Home | Feature | IS CABINET PROMOTING GRAFT?

IS CABINET PROMOTING GRAFT?

31/01/2022 09:57:00 Vusi Sibisi

Font size:

National Commissioner (NATCOM) of Police William Tsitsibala Dlamini must have an unlimited budget at his disposal in light of the extra burden he has placed on his personnel; that of profiling people who are opposed to and critical of the Tinkhundla System of Government.

This is the sum total of establishing a list of people who are critical of and considered a threat to the government of the Tinkhundla political system and making time to summon them to account for their divergent political views. This is further confirmation that this country has morphed into a police State. Dlamini is open that police had compiled a list of people who have been making threats around the country, whom he has summoned to explain themselves. Failure to do so would compel the police to apply the law, he had threatened.

In recent times, the police have increasingly dabbled in political matters confirming that the service had become an instrument of oppression for the political hegemony which explains why officers allegedly mowed down with high calibre weapons emaSwati youth during last June’s pro-democracy protests for which, after initially ducking and diving, government finally acknowledged, albeit without taking the necessary measures to ensure that those responsible were brought before the courts to answer for their actions.

It is not animals, but human beings who were allegedly killed at the instance of the State. Just recently, the NatCom summoned former Senate Deputy President and deputy chairman of Sive Siyinqaba Movement Ngom’yayona Matoni Gamedze, an interaction whose gist was purely political than criminal. Gamedze was questioned and expected to explain his and the organisation’s positions on purely political issues, such as on the Tinkhundla System, position of the King as well as on the national dialogue. If this is not abuse of the mandate of the police in pursuit of particular political ends, then I do not know what it is. But this cannot be normal and acceptable even under the pseudo-democracy of Tinkhundla. Profiling people simply for their political beliefs is evil and ought to be condemned in the strongest terms.

As I see it, by profiling people critical of and making threatening statements – threatening statements to the police include vocal criticism of government – against the political status quo and then summoning those for interrogation are allegedly part of a grand scheme to intimidate and whip the people back into silence and conformity. The police ought to be professional, transparent and accountable in their operations. If there are instances where the law has been transgressed, they should investigate and cause to be prosecuted those suspected to have broken the law. Police work does not and should not extend to questioning people about personal choices on any subject, least of all their political leanings, unless it is something to do with criminal enterprises.

Angry

There is something known as privacy and decency that are respected in normal and civil societies and emaSwati deserve better than what they are being subjected to. And those in authority turn around to wonder why people are angry and revolting against the Tinkhundla System. It is such typical excesses of the political order that are driving people to the extremes. It is also common cause that this is not the only unorthodox strategy government has employed to intimidate and silence the crescendo of emaSwati voices demanding multiparty democracy. Other covert strategies spearheaded by the very police, sworn to serve and protect, have been employed from homestead to homestead, especially targeting the youth to instill a climate and an environment of paralysing fear in a bid to alegedly politically sanitise the people ahead of the national dialogue.

As it were the police, like politicians, immediately jumped to conclusions on who were responsible for the spate of recent arson attacks; proponents of multiparty democracy. Yet every crisis gives rise to opportunists who set out to exploit the situation towards their own ends. But even assuming that pro-change proponents were responsible for the arson attacks, but this must be informed by concrete and conclusive investigations, a task for which police were trained, so we would like to believe, and not just by mere suspicion and speculation. It is a pity that last week’s Cabinet retreat failed or rather neglected to reflect on some of the crises that confronted the nation last year.

As I see, for the fact that 2021 could well have etched itself in the annals of the history of this country as a poignant turning point of the kingdom’s political trajectory, when emaSwati finally woke up from their collective stupor, you would have expected Cabinet not to just cursorily reflect on the drivers of what unfolded, but to dig deep into the causal factors as well as how best to address these. On top of everything else that happened was the allegedly murders of emaSwati, a matter that will not simply evaporate and be forgotten. Yet for some reason, Cabinet forgot about this tragedy which could be interpreted as acknowledgement of culpability – that is, the murders were allegedly officially sanctioned by a desperate government losing its grip on power and that, therefore, were legal from the leadership’s perspective.

It also emerged, from the Cabinet retreat, that the Reconstruction Fund launched to compensate businesses destroyed or disrupted by last year’s civil unrest had begun dispersing funds. But for some reason, the names of the beneficiary companies, so far said to be 33, would remain confidential. Why, if you ask me, that is aiding and abetting corruption in a country where the scourge is institutionally embedded. We have many examples of funds established for one purpose or the other disappearing without any consequences. Why, even the national budget is not insulated from being interfered with and often money diverted to projects other than those for which it was budgeted. Can we count on the people’s elected representatives in Parliament to demand accountability and transparency in the disbursement of funds from the Reconstruction Fund?