In the often intertwined histories and fates of Eswatini and South Africa, questions of security, cross-border crime and political sanctuary have shaped bilateral perceptions for decades.
Recent events, however, have reignited concerns within Eswatini regarding South Africa's perceived role as a haven for criminal suspects who pose tangible threats to the peace and stability of the kingdom.
The issue of South Africa sheltering criminal suspects traces back decades. In 1998, the old building housing Eswatini's deputy prime minister was decimated by a bomb, an event which reverberated not merely through Allister Miller Street (now Gwamile), but through the conscience of the nation.
The blast, tragic in its toll as a security guard lost his life, marked a pivotal moment in Eswatini's domestic security.
What is even more concerning than the event itself was what transpired next. The suspects on police most wanted lists reportedly fled Eswatini for South Africa. They are known. There, amid the vastness of the neighbouring nation, they seemingly found new beginnings as they secured jobs, gained citizenship and even established themselves within South Africa’s corporate sector.
It is to the chagrin and consternation of many emaSwati that these individuals, who once posed a direct threat to their homeland, not only evaded justice, but flourished abroad. The political exile narrative, often cited by such individuals, now merits closer scrutiny. This cross-border trend did not fade with time.
In 2021 and 2023, Eswatini was marked by an alarming rise in political assassinations of chiefs, burnings of livestock and homesteads and widespread intimidation.
What is particularly troubling is the assertion that many of these threats were orchestrated from South Africa by emaSwati who had sought refuge across the border.
Whether it was the issuing of treasonous statements, direct attacks on State and personal property or the use of South African territory as a launchpad for subversive activities, Eswatini's security apparatus was unequivocal as many of these attacks were not only facilitated, but actively planned and executed from neighbouring South Africa.
Such developments demanded a diplomatic response and cross-border cooperation, yet conspicuously absent was any official condemnation or stance taken by South African authorities.
The silence, in the face of mounting evidence, was as deafening as it was troubling to the citizens and government of Eswatini.
The expectations harboured by Eswatini towards its larger, resourceful neighbour are not unreasonable.
The nations share a considerable history through trade, culture and politics.
Both are signatories to various treaties relating to regional peace and security.
In such circumstances, it is customary for one nation to assist another in apprehending fugitives accused of severe crimes, particularly when those offences threaten the fabric of a neighbouring society.
In the wake of the recent violence and arson, Eswatini found itself alone in its struggle. Many in Eswatini reasonably believed South Africa should have acted decisively to refuse harbour to individuals using its territory as a military base or safe haven for planning and executing crimes.
The perceived lack of cooperation has strained what should be a close and mutually supportive relationship between sister countries.
It is often claimed by some emaSwati exiles in South Africa that their presence abroad is necessitated solely by political persecution, which is the price of opposing established authority at home.
However, a closer inspection of specific cases indicates that such justifications may serve more as convenient narratives than as reflections of reality.
Consider the example of Zweli Martin Dlamini, known colloquially as 'Zwemart'.
His self-exile is frequently framed in media circles as a reaction to State oppression, yet the actual circumstances of his departure from Eswatini suggest otherwise.
When Zwemart left Eswatini, he was facing criminal, not political charges. He and four staff members from 'Zwemart Investigators' were accused of a highly irregular incursion into a Siteki home on October 19, 2014. Their actions, allegedly breaking windows and entering a government residence without lawful authority and subsequently filming its occupants, were the basis for their arrest and formal charges laid by the individuals involved.
The allegations included claims that this 'investigation' was in fact commissioned by a government minister concerned about a relationship. I want to state categorically that those charges were criminal in nature and pursued by private citizens, not the State apparatus. They are wholly distinct from any political activity.
Moreover, the case remains pending.
There is little ambiguity as to the legal basis for these proceedings and none of which reasonably fit the definition of politically motivated persecution.
