bomb scare under section 14 of
this bill; a person may be held liable for a fine of US $1,017 for harbouring criminals and faces
a five-year prison term and a US $1,017 fine for burning or desecrating the national flag.
Protest organisers, according to the bill, would also be liable for damages to property incurred
during such gatherings. As the newspapers are wrangling with the government, the schools
and broadcasting systems are also facing the dilemma of taking English or SiSwati (the
language of the Swazis) as the official language. By the end of March, editors Vusie Ginindza
of the Sunday Times and Martin Dlamini of the Times were locked together debating the
language problem. It is reported that ten times more listeners tune to the government owned
SiSwati Service than the English Service broadcast.

In July, Sarah Mkhonza a Swazi journalist received international recognition for her courage
in the face of alleged press persecution as part of a group of 37 writers from 19 countries
awarded the Hellman/Hammett Grant. Mkhonza, who is described as an outspoken advocate
of women rights in Swaziland, also received a grant for her weekly column that has been
highly critical of the monarchy in the tiny kingdom. According to Human Rights Watch,
Mkhonza, a regular contributor to the country’s only local independent newspaper, has
become a political target in her country.

On 12 October local security officers stopped five journalists from the Swazi Observer and the
Times of Swaziland from covering the "Justice and Peace" ceremony. The ceremony was to
commemorate the eviction of families from areas of south eastern Swaziland in October 2000.
Journalist Ackel Zwane of the Observer was seriously beaten before being turned away.
Phinda Sihlongonyane a journalist was also banned from covering the ceremony.

On 23 October, Zweli Mabila; sport reporter for the government’s daily The Swazi Observer
was killed in Mbabane the capital of Swaziland. Sources say an unknown assailant near his
home stabbed Mabila after returning from work. He died the following day and police say no
motive was uncovered.

top

| Back to Africa selection | Back to world selection |

2001 World Press Freedom Review
Faced with constant articles on the King and Swaziland, authorities in the country have
reacted harshly to journalists practising their profession. In May, authorities closed down two
of the most popular publications for criticising the King, then fought the judicial decision that
overturned the banning order. On 22 June, the King issued Decree (NO. 2) which effectively
declared a state of emergency in the country.

Fortunately, the sheer weight of condemnation from local and international human rights
organisations persuaded the King to rescind the decree, but it served as a warning that
authorities were serious in their bid to silence critical media. Elsewhere, the media have also
been harassed by the police, and comments by parliamentarians have further increased
pressure felt by journalists.

On 4 and 7 May, authorities suspended the weekly Guardian and the monthly Nation.
Authorities accuse the two publications of not paying approximately US $124 necessary for
the registration of a media outlet. Apparently, the decision was taken in accordance with a
1963 law that governs the publication of books and newspapers in the country. Prior to the
suspension, both publications included stories critical of the authorities, particularly Swazi
King Mswati III and Prime Minister Sibusiso Dlamini.

The banning of the two newspapers came after a number of incidents involving the
newspapers. On 2 May, the police picked up Guardian journalist Thulani Mthethwa then
proceeded to interrogate him. Two days later, on the day the newspaper was banned, police
raided the offices of the Guardian, then sought to impound editions of the newspaper as they
were transported over the border from South Africa where they are printed.

According to CPJ, in the week it was banned, the newspaper edition included a report on
health, and rumours that the King was poisoned by his first wife. The Guardian had earlier
published a photograph of the queen crying at Mbabane airport as she prepared to board a
plane for London, allegedly because King Mswati III had expelled her from the royal palace. A
later edition of the monthly Nation carried similar reports.

In an attempt to overturn a decision of the Swaziland cabinet, lawyers acting on behalf of the
Guardian filed an urgent application with Chief Justice Stanley Sapire on 4 May, seeking to
recover the impounded copies of the paper and asking for injunctions against the confiscation
of any further copies. After hearing legal argument, Judge Sapire reserved his decision.

On 18 May, the High Court of Swaziland set aside an extra-ordinary legal notice banning the
Nation magazine from publishing and circulating in the country. In his judgement, Judge
Jacobus Annandale felt that Minister of Public Service and Information Mtonzima Dlamini was
wrong to issue a blanket ban on the magazine. The decision was appealed by the attorney
general, and this prevented the magazine from being published after the ruling.

