PM’S CONDUCT REFLECTS BADLY ON KING

Government Press Secretary Alpheous Nxumalo’s response to an article published by the Star about the King muzzling the media is a testament to what I am talking about.

As emaSwati who understand how government is administered, it is easy to see that the Star got it wrong. From an outsider’s perspective, any decision or statement that the prime minister issues is authorised by the King as Head of State and executive monarch. Even where the King is not involved, the global media understands him to be playing a part in Cabinet decisions. The head of government is the King, while the prime minister is the leader of government business in Parliament. The King is the head of Cabinet, while the prime minister is the chairman of Cabinet. In essence, the King has delegated his powers to the prime minister to chair the Cabinet meetings. He appoints the Cabinet ministers to serve the nation on his behalf.
Prime Minister Russell Dlamini’s statement that government reserves the right to answer some questions and not respond to others is grossly irresponsible.

Journalists pose questions that are in the public interest. It is absolutely wrong for the prime minister to deprive the nation of information that they need to shape their destiny. If such an irresponsible statement is not withdrawn together with demeaning words like ‘take it’, the media and public will lose confidence in the prime minister. Going forward, how are journalists to pose questions of public interest and get straight forward answers ? How are they to hold government accountable ? Or has  the trust that had already  been broken between the Eswatini Government and the public just  been cemented?

As he executes his duties as the prime minister, it is important that he understands that the executive authority of the country vests in the King. Section 64 (1) of the Constitution provides that ‘the executive authority of Swaziland (Eswatini) vests in the King as Head of State and shall be exercised in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution.’
The Constitution goes on to state that the King shall protect and defend this Constitution and all laws made under or continued in force by this Constitution.

Section 64 (3) provides that the King may exercise the executive authority either directly or through the Cabinet or a minister. Based on the supreme law, the King, in his capacity as Head of State, has authority, in accordance with this Constitution or any other law, among other things to assent to and sign bills; summon and dissolve Parliament; receive foreign envoys and appoint diplomats and issue pardons, reprieves or commute sentences and declare a state of emergency.

Prime Minister Russell must then understand that the executive authority does not vest in him. The King is an executive monarch, and whatever he does, as stated above, reflects badly on the King. He must start now learning how to protect the integrity of the head of State. If he continues to conduct himself in a manner unbefitting his status as the premier, we reserve the right to advise His Majesty the King to relieve him of his duties. The executive monarch has almost same responsibilities and powers with a presidential system. Anything bad that an official in the Federal Government of the United States does reflects badly on President Joe Biden.

It is argued that the United States is the originator and primary example of the presidential system, a model that is followed in only a few other democracies, such as Argentina, Brazil, Mexico and the Philippines. The presidential system, unlike the parliamentary form of democracy, has a strong and independent chief executive with extensive powers related to both domestic, or internal affairs and foreign policy. The problem with the prime minister is that he took Russell’s personal grievances to Cabinet. We want to interact with the prime minister appointed by the King, not a personal Russell.

Section 68 (1) (f) provides how a misbehaving prime minister is removed from office. The constitutional provision reads: “....the prime minister is removed from office for misbehaviour or inability to perform the functions of that office (whether arising from infirmity of body or mind).” Where the King considers the question of removing the prime minister from office for misbehaviour, the Constitution states that the following shall be done -  
(a) The King shall appoint a tribunal, which shall consist of a chairman who shall be the chief justice and two other reputable persons one of whom should have held the position of a minister, Speaker of the House or President of the Senate;
 (b) The tribunal shall enquire into the matter and report to the King whether or not to remove the prime minister from office for inability or misbehaviour.
As ex-Botswana President Ian Khama warned his successor, President Mokgweetsi Masisi that he will someday be referred to as a former president, I can also extend a warning to the prime minister that the Constitution states that ‘the prime minister shall not hold office for more than two consecutive terms.’

A prime minister of the Kingdom of Eswatini must learn to respect the people in the same way His Majesty respects emaSwati. He cannot execute his duties in the same way a prime minister of the United Kingdom (UK) does. The British prime minister is the head of the UK Government. In Eswatini, the head of the Eswatini Government is the King.

