CRIMINALISING FREE SPEECH

PRINCESS Sikhanyiso, the inimitable Minister of Information Communication and Technology (ICT), is definitely living a charmed life glowing in what a majority of emaSwati may never attain in their lifetime – unfettered freedom of expression. She was in her element last week, heaping accolades to the indomitable Lobamba Lomdzala Member of Parliament (MP) Marwick Khumalo as deserving of a Cabinet position, an issue she suggested would have to be looked into possibly in the reconstruction of the new government after the elections.

But the princess was not done yet. She moved on to a territory which even angels fear to tread. Was her occupancy of the office of the Minister of ICT a product of nepotism? She made it known that her appointment was driven by meritocracy albeit without expounding on the subject – perhaps there was also no need to do so considering the conformist disposition of the individuals constituting her audience.  

Subjects

As can already be gleaned, both subjects are of importance to almost all discerning emaSwati - with the exception of those orbiting the seat of power who have all abdicated their faculties in favour of prioritising their stomachs - who probably have a mouthful to ventilate on one or both subjects. But given the reality that freedom of expression - which is now conveniently interpreted as an infringement on the Suppression of Terrorism Act leading to dire consequences - is frowned upon by the ruling elite hence no one dares to engage both topics openly probably out of fear of exposing and jeopardising their security of tenure to life.  

First, the Marwick tale. I am not certain how old Princess Sikhanyiso was when the venerable MP was elected Speaker in the House of Assembly, a position he was unceremoniously deprived of occupying. He had the wisdom of prioritising national imperatives over personal ambitions when he chose to step down without a fight, otherwise he could have selected to resist thus causing a political tsunami that could have reverberated across the globe with untold domestic repercussions.

Perhaps the princess was still too young to appreciate the enormity of that incident and, possibly, why. Given that one does not enjoy the unfettered freedom of expression enjoyed by the princess, I cannot go into the entrails of that episode for obvious reasons. Poignantly though, that chapter in the history of this country was definitive of the character and temperament of the leadership and how this country is governed and, by extension, gave discerning compatriots a glimpse into the belly of the Tinkhundla political beast.

Controversy

The second issue, of course, Princess Sikhanyiso and meritocracy, is another subject of great interest if not controversy, especially considering that nepotism is deep rooted in Eswatini policy. But, yet again, reserve the hammer and tounges because of constrains occasioned by, first, the fact that the truth is the nemesis of Swati polity and, two, because the exercise of free expression could elicit reprisals of gargantuan proportions from the ruling class.

Notwithstanding, interrogation of this particular issue would have to begin with unpacking the meaning and substance of meritocracy and its origins. In-between doing so would undoubtedly sprout elements such as qualifications, experience, skills, competencies, achievements, etc – but also worth factoring would be competing candidates if transparency and accountability were the lodestar, not to leave out socialisation and the political environment. Not that that would change anything, though. Hence I rest my case at this juncture.

As it turned out the past week was not only dominated by Princess Sikhanyiso, as the High Court judgment in the matter of two MPs, Mthandeni Dube (Ngwempisi) and Mduduzi Bacede Mabuza (Hosea) also stood out. As can be expected, the judgment by Judge Mumcy Dlamini must have been welcomed by the leeches feeding on the corpses of emaSwati fighting for social justice while it attracted outrage and condemnation from proponents of multiparty democracy, rule of - not by - law and the broader mass democratic movement.

As I see it, although the guilty verdict was by and large expected – not by a long stretch for the right reasons other than political – given the circumstances of the case against the duo, it nonetheless still induced shock and mother of surprises. Perhaps there had been a glimmer of misplaced hope that after having made them to suffer and literally destroying their lives – not to speak of ruining their businesses – before and during their lengthy trial by denying them bail for almost two years of incarceration – that they would be freed after having leant their lessons. That is what responsible parents do. But then this was a political case manufactured to achieve specific political ends. In the circumstances, the outcome was a foregone conclusion even if it eroded what little confidence was left in a fatally flawed Judiciary.    

Prove

Conversely, the judgment could as well prove to be a game changer, a turning point and a catalyst for the much desired political changes. If it was meant to be a lesson to tame proponents of multiparty democracy into conformity, it might achieve the direct opposite, and that is harden their resolve in the same manner the jailing of Nelson Mandela by the apartheid government in neighbouring South Africa hardened the resolve of the people of that country.

This would also further deepen the polarisation and division of a once cohesive nation caused by the death of protesters during and post the June 2021 pro-multiparty democracy protests. Partly to blame for this is the State’s continued refusal to do anything about those massacres to assist relatives and the nation to find closure. Consequently the socio-political landscape will remain volatile and unstable thus negatively impacting economic activity and generally threaten social cohesion.

Secondly, the judgment will assist in keeping Eswatini, which owing to its insignificance to global geopolitical political affairs, on the global agenda and increased pressure for political change. With possible sanctions on violators of human rights by the United States Congress in the offing, more countries may engage in similar actions. But in the interim the essence of the judgment is the criminalisation of freedom of expression which, along with the full package of the Bill of Rights, was outlawed since 1973.
 






 



    

Post your comment

Your name:

Your e-mail address:

Add your comments:

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Image:

Code: