Home | Feature | WAS SEJUN’S PETITION ON CHOICE OF PM STILL-BORN?

WAS SEJUN’S PETITION ON CHOICE OF PM STILL-BORN?

26/03/2018 08:18:00 By Vusi Sibisi

Font size:

The Swaziland Economic Justice Network (SEJUN) recently petitioned Parliament to allow the people to have a say in the appointment of the next prime minister – assuming the incumbent Sibusiso Barnabas Dlamini is retiring when the Legislature is dissolved, to make way for elections scheduled for later in the year – in what could well have been an exercise in futility.

Ordinarily, in a country whose government frowns upon the rule of law but subscribes to rule by the law and is accountable to the people, it would not require guesswork to figure out if and when the incumbent PM would be retiring because this is clearly spelt out in the Constitution. But the Constitution is routinely flouted by those who should be the nucleus of the vanguard in the defence of its pride of place as the supreme law of the land. Hence it is not a foregone conclusion that there will be a new tenant on Hospital Hill, the official residence of the PM and seat of government, after elections later in the year. The petition delivered by SEJUN on Parliament is premised on the constitutional two-term limit of the PM’s tour of duty coming to an end this year. However, in the kingdom, nothing is as clear cut even if the Constitution is crystal on the subject matter.

Nothing is ever predictable in the Swazi polity. Hence SEJUN’s petition, which proposes that people should elect four candidates from the country’s four geographic and political regions from which the King would then appoint the PM, might well have been a futile exercise. But even assuming that for once, the Constitution will be respected in relation to the term limit of the PM, nothing is likely to change, at least in the foreseeable future, in the way the PM is appointed. That, after all, would be a major political transformation were it to happen because it would have an indelible impact on the evolution of the power and authority, not to speak of the legitimacy, of future PMs. This change would also translate into a partial devolution of power to the people, which would be a momentous historical feat in the polity of the kingdom. SEJUN’s voice on the subject matter is not the first and unlikely to be the last given that it was also buoyed by support from political parties, which nonetheless remain outlawed in this country.

The people initially ventilated on the subject at Sibaya in 2012 as well as the last one in 2016 ahead of the kingdom hosting the summit for Heads of State and Government of the Southern African Development Community (SADC). As may be recalled, Parliament had taken up the cudgel from the 2012 Sibaya by formalising the vote of no confidence on the PM but - against the letter of the Constitution – which although was passed the PM was never removed from office contrary to the supreme law. When it became clear that the vote of no confidence on the PM would not be passed into law, an attempt was made to subvert the Constitution by the same Parliament purporting to reverse the no confidence vote – again against the letter of the Constitution – a majority of lawmakers boycotted that sitting. It is ironic that in justifying his tax-funded retirement home the PM said this was a decision of the 2012 Sibaya. He conveniently forgot that it was that same Sibaya that effectively sacked him and his Cabinet via the initial vote of no confidence.

Sibaya re-convened on the eve of the SADC summit at which the people recommended that the position of PM should become elective, after having expressed their disgruntlement with the performance of the incumbent. The SEJUN petition is riding on this recommendation but it is anyone’s guess if anything will change in the way the PM, is appointed when a new government is put in place later this year. Be that as it may, while well meaning and of course supported by the people as per their Sibaya recommendation, SEJUN’s effort might well be a futile exercise. It is not a matter of opinion but one of fact that if there were to be changes on the appointment of the PM this would require a constitutional amendment followed by the enacting of enabling legislation.

The power to amend the Constitution is vested on Parliament. But having the power to amend the Constitution and invoking same are two different things. Presently there are no indications that this will happen before Parliament is dissolved in preparations for the elections. Therefore, it is unlikely that anything will change in respect of the appointment of the PM and Constitution of a new government after the elections. As I see it, SEJUN’s efforts need not come to naught and its petition still-born but should be supported and complimented by a multi-faceted approach from all stakeholders towards the achievement of full and complete democratisation of the Swazi polity that would bring in the people from the political cold. One of these is for political parties to stop the unproductive boycotts of and fully participate in elections, beginning with this year’s elections, to take control of the Legislature in order to influence the kingdom’s political trajectory.