Appointed

In the UK, the leader of the largest party in a government or the leader of the party who wins an election becomes the prime minister. Of course, the British prime minister is officially appointed by the monarch. In Eswatini, the PM is the leader of government business in Parliament and chairman of Cabinet. Currently, Prime Minister Russell Dlamini is in New York, United States of America (USA), to represent the King. That must tell him something.

Let me take you back to February 2024. When he assumed office, News24 reported in that same month that Eswatini’s new PM Russell Dlamini had begun his term of office with a threat to regulate the media.  In a meeting with members of the Eswatini Editors Forum (EEF) at the Cabinet offices on 14 February, 2024, Dlamini, according to News24, indicated that he would enact the long-dormant Media Commission Bill to create a government-controlled media regulation body.

He was addressing editors for the first time since he was appointed by King Mswati III in 2023. Mark these words: “since he was appointed by King Mswati III in 2023.” Whatever he does, the name of the King comes in. That is a fact we cannot run away from.  Editors left the meeting surprised by the prime minister’s hard-line and fearful of their future in a country with limited media freedom. I quote: “though the meeting was behind closed doors, the Campaign For Free Expression reliably gathered that Dlamini was highly critical of news content, especially in independent newspapers.”

“One person who was present at the gathering said the prime minister cited the media’s failure to set up a self-regulatory mechanism.” What did he say on Friday during the editors’ breakfast meeting with him? He complained about negative news content. A few years ago, the EEF set-up the Media Complaints Commission (MCC), a self-regulation body that is yet to be operational. According to News24, he then said if editors were failing to operationalise it, government would have to revisit the Media Commission Bill.

Dlamini is also said to have registered concern over poor salaries and working conditions in some publications that are making high profits. That he also mentioned in his first breakfast meeting. Some members of the EEF are said to have been displeased with his tone and asked to be given time and resources to make the MCC function. Editors pointed out that government was as much to blame for the MCC’s inaction because broadcast media, which is controlled by government, had not shown any interest in it.

News24 reported that the threat of government regulation is a common thread across several southern African countries. In South Africa, the African National Congress (ANC) threatened for some time to impose a statutory Media Tribunal because it felt the self-regulatory Press Council was not tough enough on the media. Although the party passed a series of conference resolutions on the matter, it has not taken the matter forward. The Botswana government has enacted a law invoking a Media Council, but has not yet set it up.  A significant factor is that moves to set up independent self-regulatory bodies in several countries have been flagged, largely due to financial issues. South Africa is the exception, with an active Press Council in place.

Constitution

The matter was taken up by Afrobarometer which reported; as well that Prime Minister Russell Dlamini sparked concern about the future of press freedom in the country. The Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa remarked that Section 24 of Eswatini’s Constitution guarantees freedom of expression, including freedom of the media, but the country’s media environment is heavily restricted by laws such as the Suppression of Terrorism Act (2008). African Media Barometre (2018, Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung) states that a range of colonial-era statutes also severely limit media freedom in Eswatini and critics say they are weaponised to punish the media for investigative reporting.

These include the Cinematography Act (1920), the Obscene Publications Act (1927), the Sedition and Subversive Activities Act (1938),  the Magistrates Courts Act (1939), the Books and Newspapers Act (1963), the Protected  Places and Areas Act (1966) and the Proscribed Publications Act (1968). According to the most recent Afrobarometer survey, in late 2022, emaSwati broadly agree that the media should act as a watchdog over the government, exposing government missteps and wrongdoing.

Citizens value media freedom and reject the notion that public information should be the exclusive preserve of government officials. However, most believe that media freedom does not exist in practice in their country. I hope and so hope that the prime minister will change his attitude towards the media. Though I doubt. The Conversation wrote in 2018: “if politicians want more trust from voters, they need to start behaving with civility and respect.”

Post your comment

Your name:

Your e-mail address:

Add your comments:

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Image:

Code: