Wednesday, November 28, 2012


Democratic movement must unite and involve rank and file to depose Swaziland’s absolute monarch

Stiffkitten blog November 28, 2012 
“A group of uncoordinated lions will fail to catch a limping buffalo,” says a member of the democratic movement in Roskilde University scholar Bo Karlsen’s newly published analysis of the democratic movement in Swaziland, Struggling to Achieve Mass Mobilisation and Unity.

Bo Karlsen collected empirical data during a five week field study in Swaziland, sponsored by the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Here he interviewed leaders from all of the main organisations in the democratic movement in Swaziland – a country that absolute monarch Mswati III has more or less bankrupted and whose population has been devastated due to “poor policy choices” and “heavy exploitation.”

From these interviews, Karlsen concludes that unity and mass mobilisation in the democratic movement in Swaziland are the main goals, but that the main impediments for the movement as a whole in achieving these goals are leadership struggles and value differences between two fractions or wings of the democratic movement. If they united, “they would be able to overthrow the King and his government,” he claims.

However, as much as these two interrelated goals were shared broadly among the organizations in the democracy movement, the goals were only occasionally achieved, says Karlsen.

“There are some deeply rooted differences in values and ways to carry out activities between the two wings in the democracy movement,” writes Karlsen. And the “leaders of the two wings are hostile to each other and are reluctant to cooperate. In the neighbouring countries it has been possible to form broad coalitions. However, in Swaziland the actors continued to focus on what divides and not what unites.”

The two wings, says Karlsen, are made up of the Swaziland United Democratic Front (SUDF), the People’s United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO) and the Foundation for Socio-Economic Justice (FSEJ) on the one hand, and the Swaziland Coalition of Concerned Civic Organisations (SCCCO), the Ngwane National Liberatory Congress (NNLC) and the Swaziland National Association of Teachers (SNAT) on the other – let us refer to them as the SUDF and the SCCCO-wing.

The main difference between the two wings, Karlsen says, is that the SUDF-wing is seen as being more activist, confrontational and prone to initiate and participate in demonstrations.

There are other differences, but these are not generally insurmountable, says Karlsen. “Concerns about the work of the democracy movement were shared [and] they were concerned with the same issues … Often the different organizations are able to meet and agree on the same goals.”

One way of solving the problem, he writes, is to involve the rank and file levels of the organisations that make up Swaziland’s democratic movement, as the rank and file is less prejudiced towards the opposing wing than the respective leaders, and by having an organisation that acts impartially.
This solution has already been successfully attempted by the Swaziland Democracy Campaign (SDC) and the International Research Academy for Labour and Education (IRALE).

The SDC owes its success to its flat and loose cooperation structure, not being involved in the party politics as other organisations allegedly are, “playing the middle ground” and thereby being able to get “both wings together in campaigns.” According to Karlsen, the SDC “has been the sole actor in the Swazi democracy movement that has achieved mobilization of almost all actors in the democracy movement as participants.”

IRALE owes its success to “capitalizing on the more positive approach” of the rank of file of Swaziland’s two trade federations towards the other, each of which belonged to different wings of the movement, and thus helping facilitate the merging of Swaziland’s trade unions into one trade federation, TUCOSWA. “IRALE has been what several sources call the key instigator in the merging between the two competing federations,” says Karlsen.

Whichever way it comes about, however, a more unified approach within the democratic movement is still necessary to make it legitimate and credible enough in the eyes of both the Swazi population – who risk being tortured, beaten up and forcefully evicted if they campaign for democracy – and the international community.

“A united Swazi democracy movement is important to gain legitimacy in the population and look like a viable alternative in the country,” writes Karlsen.  The present disunity, on the other hand, makes the leaders of Swaziland’s democratic movement look too much like the parties in nearby Lesotho, a small former monarchy whose democracy has ended in bickering between its respective parties, in the eyes of the general population.

As for the international community, “the reason [that they stick to vague criticism] is that South Africa [Swaziland’s neighbour and biggest trading partner] and the international society is unsure of the stability of the alternative to the King,” writes Karlsen. “This factor in itself is an important reason for achieving unity in the Swazi democracy movement in order to be recognized as a viable alternative.”

Bo Karlsen is the National Secretary of the Danish Central American Committee. He has Master’s Degree in International Development studies, and has done analytical and administrative work for the Danish Trade Union Council for International Development Co-operation and the Danish Development Research Network. During the last ten years he has worked, studied and travelled in Latin America, Africa and Nepal.

Tuesday, November 27, 2012


A man has been found dead in a Swaziland police cell.

Sikhumbuzo Tfwala, aged 28, was reportedly naked and had used his jeans and a sweater to hang himself inside the toilet of the cell at Sigodvweni.

The Times ofSwaziland newspaper reported a source saying, ‘I heard that the deceased suspect climbed the toilet window bars in order to reach the rafters and hanged himself.’

Tfwala had been accused of housebreaking.

This is not the first death in custody at a Swazi police station. In June 2012 Sihle Bhembe, aged 26, died after allegedly repeatedly banging his head against a wall at the old Mbabane Police Station. He had a history of emotional problems and had been in a cell for three days.

His family reportedly said at the time they suspect police involvement in the death.

Swazi police have also been accused of having a shoot-to-kill policy when dealing with suspects.

In June 2012, the Council of Swaziland Churches demanded an independent inquiry into the police killing of the alleged rapist Bhekinkhosi ‘Scarface’ Masina.

Masina was reportedly shot while while resisting arrest. Police say they shot him in the thigh and he died of his injuries. Later a Swazi newspaper said its reporter had seen Masina’s body and it had a bullet wound to the head.

See also


Tuesday, November 20, 2012


The Swaziland King, his Royal Family, the Swazi Government and local authority members, all snubbed the ordination of Africa’s first woman Anglican bishop.

Bishop Ellinah Wamukoya, aged 61, of Swaziland made headlines around the world this past weekend when she was ordained the first female Anglican bishop in Africa at a time when the Church of England was still undecided about allowing women to become bishops. The consecration took place in Manzini, Swaziland.

The Swazi Observer newspaper reported that the programme director ‘called for the government representative more than twice but no one showed up and other speakers were then called to the podium.’

The newspaper reported that also not present were representatives from royalty, the regional administrator and the Manzini Municipal Council. It said they had received formal invitations.
‘There were, however, no immediate apologies for their no show but other well-wishers were later given a chance to greet the bishop,’ it reported.

Wamukoya told the Associated Press news agency that she represented a historic change for the Anglican church in Africa, where other denominations do not allow women to serve as bishops. 

Monday, November 19, 2012


Swaziland’s Minister of Economic Planning and Development Prince Hlangusemphi seriously misled people when he said that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) was forcing the government to sack workers.

Hlangusemphi said this as part of a larger attack on the IMF, which he claimed did not want to help Swaziland get out of its financial mess.

Hlangusemphi was speaking in an interview with the Swazi Observer, the newspaper in effect owned by King Mswati III, when he said the government would not downsize the Swazi civil service ‘as recommended by the IMF’. He went on to say that if the government sacked workers without consultation it would be in trouble with organizations such as the International Labour Organisation (ILO).

But where Hlangusemphi is wrong is that the IMF has not called for civil servants to be sacked, but it has suggested the government wage bill should be cut by 5 percent. It has never been the IMF’s case to cut jobs of ordinary workers: that suggestion came from the Swazi Government itself.

The IMF has been very public in its advice to the Swaziland Government. In November 2011, for example, Joannes Mongardini, Head of the IMF Mission to Swaziland, said there were other ways to reduce the public expenditure bill in Swaziland without cutting the jobs or wages of ordinary workers.

Mongardini told the BBC World Service Focus on Africa programme the money could be saved from cutting spending on the army, the police and politicians’ allowances.

‘We are recommending for the government to reduce the wages bill by 5 percent. This is a relatively moderate amount compared to countries like Greece, Portugal and Ireland.’

Asked by the BBC about the position of public service workers who have complained about the possibility of retrenchments and wage cuts, Mongardini said, ‘We fully understand that this is a politically difficult decision to make.

‘Having said that, the government can find other ways to reduce the wage bill that will not require salary cuts. In particular, some of the largest increases in the wage bill in recent years are due to increased security forces and police personnel and they also are due to very generous allowances that the government has given to politicians and top civil servants.’

Hlangusemphi also misled the House of Assembly last week when he claimed that the IMF did not want to help Swaziland access funding to revive its economy. He said the IMF had prevented organisations such as the African Development Bank (AfDB) from giving loans to government. 

But Hlangusemphi knows (or should know) that the reason why Swaziland asked for the IMF’s assistance was so it could convince international financers that it could repay any loans it might receive. To do this the Swaziland Government drew up what it called a Fiscal Adjustment Roadmap (FAR) that set out a number of measures it would introduce to cut spending and increase income. But, the government failed to implement its own plan.

Because of this failure, the IMF said in April 2012 it could no longer support the government. It was up to the government to come up with a new plan that might help to save the economy.

The government has not done this. Earlier this month (November 2012) the IMF reported the government had failed to improve the economy in any appreciable way and could not pay its bills. This meant immediate public expenditure cuts were needed if the government was to meet the budget targets it set itself in February 2012.

In a statement following its visit, the IMF said the government would find it difficult to pay its bills this year, without increasing domestic borrowing. It also said that one reason for this was that the government had increased spending this year on security.

Since the IMF’s November statement, there have been a number of attempts from the Swazi Government to deflect attention away from its own failings and to claim the IMF did not know what it was talking about.

Immediately after the IMF reported, Finance Minister Majozi Sithole, described the IMF as biased, negative and unrealistic.

This was after Mongardini had warned the government of bad times ahead, including a looming negative impact on sugar exports, a tourism sector that had declined by between eight and nine percent, low investor confidence, an envisaged decline in receipts from the Southern African Customs Union (SACU) and possible repatriation of money from local to South African banks.

See also


Friday, November 16, 2012


Swaziland is training police officers from Equatorial Guinea, one of the few countries in Africa with arguably a human rights record as bad as King Mswati III’s kingdom.

Thirty cadet officers are in Matsapha for the start of a course scheduled to last 12 months. Swaziland has signed an agreement with Equatorial Guinea to train police officers for five years.

Equatorial Guinea has an appalling human rights record committed by its police and other state security forces.

The US State Department, in a report on Equatorial Guinea published in May 2012, revealed, ‘Corruption and impunity continued to be problems. Security forces extorted money from citizens and immigrants at police checkpoints. There was no internal investigation unit within the police, and mechanisms to investigate allegations of abuse were poorly developed.’

It added, ‘security forces sometimes committed abuses with impunity. The government did not maintain effective internal or external mechanisms to investigate security force abuses.’

Lawyers in the country report arbitrary arrests. ‘Lawyers did not have access to police stations and could not contact detainees while they were held there; police superintendents when interviewed stated they did not see the need for or advisability of such access.

‘Police raids on immigrant communities, local stores, and restaurants increased in the period preceding the African Union Summit in June [2011].

‘Reliable sources reported that many legal as well as irregular immigrants were abused, extorted, or detained during such raids. Police occasionally used excessive force to detain and deport detainees, and almost all foreign embassies in the country criticized the government during the year for its harassment, abuse, extortion, and detention without representation of foreign nationals. Many detainees complained about the bribes required for release from detention.’

‘Several members of the largest opposition political party, the Convergence Party for Social Democracy (CPDS), were arrested, briefly detained, and released.’

Swazi Commissioner of Police Isaac Magagula ‘expressed pleasure’ at an opening ceremony that Swaziland and Equatorial Guinean were working closely together. He said the two countries’ police forces needed to collaborate more.


The Swazi Observer, the newspaper in effect owned by King Mswati III, has come out in favour of police torturing suspects.

In an editorial in the newspaper it speaks approvingly of taking suspects to the river and tying them to trees so that they freeze.

The police and state security forces regularly torture alleged suspects, including pro-democracy campaigners, in the kingdom, ruled by King Mswati, who is sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch.

The Observer was commenting on a case heard at magistrates court where a man accused of housebreaking said he had been savagely beaten by police using an iron rod to make him confess to the crime.

The Observer said the police probably did this because they ‘cannot have their precious time wasted by small time thieves like these’.

The newspaper went onto reminisce about the days ‘when police wore shorts, and polished their boots to a mirror finish, such would never happen’.

It went on, ‘For such trivialities, the investigating officer would simply take the accused to the nearest river, especially when it was winter and a few hours before the break of dawn.

‘The suspect would then be fastened to a tree, and told the officers would be returning in a few hours.  As the waves crashed on the boulders spraying drops of water on the suspect, he would shiver and gnash his teeth so much that he prayed the cops returned much earlier.

‘By the time they return, he would be more than willing to spill the beans and Bingo! the mystery was solved.’

In May 2012 the US State Department investigated the use of torture in Swaziland and found, ‘Security officers reportedly used torture during interrogation, assaulted citizens, and used excessive force in carrying out their duties. Reported practices included beatings and temporary suffocation using a rubber tube tied around the face, nose, and mouth, or plastic bags over the head.’

See also


Thursday, November 15, 2012


In one of the most bizarre stories to come out of Swaziland’s troubled Limkokwing University, the  Minister of Education and Training Wilson Ntshangase publicly claimed that he cried in cabinet in order to get the prime minister to allow it to open in the kingdom.

‘I cried, literally, because I was fighting, fighting, fighting and working hard for the university to be established in the country. On that day, the prime minister said to me, “Ntshangase, don’t cry, we are going to help you,”’ he told the guests at a book launch at Limkokwing.

Limkokwing is a private university based in Malaysia that has opened campuses in Swaziland, Botswana and Lesotho on the African continent.  Controversy has dogged Limkokwing wherever it goes, because of the often controversial way it sets up in a country and the low standards of its courses and teaching staffs.

Ntshangase might delude himself that it was his tears that won the day for Limkokwing in Swaziland, but in fact it was King Mswati III, who made it happen. Plans to set up in Mbabane were going nowhere for years until the king stepped in.

In June 2011, it emerged that the university’s founder Tan Sri Dato Lim Kok Wing had a meeting with King Mswati and ‘persuaded’ him that Swaziland needed a new university – and Limkokwing should be it. He fooled the king into believing that low level courses in such subjects as Graphic Designing, TV & Film Production, Architectural Technology, Advertising, Creative Multimedia, Information Technology, Event Management, Business Information Technology, Journalism and Media, Public Relations and Business Management, would help Swaziland – a mainly agricultural society - to prosper.  

These courses are ‘associate degrees’, a term invented to disguise the fact that they are courses inferior to a bachelor degree, which are better known in other educational institutions as ‘diplomas’.

Limkokwing cannot escape the controversy about the quality of its courses: an organisation isn’t a ‘university’ just because it says it is.

The king passed on his wishes to government that Limkokwing should be supported and no matter how daft the proposition, it had to find the money to make it work. Before we knew it the Swazi Government had put up US$2 million a year it did not have for scholarships for up to 800 students.

We know it did not have the money because as soon as Limkokwing opened in Mbabane in May 2011, students began protesting that they were not getting their allowances and there were no text books and too few laptops. There were at least 20 protests, class boycotts and closures during the first year after it opened. Police used teargas and rubber bullets against protesting students. One student was shot in the leg. 

Limkokwing is in Swaziland illegally. You need an Act of Parliament to set up a university, but Limkokwing was allowed to start without parliament’s approval and there is no intention of creating an Act for it. This was confirmed by Ntshangase. 

Ackel Zwane, who writes for the Swazi Observer pointed out in May 2011, ‘The University of Swaziland [the kingdom’s only other university] is established by an Act of Parliament, which solely governs that institution and therefore, the same Act cannot be applied in the regulation of the new Limkokwing and others. There is something stinking under the carpet.

‘All those appearing to be promoting higher education in Swaziland have personal interests that cannot be disputed.’

Educational standards at Limkokwing are lower than those at other universities, including the University of Swaziland. It is so desperate to attract fee-paying students that it does not require them to have qualifications in the English language.

Ntshangase said there was ‘nothing suspicious’ about Limkokwing wanting lower qualifications for entry. But, Limkokwing makes its money from student fees: the more students it signs up, the more money it makes.

A proper university offers high quality courses to high quality students using high quality staff.

Limkokwing falls down on all of these. The quality of students it takes is poor. In Swaziland it takes students with three credits in the International General Certificate of Secondary Education. This is lower than the five credits needed for entry to the University of Swaziland (UNISWA), the kingdom’s only state-run university.

No student at a Limkokwing University should fail, according to its owner Lim Kok Wing. He told a Malaysian newspaper, ‘It is my belief that no student should fail. If there are failures, then it is we who have failed them.’ Which means lecturers will pass even the dullest and laziest students to avoid being criticised by their own bosses.

Then there is the quality of the staff. Limkokwing advertises internationally for staff in its new campuses (including Swaziland). It states that applicants with bachelor degrees will be considered for posts. A proper university would expect staff to have Ph.D doctorate degrees.

In June 2012, after one year of operation Bandile Mkhonta, Head of Human Resource for Limkokwing in Mbabane, told local media that of 53 professional staff at the university; only one had a Ph.D.

The Swazi Observer reported Mkhonta saying Limkokwing had fewer Ph.Ds because it was a ‘non-conventional’ university whose curriculum was mainly based on practice than theory. 
For ‘non-conventional’ one should read ‘non-university’.

See also


Wednesday, November 14, 2012


Swaziland National Union of Students statement on Black Wednesday

This date 14 November is very important in the history of the student’s movement in Swaziland. It is a day which we need to commemorate, lest we forget about selfless young women and men who fought for a better learning and living environment.

It was on this day twenty two years ago that the [Barnabas] Sibusiso Dlamini led government set the army and the police, both armed to the tooth on students at the University of Swaziland Kwaluseni campus. The ‘crime’ of the students was protesting for better learning environment and mostly they demanded to be given their meal allowances instead of being given unhealthy food at the so called refectory. Upon arrival of the forces at the campus, the student’s conscious of the fact that police and soldiers are scared of books, they went to gather at the library which was under construction then. The forces, however, invaded the library and attacked the students and caused major injuries on many of them.

It is for this reason that today we pay homage to those students who never looked back in their struggle for allowances and quality education. The strides that they made in the quest for a better learning environment are still visible even today. The mark that they made greatly impacted on the lives of the students who came after them and their legacy still lives on. Surely they are the oasis of our inspiration as students of today.

It is worth noting that even in 1990, like today, the problems faced by the students of Swaziland were mainly caused by the government than the institutions. As a result of this government manufactured injustices students find themselves spending less time in class because they will be on the streets inhaling teargas and dodging rubber bullets.

As we commemorate this watershed day let each and every student answer in a practical way the critical question-what am i doing to transform education to further transform the society?

Please remember the patriots of black Wednesday to prosperity and show by your deeds as students that you are committed to fighting for better education in the country.

Commanders of 1990 we are proud of you for the enormous contribution you made to the struggle of the students and people of Swaziland.

Mlungisi Khumalo
Deputy President
See also


The Swazi Observer, the newspaper in effect owned by King Mswati III, has backed the Prime Minister Barnabas Dlamini’s ban on MPs going on the radio.

Dlamini had banned MPs from the airwaves in Swaziland, where all but one radio station is state-controlled and the PM is editor-in-chief.

Dlamini said MPs could not go on air without the permission of their areas’ chiefs. He said it was wrong for them to just go on radio with issues which the chiefs were not even aware of.

The Observer, in an editorial, backed the premier, saying, ‘We don’t care about the national radio ban he effected on them.’

In particular, the newspaper objected to MPs drawing attention to the development needs of their constituents.  ‘MPs are in Parliament to make laws and not to play small time development officers,’ it said.

It went on to say it did not want to hear the MPs talking about people’s needs like burials, school fees and elderly grants.

See also


For the first time it has been publicly acknowledged that King Mswati III took it upon himself to ignore a vote of confidence passed on his government by the Swaziland House of Assembly.  

And, it is also revealed that members of the Swazi parliament do not understand the constitution, and some may never have even read it.

The House vote meant that the king should have sacked the Prime Minister Barnabas Dlamini, but he chose not to do so. Instead, the House was forced to take a second vote to overturn its earlier decision.

Now, Mpolonjeni MP Nicodemus Mashwama has publicly said that parliament had no choice but to withdraw the vote of no-confidence, because the king did not accept it.

The Times ofSwaziland reported him saying the king’s resolve on the matter automatically compelled MPs to rescind the motion.

But, in giving his explanation as to why this happened, Mashwama unwittingly revealed that members of the Swazi parliament do not understand the Swaziland Constitution.

The newspaper quotes Mashwama saying that the king, ‘as the highest authority in the land, has executive powers to either implement or not implement the MPs resolution to axe Cabinet. He said the King’s powers are enshrined in the Constitution.’

But, this is not true. The constitution does not give the king any discretion in the matter. Section S68 (5) clearly states that where a resolution of no-confidence is passed on the Cabinet by three-fifths of all members of the House the king ‘shall dissolve Cabinet’.  

There is no discretion for the king: the constitution requires him to do it. And, there is not the slightest ambiguity in the section of the constitution. Anyone reading it cannot be confused about what it says, which suggests that Mashwama and his parliamentary colleagues have never read the constitution.

But, Mashwama, told the Times that he believed ‘the MPs’ vote of no-confidence on Cabinet was merely an advice to His Majesty King Mswati III. He said it was then within the king’s discretion to implement the advice or not.’

He went on to give a completely inaccurate description of the role of the House of Assembly in the matter of the vote of no-confidence. He is reported saying, ‘The nation has to understand that whatever MPs decided either pro or against Cabinet, they were doing that as part of emabandla (committees) advising the king.

‘If the king decides not to accept the advice, as he may elect to do so as the highest authority in the land, he has to be respected as it is his right.

‘In the issue of the vote of no confidence, the king decided to not accept the MPs’ advice. Protocol, as all Swazis understand, dictates that MPs had to automatically succumb or relent to the king’s wisdom in dealing with the issue.

‘Obviously the king’s actions showed that he is not sanctioning the axing of Cabinet.

‘For the sake of national progress and respect for the king, as the nation’s father, we just had to reverse the motion. Every Swazi, worthy of his identity, will understand that you just can’t continue maintaining a stance that is against your father,’ said Mashwama.

Mashwama again unwittingly demonstrated that King Mswati rules Swaziland as an absolute monarch. He told the newspaper that members of parliament take an oath that ‘states clearly that they are not only serving the nation, but the king as the father of the nation’.

He added, ‘It is an honest fact that we backtracked on our decision to axe Cabinet.

‘We did this because we believe in the wisdom of the king as the father of the nation that he has the best interest of the nation by not sanctioning the removal of Cabinet.’

See also



Swaziland’s Prime Minister Barnabas Dlamini told the House of Assembly that MPs needed a workshop so they could understand what their responsibilities were.

He told them that they did not understand the principle of ‘separation of powers’ between the executive (government ministers and their departments), the legislative (parliament) and the judiciary (judges and the courts).

He said parliament had an important responsibility but seemingly, it overlapped sometimes with his government, the Swazi Observer newspaper reported him saying. What he meant was he did not want parliament interfering with his decisions.

The newspaper reported, ‘Dlamini said there needed to be a clarification on the separation of powers of the three arms so that none of them got in the way for the other, thus making the operation of government smooth in as far as that was concerned.’

But, Dlamini fails to acknowledge that in Swaziland any workshop on separation of powers is irrelevant. This is because Section 64 (1) of the Swaziland Constitution says that the executive authority of Swaziland rests in the king as head of state.

S11 of the constitution goes on to state that the king cannot be questioned in court, so this means his decisions cannot come under judicial scrutiny. Since King Mswati III has executive authority and his decisions cannot be overruled by the courts, this makes him an absolute monarch.

This has been demonstrated many times in Swaziland, most recently last month when Prime Minister Dlamini lost a vote of confidence in the House of Assembly. According to the constitution, King Mswati was required to sack him, but he chose not to do so and Dlamini remains in power.

The supremacy of the monarch is not in doubt, but it is not talked about much in Swaziland.

Prime Minister Dlamini is not the only major figure in Swaziland to misrepresent the status of separation of powers; the Attorney General (AG) Majahenkhaba Dlamini did the same in January 2008, when he claimed in a speech that separation of powers were enshrined in the constitution and that the executive (government ministers) was ‘first among equals’ in the three branches of government.

The Swaziland Lawyers for Human Rights made several important criticisms of the AG’s at the time and in doing so gave an excellent account of just how undemocratic a state Swaziland is. 

In a statement the lawyers said the King and iNgweyama (his Mother) had a special and revered role in Swazi traditional law and custom to such an extent that Swazi custom dictates that ‘the King cannot tell a lie’.

‘This is not a prohibition of royal falsehoods but a statement on how truth and reality are recognized in Swazi Traditional Law.

‘The King and iNgweyama also has an elevated role under the Swazi Constitution where under section 11 he cannot be questioned in court and therefore his decisions cannot come under judicial scrutiny either.

‘Therefore it follows that our Executive is not first among equals but first among strongly weighted unequals.’

The lawyers continued, ‘The Attorney General [says] that the separation of powers can be found in the constitution. We strongly contest that assertion. Separation of powers is a philosophy of providing checks and balances between the three branches of government: the executive (government ministers and their departments), the legislative (parliament) and the judiciary (judges and the courts).

‘In theory, it distributes the power of the state between these three branches and maintains a healthy tension of oversight and accountability between them.

‘In a democracy that practices separation of powers the ultimate power rests in the will of the people, and so parliament and the legislature become the final arbiter of how the country is governed - not the executive.

‘We have already seen that in Swaziland the King has supreme executive authority. Let us look at parliamentary authority in Swaziland today. Section 106(a) of the Constitution says ‘the supreme legislative authority of Swaziland vests in the King-in-Parliament’.

‘It goes on to state the King can appoint nearly one fifth of the House of Assembly and two thirds of the Senate. The majority of both houses is required for a bill to become law. In any case, under section 134(b), the King has the absolute authority to dissolve parliament. It is impossible to argue that emaSwati [Swazi people] have any real political power in this arrangement.

‘We know that the real power lies with the traditional authorities and Liqoqo in advising the King. In other countries, parliamentary elections are typically closely fought and so often the people in the centre hold the balance of power. This promotes a culture of problem solving, compromise and respect for minorities.

‘The Swazi system ensures an inbuilt majority for those who are sympathetic to traditional causes in all but the most extreme situations. Democracy is not reflected in the simple rule of the majority. It is equal access to power and influence by all.

‘The arrangement is Swaziland is simply and clearly not democratic.’

The lawyers then turned their attention to the judiciary in Swaziland.

‘Section 141 guarantees the independence of the judiciary. However, the senior judges of the country are chosen by the Judicial Services Commission.

‘The majority of this commission is directly appointed by the King and his advisors. Given this fact, how independent can new judges really be?’

The lawyers continued, ‘Thus we can see that the combined position of the Monarchy and its advisors directly controls the makeup of, and has the potential to manipulate the decisions of, all three branches of government.

‘We therefore must disagree in the strongest of terms with the Attorney General that the Swazi Constitution embodies the doctrine of the separation of powers.’


Swazi single mothers: do not ostracize us    
Stiffkitten blog / Peter Kenworthy November 13, 2012
“We believe that those who find themselves involuntarily having children should not be rejected and banned from their community. Swaziland Single Mothers’ Organization (SWASMO) is working hard to ensure that young single women are considered in Swaziland,” SWASMO said in their annual statement last week.

SWASMO is a membership-based Swazi NGO that amongst other things organizes projects and self-help groups that promote self-reliance, mutual support, mobilisation and education to try and improve the position and consciousness of single mothers by mobilising and educating poor single mothers in Swaziland. SWASMO is planning to expand both their outreach and projects.

“The fact is that SWASMO is the only organisation taking care of young single mothers and their children,” says Project Coordinator and founder of SWASMO, Beatrice Bitchong. “But we have begun giving talks on the radio to promote a supportive attitude from parents. We are also planning a march on the 8th March 2013 with the aim of sensitizing people about the problems of young single mothers. And we are planning a day care project where their children could have good meals and be well looked after.”

Church organisations from Canada and the USA have recently donated materials to SWASMO’s projects. “But we are interested in other donors who can help Swaziland’s young single mothers. They need it more than most,” says Beatrice Bitchong.

Women in Swaziland are generally heavily discriminated against. In Swazi customary law, women in effect have the status of minors and cannot get a bank loan without the consent of their husbands. Women can also be fined for wearing trousers by traditional authorities.

But young single mothers are even worse off than other women in Swaziland. Over a third of all pregnancies in Swaziland are teenage pregnancies. But teenage mothers receive little or no help from the government, their families or communities. On the contrary, when they are found to be pregnant they are often ostracised and stigmatised by their neighbours, communities and families.

“Swazi single mothers get no support from the government, they get expelled from their schools, and are rejected by their communities,” says Beatrice Bitchong. “Some young women even find it difficult to run their small businesses in their communities because of stigmatisation. People in the communities also label them as being ‘naughty, lazy, prostitutes’ and if they are beaten by their boyfriends the community police do little to help them. Their children are labelled as bastards and looked down upon.”

Swaziland’s conservative and patriarchal culture is thus used to condone widespread violation of women’s rights in Swaziland, even though Swaziland has signed the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and Swaziland’s Constitution guarantees women the right to equal treatment with men – politically, economically and socially.

Wednesday’s debate in Swaziland’s parliament was a case in point. Here Swazi senators complained about the criminalization of forced marriages and opposed the protection of women from stalking.

Tuesday, November 13, 2012


Swaziland Members of Parliament say they are being banned from the radio airwaves by the government. 

They say it is because of a policy made by the Swazi Cabinet.  

A row erupted in the House of Assembly when MPs accused Prime Minister Barnabas Dlamini of keeping them off the airwaves. In Swaziland broadcasting is state controlled and the PM is editor-in-chief of the SBIS radio stations and the Swazi TV Channel.

Dlamini said MPs could not go on air without the permission of their areas’ chiefs. He said it was wrong for them to just go on radio with issues which the chiefs were not even aware of.

This is not the first time the government has been shown to be censoring the airwaves.

In August 2012 it was revealed that radio stations in Swaziland would be banned from broadcasting news and information that did not support the government’s own agenda.

Coverage of all events was banned ‘except those authorised by relevant authorities’, according to the rules.

The guidelines  also bar ‘public service announcements’ unless they are ‘in line with government policy’ or have been authorised ‘by the chiefs through the regional administrators’ or deputy prime minister’s office’.

The guidelines say the radio stations, which fall under the control of the Swaziland Broadcasting and Information Service (SBIS), cannot be ‘used for purposes of campaigning by individuals or groups, or to advance an agenda for political, financial popularity gains for individuals or groups’.

There is a long history of censorship on state broadcasting in Swaziland. Strikes and anti-government demonstrations are usually ignored by broadcasters. Sometimes live radio programmes are censored on air. In July 2011, the plug was pulled on a phone-in programme when listeners started criticising the government for its handling of the economy. Percy Simelane, who was then the boss of SBIS, and is now the government’s official spokesperson, personally stormed the radio studio and cut the programme. 

In April 2011, Welile Dlamini, a long-time news editor at SBIS, challenged the Prime Minister at an editors’ forum meeting on why the state radio station was told by the government what and what not to broadcast. Dlamini said that at the station they were instructed to spike certain stories such as those about demonstrations by progressives and strike action by workers. The PM responded by saying editors should resign if they were not happy with the editorial policies they are expected to work with. 

In March 2011, SBIS stopped broadcasting the BBC World Service Focus on Africa programme after it carried reports critical of King Mswati III. In the same month, SBIS failed to cover the march by nurses that forced the Swazi Government into paying them overdue allowances.

In 2010, Swazi police told SBIS it must stop allowing people to broadcast information about future meetings unless the police had given permission. Jerome Dlamini, Deputy Director of the SBIS said this was to stop the radio station airing an announcement for a meeting that was prohibited.

He said, ‘It’s the station’s policy not to make announcements without police permission.’

See also



Swaziland Prime Minister Barnabas Dlamini has falsely stated that King Mswati III was personally responsible for saving the kingdom’s economy by getting E7 billion (US$780 million) from a customs union.

Dlamini told a gathering of Christians held at one of the king’s palaces that King Mswati had personally taken action and helped the government when Swaziland was in financial crisis.

The Swazi Observer,a newspaper in effect owned by King Mswati, reported Dlamini saying that the king got the money from the Southern African Customs Union (SACU).

The newspaper reported him saying, ‘It all started when the SACU rebates received by the country were drastically reduced after the country started experiencing cash flow problems. The King personally came through for government and went out to save the country from the crisis. Indeed His Majesty came back with seven billion from SACU, something which we appreciate as government, because the situation was able to stabilise.’

But, Dlamini was not speaking the truth. The amount of money Swaziland received from SACU was based on a financial formula that applied to all member countries of the customs union and was based on the amount of trade that had taken place in the region. Swaziland would have received its E7 billion without an intervention from the king. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has already warned Swaziland to expect drastically less than E7 billion from SACU next year because of changes in the level of trade in the region.

Dlamini made his comments at Lozitha Palace, where King Mswati himself addressed the crowd.

Dlamini has much to thank the king for. King Mswati, who is sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch, personally picked Dlamini as Prime Minister in contravention of the kingdom’s constitution. Last month (October 2012), the PM lost a vote of confidence in the Swazi House of Assembly and according to the constitution King Mswati was obliged to sack him, but did not. The king then used his power to ensure that the vote of confidence was reversed so Dlamini could remain in office.

Meanwhile, despite Dlamini’s claim that the king saved Swaziland from its economic crisis, the IMF last week announced that the kingdom needed to make immediate expenditure cuts, including in public sector wage bills, if it was to meet budget targets set by the government for the current financial year.

See also


Sunday, November 11, 2012


Swaziland gay hate MP Aaron Sotja Dladla is gaining support for his campaign to have homosexuality banned in the kingdom.

Last week he told the Swazi House of Assembly a law should be put in place to ‘deal with’ what he called ‘this mushrooming anti-social’ behaviour of gays and lesbians.

Now, the Weekend Observer, a newspaper in effect owned by King Mswati III, reports thatresidents in his constituency, ‘have encouraged him to move a motion in parliament calling for the banning of homosexual tendencies’.

Dladla, a member of the fringe church group Jericho Red Gown, restated his stance against homosexuality to the newspaper. He has made a number of public statements expressing hatred of homosexuals.

Although the mainstream media in Swaziland is reporting Dladla’s growing campaign uncritically, he is being attacked for his extremism on social networks. The Swaziland Solidarity Network has called for a new law to ban hatespeech.

Dladla is not alone among Swazi parliamentarians to oppose homosexuality. In June 2012, Prime Minister Barnabas Dlamini told journalists that same-sex marriages would not be allowed in the kingdom. 

He was responding to a question about the increasing acceptability of such marriages across the world, including neighbouring South Africa.

He said, ‘It will take time before we allow this to happen and include it in the country’s laws. We are not even ready to consider it.’

Ironically, King Mswati, sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch, insists that Swaziland is close to becoming a ‘first-world country’. Clearly, he and his supporters are on the wrong side of history. Only this week the United States re-elected Barack Obama, an outspoken supporter of gay marriages, President of the United States. Obama defeated Mitt Romney, himself a member of a religious sect that, like the traditional Swazis, believes in polygamous marriages for heterosexuals, but no marriage at all for gays and lesbians.

The Americans also voted in favour of same-sex marriages in local votes on the subject.

See also


Saturday, November 10, 2012


Swaziland’s new airport at Sikhuphe will be open for business in early 2013, according to Bertram Stewart, Principal Secretary in the Ministry of Economic Planning and Development.

But don’t hold your breath. Stewart has been making claims about the opening date of the airport, dubbed King Mswati III’s ‘vanity project’ for years. And every prediction he makes turns out to be false.

In October 2010, Stewart said the airport would be open by the end of that year. It wasn’t.

Stewart was at it again in February 2011, when he confidently told media the airport would be completed by June 2011. It wasn’t.He also said a number of top world airlines (that he declined to name) were negotiating to use Sikhuphe. Nothing happened.

He returned to the theme two months later in April 2011 when this time he said the airport would be open by December 2011. But still no airport.

Now, the Swazi News, an independent newspaper in Swaziland, reports Stewart saying Sikhuphe will start operating early next year (2013). Stewart told this to ambassadors from the Far East who were being given a tour of the airport construction site.

Sikhuphe has been criticised both inside and outside of Swaziland for being expensive and unnecessary.

There are also doubts that the airport, if completed, will be suitable for intercontinental aircraft.

The Chief Protocol Officer at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Promise Msibi let the cat out of the bag during the ambassadors’ tour. The Swazi News reports he ‘expressed concern at the apparent thinness of the runway and wanted to know if it was suitable for use by aircrafts.’

To which Stewart reportedly replied ‘to the naked eye, the runway looked thin but it had been proven to be suitable for use by all kinds of aircrafts’.

The building of Sikhuphe has been controversial because there is no obvious need for it. Swaziland already has an underused airport at Matsapha and no needs-analysis was ever completed to demonstrate why another airport should be built.

Most of the impetus for the building of the airport has come from King Mswati, Sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch, who is keen to show that the kingdom he rules is on its way to becoming a ‘first world’ nation.

Estimates for the total cost of Sikhuphe – including the airport itself, roads that need to be built to reach it, and other expenditure associated with it, have reached US$1 billion. 

Swaziland is broke and the International Monetary Fund has in the past criticised the building of Sikhuphe as a waste of valuable resources that could be better used on development in the kingdom.

Last week the IMF said Swaziland’s economy was in such poor shape that, ‘Capital projects should be prioritized and funded based on maximizing their impact on economic growth and poverty alleviation.’

Despite this, it is widely expected cash will continue to be poured into Sikhuphe because it is supported by the king.

See also



Swaziland Newsletter 
News from and about the fight for freedom Swaziland, compiled by Africa Contact, Denmark in collaboration with Swazi Media Commentary, and sent to all with an interest in human rights in Swaziland - free of charge. The newsletter is written in English.

To subscribe mail to:

Thursday, November 8, 2012


Harassment continues for Swazi women
(Statement: the Centre for Human Rights and Development, Swaziland, 8 November 2012)

The plight of women in Swaziland is far from over as parliamentarians opposed the protection of women from stalking. Senators were discussing the longstanding Sexual Offences and Domestic Violence Bill of 2000 yesterday. The proposed law seeks to protect among others women from unlawful stalking.

The senators argued that stalking was part of social cultural norms hence proscribing it will violate the culture of Swazis. According to the Times of Swaziland (8 November at page 5) one senator decried the criminalization of forced marriages saying that such custom was more important as it ensured that a girl’s father was able to benefit from his daughter’s marriage since the girl would be given to a man who has cattle to pay lobola.

Culture has continued to be used as a shield to condone the violation of human rights in Swaziland. During this time of the year a group of men identifying themselves as members of the”water party,”( a group of men who are commissioned by royalty to traverse the country ahead of the annual incwala ceremony),  go around the country harassing and imposing fine on women who are not properly dressed according to Swazi cultural norms.

This is despite the Constitution guaranteeing the protection of women from deleterious customs. The Swazi Constitution also contains equality and non-discrimination clauses which ought to serve as a yardstick for the treatment of women.

Swaziland is party to the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and other regional and international human rights instruments having a bearing on women, hence the continued violation of women rights on the basis of culture demonstrates the country’ failure to comply to its international obligations. During Swaziland’s human rights review session in March this year, several recommendations were made regarding the protection of women which Swaziland accepted and undertook to take action. It is disheartening to see parliamentarians openly condoning discriminatory customs as one would have hoped to see positive action being taken to eliminate such practices.

+268 2504 0913

ALERTS@DignityFirst is a periodic update on global issues touching on human rights, good governance and democratisation, issued by the Centre for Human Rights and Development operating out of Swaziland ( Recipients are urged to circulate information and share with colleagues in their networks.

** Putting Human Dignity First!**


Swaziland’s Government has failed to improve the economy in any appreciable way and cannot pay its bills. This means immediate public expenditure cuts are needed if the government is to meet the budget targets it set itself in February 2012.

These are the latest findings of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which has just finished a visit to Swaziland.

The IMF has been assisting the government to get the economy back on track after years of neglect by successive governments, all handpicked by King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch.

Even though the Swazi Government created its own plan for what it called ‘fiscal adjustment’, which included reducing public expenditure and cuts in public sector jobs, it has done next to nothing to implement the plan.

Now, the IMF has spelled out the consequences of this inaction. In a statement following its visit, the IMF said the government would find it difficult to pay its bills this year, without increasing domestic borrowing. It also said that one reason for this was that the government had increased spending this year on security.

The government’s failure to pay its suppliers had meant that small businesses in the kingdom had suffered and ‘been forced to cut down their operations’, it said.

The IMF said for the government to meet its own financial plan it needed an ‘upfront reduction in the wage bill of 300 million emalangeni, (US$38 million) [and] additional cuts in non-priority recurrent expenditures’.

The IMF pointed out, ‘These cuts will require sacrifices by all segments of Swazi society, but the basic needs of the most vulnerable should be protected as far as possible.’

This is not the first time the IMF has stressed that some people in Swaziland are wealthy, while others are poor, and the better-off should make a greater sacrifice for the common good. In November 2011, Joannes Mongardini, leader of the IMF mission to Swaziland, suggested to the BBC that even King Mswati and the Royal Family should play their parts by reducing their budgets. 

Nothing happened, although in October 2012 Swazi Finance Minister Majozi Sithole told the media that King Mswati was prepared to peg the amount of money he takes from the Swaziland budget and not increase his budget in future years. This statement was received with widespread scepticism, since the king continues to spend the Swazi people’s money on luxuries for himself. 

In its most recent statement, the IMF also said the government would have to make further cuts in the 2013 – 2014 national budget, including cuts in what it called ‘non-priority spending’. It added, ‘Capital projects should be prioritized and funded based on maximizing their impact on economic growth and poverty alleviation.’

This implies that projects such as the Sikhuphe International Airport that is at least two years behind schedule for completion would not get any more money. This is unlikely to be the case, because even though the airport has been widely criticised as unnecessary and a ‘white elephant’ it is supported by King Mswati, to the extent that outside of Swaziland, the airport is often referred to as the king’s ‘vanity project’.

The IMF restated a point it has made for many years that many of Swaziland’s economic problems were not related to the global economy, but were situated within Swaziland. It said, ‘Growth in Swaziland has been weaker over the last ten years than in other SACU [Southern Africa Customs Union] countries. This is associated with high unemployment, widespread poverty, rising inequalities, and the highest HIV/AIDS prevalence rate in the world.

‘A poor business climate and the lack of competitiveness are key obstacles to attaining higher sustainable growth and creating jobs.’

See also


Monday, November 5, 2012


One of Swaziland’s most vocal pro-democracy groups has called for a new law to ban hate speech against homosexuals.

The call by the Swaziland Solidarity Network (SSN) follows a debate in the Swazi House of Assembly in which MP Aaron Sotsha Dladla called for gays and lesbians to be outlawed in the kingdom.

Dladla said a new law should be put in place to deal with ‘this mushrooming anti-social’ behaviour of gays and lesbians. He went on to make a number of disparaging comments about homosexuals.

The Swazi Observer reported him saying, ‘We must first pass a law that will ban this practice before it takes root. Anyone found breaking that law should be dealt with severely.’

The SSN responded in a statement by calling MPs and members of Swaziland’s ruling elite ‘ghastly hypocritical’ because, it said, some of them were themselves closet homosexuals. It also claimed a prominent member of the Swazi Royal Family was a lesbian.

Gays and lesbians are routinely victimised in Swaziland. In November 2011, Chief Mgwagwa Gamedze, the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs, said Swaziland would not give human rights to gay people, because they did not exist in the kingdom. 
He was responding to criticism of Swaziland by a United Nations (UN) working group on human rights that said the kingdom should enact equality laws for LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) people.

A group called HOOP (House of Our Pride), a support group for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender and Inter-sex (GLBTI) people, reported to the UN, ‘It is a common scene for GLBTI to be verbally insulted by by-passers in public places. [There is] defamatory name calling and people yelling out to see a GLBTI person’s reproductive part are some of the issues facing GLBTI in Swaziland.’

‘Faith houses have been known to discriminate against GLBTI, advocating for the alienation of GLBTI in the family and society, while maintaining that these GLBTI are possessed by demons.’
HOOP also said GLBTI people were often discriminated against at work and there had been well known cases of this.

In one of the first reports of its kind detailing sexual orientation discrimination in Swaziland, HOOP revealed, ‘GLBTI are hugely discriminated against in the community, as they are not recognized at community meetings and their points are often not minuted at these meetings nor are they allowed to take part in community services.’

Police often ridiculed GLBTI people if they reported they had been victims of violent crime. ‘A good example of such practices is in the on-going case of a well-known GLBTI in Swaziland, Patricia Dludlu, who is currently in incarceration for a different offence but is constantly ridiculed by the media and police because of her sexuality.’

See also


No legal representation for Swazi student leaders in court case
Siffkitten blog / Peter Kenworthy November 4, 2012
“Once again the student activists, Maxwell Dlamini and Musa Ngubeni appeared before Magistrate Gumedze without any legal representation,” Foundation for Socio-Economic Justice (FSEJ) wrote in a press statement on Friday.

Maxwell Dlamini and Musa Ngubeni were both abducted and tortured by Swazi security forces during the so-called April 12 Uprising in April 2011, and were later charged with possession of explosives. They were released on bail in February, amongst other things as a result of the international Free Maxwell Dlamini campaign calling for his release.

“Without granting them a postponement to allow them time get legal representation, Magistrate Gumedze opted to continue with the case by calling the state witness to give evidence,” the FSEJ press statement continued.

“He [Magistrate Gumedze] instructed the two to take notes on behalf of their lawyer so they share them with him after the session. He also mentioned that should their lawyer fail to appear on the 16th of November 2012, the two must be prepared to cross examine the state witness themselves.”

Saturday, November 3, 2012


The statement from Swaziland Prime Minister Barnabas Dlamini that he does not want another term in office deserves to be met with belly laughs.
Dlamini told an audience in Manzini, ‘I am not determined to serve another term in office.’

According to the Times of Swaziland, he added he would ‘not campaign in next year’s elections.’

Observers of Swaziland and Dlamini’s record saw through the hollowness of his statement immediately. First up, he never took part in an election in 2008 when he was appointed to office by King Mswati III, in defiance of the kingdom’s constitution. It states the PM must come from the House of Assembly, but Dlamini was not elected to anything.  

So he never ran for election last time and it is ludicrous for him to imply that he would put himself before the voters at the 2013 election.

The second reason his statement has been met with derision is that it implies that people want him to carry on. Nothing is further from the truth. Only last month (October 2012) the Swazi House of Assembly passed a vote of no-confidence in him and his government. 

According to the constitution, King Mswati, who is sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch, was obliged to sack him. Once again the king defied the constitution and Dlamini remained in office. 

The House vote of no-confidence was not isolated. In August 2012 the Sibaya, a rather quaint excuse for democracy in Swaziland where ordinary people gather at a cattle byre to air their views on matters of importance to them, told Dlamini and his government to quit. The people said they were corrupt and destroying the kingdom. 

Dlamini, who was previously PM for seven and a half years until 2003, has a long history as an enemy of freedom, who ignores the law when it suits him. 

But, he also has also shown himself to be incompetent, untrustworthy and vain. 

His incompetence can been seen all over Swaziland, where seven in ten people live in the grip of abject poverty, earning less than US$2 a day. Three in ten people are so malnourished they are moving from hunger to starvation and the kingdom has the worst record for the number people with HIV in the whole world. On top of that, TB and measles are at epidemic proportions in Swaziland.

But, instead of putting forward policies to help the Swazi people, Dlamini has spent much of his time in office feathering his own nest. A blatantland-scam, where he and government colleagues bought for themselves land belonging to the Swazi people, only failed to go to court because King Mswati personally ordered it should not.  

Dlamini has also personal share-holding in companies, including Swazi Empowerment (Pty) Limited (SEL), which in turn has shares in the MTN cellphone company. This means he has a personal vested interest in many business decisions his government takes. 

Dlamini is untrustworthy. The most blatant example was in April 2011 when he called a press conference and lied to the media that he had secured a ‘letter of comfort’ from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). This letter would demonstrate to world finance organisations, such as the World Bank and the African Development Bank, that Swaziland’s economy was sound and the kingdom could be trusted with loans. The news was greeted as a triumph and published all over the world. But, the letter did not exist. It was a fabrication. 

Instead, one year later in April 2012 the IMF announced it was withdrawing support from Dlamini’s government and its ‘fiscal adjustment roadmap’ plan to save the economy. The IMF said ‘Government has yet to propose a credible reform programme that could be supported by a new IMF Staff-Monitored Programme.’

Dlamini was also exposed as a fraud in October 2010 when he allowed his government to alter an official report for the United Nations that stated that Swaziland was behind in its efforts to meet Millennium Goals on alleviating poverty.  The doctored report was changed so instead of saying the Swaziland Government was ‘not likely’ to meet the target of ‘eradication of extreme poverty and hunger’ it read that it could ‘potentially’ meet the target. 

As well as being incompetent and untrustworthy, Dlamini is also vain. In October 2010 he accepted a ‘World Citizen Award’. Even though before the award ceremony took place the world’s media exposed the organisers as conmen and the award as fake,  Dlamini nonetheless flew first-class with an entourage from Swaziland to the Bahamas, to accept the award. Even when he was told to his face that he had been conned, he refused to acknowledge it, humiliating both himself and Swaziland on the world stage. 

So, Dlamini does not want another term in office. Frankly, the Swazi people do not want to see him in office for one day more. The Prime Minister should show some integrity for once and stand down now.

See also