In an apparent failure to heed the will of the court, police entered the offices of the Nation and
confiscated all of the newspaper’s June edition. It is believed that, in total, the police took
away nearly 5,000 copies. The raid was justified because, according to police, the magazine
was still effectively banned. After the police raid, on 22 May, the minister of information
banned the Nation and the Guardian for the second time because "they are prejudicial and/or
potentially prejudicial to the interests of the public order in that they are not duly registered
and/or are not operating in accordance with the applicable laws of the Kingdom of
Swaziland."

A long-running debate about the need for a regulated media council was re-ignited by the
stories in the Guardian and the Nation, as well as the story that appeared in the Times of
Swaziland. The story in the Times of Swaziland reported that, while on his way to America,
King Mswati III had stopped over in London for a reunion with Queen LaMbikiza Mngomezulu.
Regarding the stories as an invasion of the King’s privacy, members of parliament (MP’s) felt
the king should be protected.

On 22 June, King Mswati III issued Decree no 2 of 2001, effectively declaring a state of
emergency in Swaziland. The decree was published in an extraordinary government gazette
on the evening of Saturday 23 June and it revealed a government that had lost faith in
upholding democracy in Swaziland.

Article 13 of the Decree reads, "Proscription: Where a magazine, book, newspaper or excerpt
thereof is proscribed in terms of the Proscribed Publications Act, 1968 the Minister concerned
shall not furnish any reasons or jurisdictional facts for such proscription. No legal proceedings
may be instituted in relation of such proscription."

Furthermore, the decree prohibited any legal challenges to a government ban and adds that
under Section 3 (2) of the Sedition and Subversives Activities Act, any person who "insults,
ridicules or puts into contempt the King or the Queen, in whatever way or form, commits an
offence" and is liable to a fine of up to approximately US $6,200, up to ten years
imprisonment, or both.

Commenting on the decision to implement the decree, Andrew Puddephatt, executive director
of Article 19 said, "The new Decree, which should be withdrawn immediately, underlines the
importance of the ongoing Constitutional Review Commission, whose findings will set the
tone for future respect for basic human rights in Swaziland. The constitution must reflect
international freedom of expression standards and principles, including provisions for free and
open elections at the local and national level."

After the international condemnation of the Decree, Swaziland's prime minister announced at
a press conference that Decree No. 2 of 2001 would be replaced by Decree No. 3 of 2001.
MISA's office in Swaziland confirmed that the withdrawal of the controversial decree was
prompted by outcries from international organisations. The decision was warmly applauded
by press freedom organisations.

A court decision in August paved the way for the Guardian to return to the newsstands. On 31
August, Judge J. Annandale ruled in the high court that the notice used to ban the newspaper
in May was invalid. Unfortunately this court application, although successfully restoring the
newspaper’s eligibility to commence publishing, did not provide for the confiscated
newspapers to be returned to the Guardian Media Group (Pty) Ltd.

The editor of the Guardian, a Mr. Mtato, informed MISA that the newspaper’s board of
directors would meet as soon as possible to discuss the way forward. He added that it was
premature to make a statement about when the paper will be available in print. Since the
government ban over 13 staff members had been forced to leave the newspaper.

In a sign of its determination, the government announced on 4 September that it intended to

appeal against the decision of Judge J. Annandale.

Stung by a series of satirical articles on the monarchy, a number of senators at the end of
August called for laws to proscribe newspaper columns. On 30 August, senators accused the
Times of Swaziland of publishing derogatory articles which incite the Swaziland population to
hate the monarchy. The two columns cited in the criticism were "To Cetshwayo With Love"
and "Parliament Sketch."

Commenting on the articles, the Senate led by Masalekhaya Simelane, accused the
newspaper of degrading the monarchy and attempting to instigate a coup by influencing the
Swazi people to hate the Royalty. The Senators took exception to the fact that the "loyal
servants of the King are called 'Bootlickers and royal hangers on". In addition, the senators
went on to say that the newspaper should stop reporting in a manner which they defined as
"unSwazi".
An apparent dislike of journalists motivated the police to assault journalists at a press
conference of trade unions. According to the South African Press Association (SAPA), on 19
October armed police officers stormed the offices of the Swaziland Federation of Trade
Unions and assaulted journalists attending a press conference being held by the group’s
leader.

One of the journalists singled out by police was Thulasizwe Mkhabela, a photographer with
the Times of Swaziland. In addition, police threatened several other journalists, warning them
that the police would get rid of them. "I swear we will get rid of you. You are a problem for the
police," Superintendent Mathendele Vilakazi told one of the journalists, Bhekie Matsebula, a
correspondent for overseas news agencies and South African newspapers.

On the previous day, authorities had declared the press conference to be illegal. Police
commissioner Edgar Hillary alleged that federation leader Jan Sithole would spark anarchy in
the tiny African kingdom if he were allowed to speak.

Another example of police pressure on the media occurred in early November. According to
reports within Swaziland, police warned three journalists that they should stop writing
negative reports about the country and the King. The Journalists were Lunga Masuku of
African Eye News, Thulani Mthethwa who works occasionally for the BBC and South African
Press Association (SAPA) and Bheki Matsebula who writes for the Sowetan Sunday World,
City Press, among others. Apparently, the warning follows recent articles on the King's new
fiancé.

The police confiscated notebooks and arrested journalists Lunga Masuku and Bheki
Matsebula at the High Court Building on 29 October. The journalists were covering the court
case in which the President of the Swaziland's People's United Democratic Movement
(Pudemo) Mario Masuku was standing trial for having addressed a mass meeting of
protesting workers last year.

top

| Back to Africa selection | Back to world selection |

2000 World Press Freedom Review

The media in Swaziland faced continued harassment from the royal family and its government
during the year. Back in 1973, a royal decree suspended Swaziland's Constitution, leaving
the country’s freedom of the press without legal protection. A constitutional review process is
underway, but the media have been banned from reporting on its proceedings. Pro-
democracy demonstrations at the end of 2000 led to increasingly harsh measures of
repression by the
government.

In early January, the police called in senior reporter Thulani Mthethwa from the Swazi
Observer newspaper to explain why he had written a story reporting that the police were hot
on the heels of an unnamed suspect linked to a 1999 bomb explosion in the capital. The
police were apparently upset by the story and claimed that it had foiled their plans to make an
arrest. They also wanted to know the source of the journalist's story.

On 10 January, the Swazi Observer published a letter from Swaziland's Police Commissioner
Edgar Hillary to the South African Police Special Squad asking for their assistance in
arresting two Swazi businessmen linked to another Swazi businessman, Ron Smith, who was
out on bail in South Africa on drug trafficking charges at the time.

On the day the article appeared, Mthethwa was summoned to Hillary’s offices where the
journalist was once again reprimanded for the article and asked again to reveal his source.
The following day, Mthethwa was summoned yet again to Hillary's office for a meeting with
Hillary and two other policemen. Speaking to MISA-Swaziland, Mthethwa said that the second
meeting amounted to a mini court session. He was called names such as a "bullying" and
"irresponsible" journalist and was warned not to write any "rubbish" that could be published at
a later date. He was also asked for the letter and for him to reveal his source, which he
declined to do. At the end of the meeting he was warned that he could face criminal charges
or face a High Court order because of his actions and his refusal to disclose his source.

Mthethwa along with his news editor, Musa Magagula, were summoned to the offices of the
Attorney General, Phesheya Dlamini, on 12 January where they were once again pressured
to give in to the demands of the police commissioner. The two were again asked to hand over
the letter in question. This led to an unsuccessful attempt by the attorney general to obtain an
ex-parte order for the reporter to reveal his source. The High Court judge refused to issue the
order and allowed the Observer to file a response instead. However, before this could be
heard, the Observer, acting on legal advice, handed the contentious letter over to the police
but still refused to reveal the identity of the source who provided the information.

On 15 February, Mthethwa, along with his managing editor, Francis Harawa, Magagula and
fellow journalist Thulani Twala were called in for a meeting with the board of directors, who
demanded the identity of the source who leaked the letter. After refusing again to reveal the
sources, the managing editor was warned that there could be "devastating" consequences.
On that same day, the four staff members were called in by the prime minister who also
demanded to know the identity of the sources. The journalists again refused.

The board of directors of the entire Swazi Observer group of papers announced on 17
February that the paper was being shut down. Chairman of the Board Timothy Nhleko called
in the entire staff and in a one-minute address announced that the paper was being closed
immediately and that everyone should vacate the premises.

In a written statement, the management said the closure was due to restructuring and
financial reorganisation. However, MISA sources said that at a strategic planning meeting
sponsored by the board and shareholders in the previous week, a five-year plan had been
drawn up for the paper. According to the source, there was no indication of financial
difficulties at the paper. Reliable sources in Swaziland claim that the order to close the
newspaper came verbally from the King.

The Swazi Observer group of papers is made up of the Daily Observer, the Weekend
Observer, and Intsatseli. It was established in 1982, when it was given as a gift to King
Sobhuzu from the head of a multi-national company called Londrho. Sobhuzu then entrusted
the newspaper to the Tibiyo Takangwane corporation, which is a company owned by the king
on behalf of the Swazi nation. After Sobhuzu's death, the newspaper was left to King Mswati
III. Between the three papers, there are 100 staff, including 30 journalists, who have all been
affected by the closure.

On 23 March, the board of directors of the Swaziland Television Broadcasting Corporation

(STBC) abruptly fired 31 employees who went on strike in October 1999. The board's
decision to sack the employees superseded the findings of the one-man commission of
inquiry, carried out by Rudolf Maziya, who concluded that the employees were not guilty of an
illegal strike. Maziya, a private company manager, was appointed by the STBC board of
directors last year to investigate the individuals involved in the strike. Although it was
originally agreed that Maziya's findings would be final and binding, the board, chaired by
former Under Secretary to the Ministry of Public Service and Labour JBJS Dhlamini,
ultimately decided to fire the employees.

MISA Swaziland (MISWA) confirmed that since October, nine employees, regarded as
responsible for the news blackout and seizure of the studios, had been suspended with pay
while the remaining 22 strikers were allowed to return to their posts. Among those fired were
Swaziland Media and Publishers Allied Workers Union (SMEPAWU) President Lwazi Hlophe
and SMEPAWU Vice President Phasa Mayisele, both of whom were reportedly vocal on
media issues. MISWA contacted Dhlamini and the acting chief executive officer of the board,
Celani Ndzimandze, but they refused to comment on the issue. According to MISWA, the
STBC station was guarded by police on 24 March and the fired employees would not be
allowed to enter without written permission from the management.

In 1999, 31 STBC workers took control of the STBC television studios in an apparent illegal
strike and at least two journalists were threatened and forced to leave their posts. The strike
was wage related, with workers demanding 7 per cent in back pay, which management had
promised to them in April. Initially,
management said they would receive this with their November salaries, but the SMEPAWU
decided nevertheless to go ahead with the strike action. The strike was abandoned on the
morning of 29 October when it had become clear that the action was illegal and that jobs were
being threatened as a result. About 75 per cent of workers at the STBC joined the strike
action on 28 October.

On 14 September of this year, Minister for Public Service and Information M.M. Dlamini
ordered the reinstatement of 32 employees following an appeal to this effect by the
SMEPAWU. However, on 20 September, the minister withdrew his order, effectively
dismissing the workers again.

In a 20 September letter, Dlamini said that his decision to reinstate the workers had been
withdrawn with immediate effect, "as it has since transpired that I did not have jurisdiction
over the matter". However, his earlier letter ordering the reinstatement of the workers made
mention of the fact that he had entered into separate discussions with the board and
management, with no mention of the fact that his jurisdiction over the matter had been called
into question.

MISA-Swaziland reported that Dlamini's decision to withdraw his order came after he was
summoned to Lozitha Palace, where he was apparently reprimanded by members of the
Swaziland National Council and Premier Sibusiso Dlamini.

PANA reported that a lawyer in Mbabane demanded the withdrawal of all copies of the April
edition of The Nation, the only independent news magazine in Swaziland, for allegedly
contravening copyrights of his client, Douglas Loffler. Loffler is the proprietor and publisher of
the Times of Swaziland Newspapers Group, which publishes the only independent
newspaper in the country.

In a letter to The Nation, the lawyer, Peter Dunseith, said the publishers had contravened the
1912 Copyright Act by publishing certain photographs "without his client's authority or consent
and without credit given to the owner". The photographs in question were a photograph of a
football match and a portrait photograph. "My client is the owner of these photographs and
the owner of copyright in these photographs", Dunseith said. He further alleged that the
photographs were obtained in an underhanded manner, by inducing one or more of the
Times' employees to transmit the digital photographs by e-mail. "Copies of which are in my
client's possession", he added.

Dunseith said that the Times of Swaziland Group of Newspapers was entitled to obtain an
interdict restraining the Swaziland Independent Publishers from further publication of the
illegally obtained photographs. He also demanded that all issues of the magazine containing
the photographs be removed from sale. The lawyer said that Loffler was prepared to forego
the interdict on condition that the publishers of The Nation gave a written undertaking within
three days that, "they will desist from infringing the copyright in future". Loffler also demanded
an end to the solicitation of photographs and other journalistic materials from his employees
and the disclosure of the name of the employee who sent the photographs by e-mail.
Dunstein said he might continue to institute a lawsuit whether the publishers of The Nation
complied with his letter or not.
Speaking to PANA, the managing editor of The Nation, Cyprian Tsabedze, wondered why the
publisher of The Times of Swaziland wanted to stop them from using the materials of
freelancers. He explained that as a young Swazi-owned magazine, The Nation relied on
pictures and stories from contributors. "We have always bought pictures and stories from
freelancers. Some freelancers submit their stories with pictures", he said. "How would we
really know how and where they got their pictures? In this particular case, we bought these
pictures together with their stories from the freelancers", he added.

The newly appointed editor of The Nation, Bheki Makhubu, who is the former Times Sunday
editor, alleged that having tasted monopoly following the recent closure of the Swazi
Observer, Loffler wanted to stifle the upcoming Swazi journalism practiced by most talented
young journalists.

"I'm disappointed that a publisher of a 101-year-old newspapers group can feel threatened by
such a negligible and emerging magazine owned by struggling young independent
journalists", he told PANA, adding that "surely, Loffler is now all out to flex his muscle in order
to remain a monopoly in the country. Does he know that ours is a community service?
Nobody is getting paid in The Nation."

The Nation was founded by a group of young professional journalists and a chartered
accountant three years ago. Owing to its high quality and in-depth analysis, it has become a
force to be reckoned with in the country's small media industry.

Swaziland's Home Affairs Minister Prince Sobandla Dlamini apologised on national television
on 22 June for assaulting a journalist after the Swaziland Football team lost to South Africa.
The Times of Swaziland's assistant sports editor Jerry Dube was reportedly assaulted after
Swaziland lost 2-0 in a game against South Africa. Witnesses said Dlamini had also belittled
the team, saying they were incapable of winning. "I was caught up in the emotion of the
moment", said Dlamini, a cabinet minister who is also the elder brother of King Mswati III,
Africa's last absolute monarch. Prime Minister Sibusiso Dlamini had insisted on the public
apology, according to sources at Swazi Television. Sobandla Dlamini has been involved in
previous public tirades but this was the first assault. Dube said the minister’s bodyguard also
kicked him to the ground. Witnesses confirmed the reporter's account of the incident.

On 13 and 14 October, several journalists were harassed and detained amid mounting
tensions in the country stemming from the forced evictions of people in the Macetjeni and
KaMkhweli areas because of a chieftaincy dispute. The Swaziland National Council (SNC)
demoted the two chiefs in the area and imposed another chief in their place, leading to a still-
to-be concluded High Court challenge by community members against the SNC decision.
Further reports alleged that the supporters of the two former chiefs were being evicted from
their homes and moved to remote areas, without food or shelter and away from their places of
work.

Ginger Ginindza from the Swaziland Television Authority (STA) was detained for four hours.
This was apparently on the orders of Assistant Police Commissioner Mathendele Vulakati. In
the process his camera and film were confiscated. The police reportedly claimed that he was
prying into issues that were neither his business nor that of the public. Ginindza's camera was
later returned to him but without the film.

A news crew from the Times of Swaziland, led by journalist Nimrod Mabuza, was also
harassed and prevented from effectively covering the story. The Times of Swaziland team
was reportedly told by Vulakati, who was leading a team of soldiers and policemen at the
scene, that he was going to deal with journalists and should they publish anything they would
be dealt with accordingly. The news crew was prevented from going to the nearby town of
Bigbend where other evictions were taking place. The police apparently used their cars to
prevent the journalists from moving. At one point, a group of soldiers menacingly confronted
the journalists in their car and threatened to shoot them. They were then instructed to follow
the police to a nearby camp, where the police accused the journalists of wanting to beat up
the assistant commissioner. One police officer, only known as Mamba, reportedly wrestled a
camera from photographer Mduduzi Mngomezulu, which was later returned to him after a
lengthy argument.

In separate incidents on 15 October, the Manzini Regional Police Commander, G. Magagula,

tried to grab a camera from Times of Swaziland reporter Ackel Zwane. The incident happened
at the Salesian High School sports grounds, where executive members of the Swaziland
Federation of Trade Unions (SFTU) were meeting with the joint armed forces. It was only after
some SFTU executive members came to the defence of the journalist that he was allowed to
continue with his work. On the same occasion, an unnamed South African photographer was
confronted by Vulakati, who allegedly told him to stop taking pictures in Swaziland.

The Swazi government threatened to get tough with foreign journalists after Prime Minister
Dlamini announced a ban on 28 October of all future meetings of the Swaziland Federation of
Trade Unions (SFTU) and the Swaziland National Association of Teachers (SNAT).

On 7 November, at least four South African journalists were harassed and threatened with
deportation. The Mail & Guardian newspaper said that its reporter, Sechaba ka'Nkosi, M&G
photographer Ruth Motau, Justin Arenstein of the Africa Eye News Service (AENS) and
Khatu Mamaila of The Star were harassed by the chief of Swazi Intelligence, Jomo Mavuso,
while they were covering a planned demonstration in the capital, Mbabane. Mavuso
reportedly accused South Africans of "inciting instability" in Swaziland and allegedly promised
to be their "worst nightmares". He then ordered them to leave the country, but they managed
to remain in the country for a further 48 hours.

On 14 November, Swazi police expelled two foreign journalists from the country, reportedly
telling them never to return. South African journalists Themba Molefe and photographer Pat
Seboko, both working for the Sowetan newspaper, were stopped at a roadblock and held for
two hours. They were then driven about forty kilometres to the border and were told to leave
the country.

In a reaction to these developments, South Africa’s Freedom of Expression Institute (FXI)

strongly condemned the Swazi government’s actions against journalists and pro-democracy
demonstrators, finding it, "reminiscent of the way in which the apartheid government dealt
with the press in the repressive climate of that period".

top

| Back to Africa selection | Back to world selection |

1999 World Press Freedom Review

Freedom of expression is often curtailed in Swaziland. If independent-minded journalists are
not forced to resign, they are arrested, prosecuted or imprisoned. Many of them are also
subjected to physical attacks.

Bheki Makhubu, the editor of the Times Sunday was arrested on September 26 over a story
about King Mswati III’s new fiancé. Makhubu wrote an article, titled "Liphovela a High School
Dropout", in which he reported about the educational background of the king’s latest fiancée,
Liphovela Senteni Masango. She had been chosen as the king’s eighth wife at the traditional
Umhlanga Reed Dance ceremony held on August 30. He wrote that Liphovela was a high
school dropout, and was expelled from at least two colleges, Ngwane Park and Lozitha, for
lack of discipline or for absenteeism. The journalist criticised the king for choosing at first sight
a wild and irresponsible school dropout. In the article he also mentioned that Liphovela may
have exposed the king to the HIV virus, and he felt that she was not fit to become one of the
queens of Swaziland. The government reacted to the story by announcing a new defamation
law. The plans for the new legislation remain in the pipeline.
Makhubu was visited in his office by the police on September 15 and was asked questions
concerning the source for his article, and asked why he wrote the article, and what he actually
meant by the word ‘dropout’. He refused to answer any question. The police told him that he
would be taken to the court where he would be forced to answer their questions. Eleven days
later, he was arrested by police -- under a long-forgotten colonial era defamation law -- and
had to spend a night in jail.

The next day, on September 27, he was charged with criminal defamation, and released on
bail of 3,000 emalangeni (US$ 500). He was forced to hand over his passport, and report to
the police station every two weeks. He was prohibited from writing or quoting anything about
the king and his fiancée, and was forced to resign form his post. It seems clear that this
development is a direct result of the political pressure which has been exerted on the
newspaper's management by the government and its supporters. Makhubu tried to get
permission to travel to South Africa to talk to a senior advocate in order to prepare a defence
against the criminal defamation charges. He specified in his application to travel that he would
be accompanied by his Swaziland attorney, and that he would return to Swaziland
immediately after the consultation. However, the State Prosecutor, Eliah Simelane, did not
grant approval, and provided no explanation.

Makhubu justifies his article by claiming that the king’s wives have become public
personalities, and that in a democratic system citizen’s have the right to criticise public figures
and those who exercise political power. Makhubu’s charge with criminal offence is interpreted
as a clear message sent to the media to avoid in the future any further publications of
criticism, or sensitive issues about the royal family. At the end of the year, Makhubu’s case
was still pending.

On September 28, the director of public prosecutions (DPP) in Swaziland, Lincoln Ng'arua,
stated that his office is considering pressing charges against the publisher and other staff
members of the Times of Swaziland, and any other publications by the Times group of
newspapers, also for allegedly publishing defamatory articles about the newest fiancée of
King Mswati III.

Another incident involved photographer Mduduzi Mngomezulu from the Times of Swaziland.
Mngomenzulu was present at a demonstration march by civil servants. He was trying to take
photos of the march when he was beaten by police officers. His camera was broken during
the incident. Mngomenzulu had identified himself as a journalist to the police and had in fact
ridden in the police van shortly before the clashes with the demonstrators. A spokesperson for
the police said that the action would be investigated.

The Swaziland Television Broadcasting Corporation (STBC) faced industrial relation problems
this year when workers went on an unofficial strike. The dispute was over a payment of
seven-percent back pay, which the management had promised to them in April. About 75
percent of the STBC workers participated in the strike, locking the doors and taking control of
the TV station. Six of the strike’s main organisers were suspended without pay.

top

| Back to Africa selection | Back to world selection |

1998 World Press Freedom Review

On March 12, MISA reported that two journalists working at the state-controlled Swazi TV
were reprimanded by Prime Minister Sibusiso Dlamini for leaving a road construction site he
had been touring before the tour was over. The Prime Minister, who is the head of
government, accused Swazi TV journalists Mbuso Matsenjwa and Xolile Ginindza of
frustrating his work by not giving him full coverage. He accused them of being political
opponents and threatened to replace them. The journalists say they had, in their judgment,
sufficiently covered all the relevant parts of the Prime Minister’s tour. Prior to his arrival, the
crew had collected background information through interviews with officials on the road
construction site. The crew then filmed the Prime Minister’s arrival, his address to the road
consultants and part of his tour of the site. The crew did not find it necessary to stay on the
site and follow the rest of the road tour, especially since it had another equally important
filming assignment to do.

Their departure irked the Prime Minister, who said the crew should have stayed with him to
the very end of his tour. He sent his Private Secretary, Meshack Shongwe, to fetch them and
direct them to report to him at Lozitha, the Prime Minister's palace, or the Parliament.
Although Shongwe expressed satisfaction with the journalists’ explanation, the Prime Minister
insisted they obey his summons, which they did. The journalists met Prime Minister Dlamini at
Parliament, where he immediately demanded an explanation for their behaviour. The Prime
Minister charged that he continued to be a victim of acts of sabotage by Swazi TV. He told the
journalists that he would give instructions to Swazi TV to give him officers to work with, not
politicians. He repeatedly berated the journalists before dismissing them with further threats of
disciplinary action.

This was not the first time a senior Swaziland government official has made direct attacks on
Swazi TV. On June 23, 1996, acting Prime Minister Sishayi Nxumalo, accompanied by
heavily armed police, entered Swazi TV newsroom to inspect news items lined up for
broadcast that evening. According to MISA, there have been persistent reports of interference
with the operations of journalists at the station.

On October 21, the Deputy Chairperson of Swaziland’s Constitutional Review Commission

(CRC), Promise Msibi, called for restrictions on South African journalists covering events in
Swaziland. The Swazi Observer reported Msibi calling on the government to take drastic
steps against the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) for insulting the King in
their elections coverage. Msibi claimed that SABC reporter Snuki Zikelala had made remarks
in his report that undermined the dignity and integrity of the King. However, the report
declined to specify what remarks he had been referring to. Msibi was quoted as saying:
"Being soft and a God fearing nation does not mean that we should fold our arms and keep
quiet and allow foreigners to insult our King to this extent. Swazis respect and are loyal to the
King as a head of state. Are we then expected to tolerate this type of reporting? Time is over
for us to tolerate such and we should stand up and challenge this statement as well as the
presence of South African reporters and media houses to cover such events in this country.
Government needs to scrutinise such reporters before they can be allowed to cover
international events taking place in the country."

When contacted by MISA, Zikelala denied making any comments about the King in his
reports. "It’s not our business to make any comments," Zikelala said. He acknowledged
though that several of the people he had interviewed had made disparaging remarks about
the Swazi monarch. Zikelala confirmed that to date he had not been restricted in reporting on
matters while in Swaziland. However, he said he had been followed around by plain clothes
policemen for an entire day while covering the elections, but had eventually confronted them
and managed to lose them.

In another development, a Times of Swaziland columnist, Vusie Gunindza, in a column which

appeared on October 21, accused the SABC television crew, headed by Zikelala, of having
staged a protest. "I was shocked to learn," the column read, "that one of the crew leaders,
disappointed by the apparent lack of chaos, decided to organise a handful of ghetto dregs to
stage a toyi-toyi [a war dance] so that they could film it ... I refused to believe the story at first,
but when I saw the report the ‘drummer’ fitted hand in glove with the script which I suspect
was prepared weeks prior. The report, complete with graffiti painting condemning Swaziland
and all that it represents (and I wouldn’t be surprised if they hadn’t also brought the ink spray
and hired the artist), the demonstrators had no placards (most probably had no time to
prepare any, given the urgency with which the play was organised) and the camera: as you
would expect any choreographed performance was strictly confined to the loathsome group of
nine or ten, to ensure that the result was a complete prototype of strife and uncertainty as
planned."
Justifying the publication of the column in the absence of more substantial corroboration of
the allegations, the Times editor, Mashomi Twala, said the allegation of the SABC having
staged the protest was an opinion that was "quite widespread". He told MISA, "I felt it was
something we had to express". He admitted that they had made no effort to get a response
from the SABC. Gunindza was not available for comment when the newspaper was
contacted.

Zikelala, when contacted by MISA, categorically denied having staged the protest. He
speculated that the allegation was aimed at perpetuating a false notion that Swazi people did
not engage in protests and that when they did occur, it was due to outside influences. l

1997 World Press Freedom Review

The climate for the press deteriorated dramatically in this African nation during 1997, sparking
fury among journalists at the government's attempts to control both the public and the private
media.

The Media Council Bill was introduced in Parliament on October 3 and numerous objections
have been raised by journalists and other workers in Swaziland. The Bill seeks to entrench
government control over the media through the introduction of a government-appointed media
council, with which all journalists wishing to practise in Swaziland would have to register. The
council will also be responsible for enforcing a government-drafted code of ethics. The Bill
lays down prison terms and fines for journalists contravening the law.

The government's approval of a Media Regulation Bill, despite protests from journalists and
other organisations in Swaziland, shows the insensitivity of the authorities. It seeks to
introduce a media council appointed by a government minister, which will license and
arbitrate in media complaints. The council has power to enforce a government drafted code of
ethics, de-register journalists, and fine or imprison them for violating the proposed law. It will
also set minimum qualifications for a journalist to be licensed. These will include O-level
examination passes and a journalism certificate.

On October 7, Swaziland journalists took to the streets to protest against the Bill. Incensed
scores of angry journalists from the country's five media houses -The Times of Swaziland,
Swazi Observer, Nation Magazine, Broadcasting and Information Services and Television
Broadcasting Corporation - marched to the Prime Minister's Office to protest. Mbuso
Mtsenjwa, President of The National Association of Journalists (NAJ), demanded that the
Prime Minister, Dr Sibusiso Dlamini, withdraw the media Bill, and vowed that the association
would fight the matter in court.

A human rights activist, Simon Noge, said the country's media had been comprised into
toeing the government line and the media Bill would worsen the situation.

The Information Minister, Muntu Msawane, insisted that the Media Bill was aimed at
promoting professionalism. He said journalists, as professionals, needed to behave rationally
and not make unfounded statements. He pledged that the government would not infringe the
rights of journalists: "Swaziland boasts free media and we intend to maintain that," he said.

However, Swazi journalists did not accept these reassurances. They argued that the
government would effectively dictate to journalists what to write - or the reporters would risk
having their accreditation withdrawn. Journalists who fail to toe the line will face a fine or a jail
term of five years while the publishers would also risk substantial fines. Anyone who
continues to publish, distribute or disseminate a banned publication risked maximum prison
term of seven years or a fine. The press were by no means the only victims in Swaziland this
year. The authorities were also accused of human rights violations, cracking down brutally on
political dissent .
The authorities announced plans to block the transmission of South African Broadcasting
Corporation (SABC) programmes in Swaziland. The blackout was privately seen as an
attempt to stop Swazis from tuning into anti-Swaziland programmes - although the move was
officially described as a cost-cutting measure.

The director of Swaziland Television, Mike Cornwell, then announced that his station had
suspended its intention to stop the transmission of SABC channels. Cornwell first announced
the blackout on October 15, saying his station would switch off the transmitter which makes it
possible to view the SABC channels because it was costly to run.

However, it was largely believed that public protests forced Swazi TV to suspend the
decision.

IPI, the global network of editors, media executives and leading journalists, is dedicated to
the furtherance and safeguarding of press freedom, the promotion of the free flow of news
and information, and the improvement of the practices of journalism