Further, Zwemart faced accusations of contempt of court, as a repeat offender. Magistrate Simo Simelane issued a warrant for his arrest in 2020, after he failed to appear before the court to answer charges connected to threats to shoot and kill Gedleza Alfred Maseko, a headman involved in a land dispute. Again, these allegations spoke not to political activism, but to criminal conduct and disputes over communal land appropriations. Authorities made earnest efforts to ensure Zwemart's accountability.
Public notices were issued, providing direct contact numbers for police officers including the now late Sam Mthembu, Clement Sihlongonyane and Madlopha, with a stern warning to the public against harbouring the fugitive.
The late Prime Minister Ambrose Mandvulo Dlamini spoke unequivocally at a press conference in April 2020.
He said: "The long arm of the law would catch up with those who peddle lies and violate COVID-19 regulations, misleading the nation with deliberate misinformation about the deadly virus."
Again, Zwemart was implicated and accused of contravening the 2020 Disaster Management Act with regard to unauthorised publication and dissemination of information about the pandemic.
Rather than face the charges in his homeland, Zwemart chose to flee to South Africa. His subsequent alignment with political movements seeking regime change in Eswatini appears, in context, as a strategic repositioning rather than principled opposition.
Notably, while based in Eswatini, Zwemart was rarely involved in overt political activism, aside from documented disputes with the Eswatini Editors Forum.
It was when he was in South Africa that he could be considered to have participated in politics. Zwemart, therefore, remains linked with the Swaziland International Solidarity Network (SISN).
Associated with this network, he reportedly claimed he had access to a powerful machine capable of devastating the country.
Recent violence has seen the killing of prison warders and the death of activist Bheka Mabuza.
A prominent female commander is believed to have played a leading operational role in these events, while Thabo Kunene, another significant figure, has been arrested in connection with the unrest.
After killing the warders like Warder Mbongseni 'Mthayi' Dlamini at Sidvokodvo, the female commander who was known by Zwemart rushed to Swaziland News to explain why they murdered him.
One warder was kidnapped from Sidwashini Correctional Facility, shot and dumped in Ngwenya.
State rifles were stolen by warders who bragged on social media for committing this heinous crime. One of them Bheka Magagula was later killed in South Africa.
As our neighbour complains about the five immigrants who are housed at Matsapha Maximum Prison, I have a plea as a bona fide liSwati: “Surrender Zwemart and others to the police because they are a threat to our national security.”
I do not understand why INTERPOL is not locating them. Must I do the same thing as a journalist? Why is Zwemart getting preferential treatment? He must return to the country to face his crimes. Period!
I am aware that the situation is further complicated by international legal protocols surrounding extradition.
Even in the presence of bilateral treaties, extradition remains a lengthy process, often bogged down by legal and political considerations.
I am also aware that South African authorities are under no automatic obligation to comply with extradition requests from Eswatini, particularly where they perceive potential for political persecution, or where the suspects' legal rights may be in jeopardy.
However, as this analysis demonstrates, in many of these cases, including that of Zwemart, the offences are properly classified as criminal, not political.
In such circumstances, concerns over abuse of extradition are mitigated and the impetus for cross-border cooperation grows ever more urgent, for the sake of justice and mutual security.
Eswatini is cooperating well with South Africa in the extradition case of the suspects believed to have been involved in the murder of Kiernan Forbes (South African rapper 'AKA').
The failure to apprehend and extradite suspects like Zwemart has a corrosive effect on both public trust and the prospects for regional stability.
For ordinary emaSwati who have lost loved ones, livelihoods or property to acts of violence orchestrated from abroad, the sense of impunity is deeply unsettling.
It undermines faith in law enforcement and, by extension, in the rule of law itself.
The perception, whether justified or not that criminals are able to evade justice by crossing the border into South Africa, emboldens others to follow suit and risks fostering a cycle of violence and reprisal.
For South Africa, there is risk as well as permitting individuals accused of serious crimes to settle and prosper within its borders not only erodes bilateral relations, but sets a dangerous precedent for other criminal elements seeking safe haven.
If Eswatini and South Africa are truly to operate as fraternal nations, committed to peace, security and the rule of law, there must be unequivocal commitment to cross-border justice.
Leave a comment