LOBAMBA – If the words of Attorney General (AG) Chief Sifiso Mashampu Khumalo are anything to go by, then Hhukwini MP Alec Lushaba was not at fault when he made the submission that attracted the wrath of the Judiciary last week.
Even though the AG did not state verbatim that Lushaba did nothing wrong, he spent his time explaining that Members of Parliament (MPs) are allowed to speak and debate freely without fear.
He also absolved the MP from the accusation made by the Judiciary to the effect that he used insults when making a submission related to the Office of the Master.
As reported by our sister publication, The Times of Eswatini, last Friday, the Judiciary, which is the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) headed by Chief Justice (CJ)Bheki Maphalala, advised Lushaba to stop insulting its members or risk facing contempt proceedings.
In a statement, the Judiciary said that if the MP does not cease his ‘political agenda and insults’ against it, the Judiciary will consider all legal remedies available to defend its reputation, including contempt of court charges.
The Judiciary stated that in Parliament, Lushaba made ‘false and misleading’ statements to the effect that it had lied to members of the public that the judicial inquiry into the Master’s Office was effective when, in fact, nothing was being done.
Lushaba also stated that the Judiciary allegedly lied to the public that the terms and conditions of judicial officers were being attended to when, according to him, nothing was being done.
In its statement, the Judiciary refuted the truthfulness of the submissions made by the MP and asserted that Lushaba reportedly has an inclination to attack it for, among other reasons, political gain.
“The Judiciary wishes to reject with contempt the false, misleading and far-fetched distortions made by the Hhukwini Member of Parliament, Alec Lushaba, in Parliament on October 8, 2025. We note with concern that the Honourable Member of Parliament has a tendency of attacking the Judiciary without probable cause, with the sole intention of scoring political points and subjecting the Judiciary to ridicule. The Judiciary understands that the Honourable Member of Parliament attacks the Judiciary under the cover and guise of parliamentary immunity,” reads part of the statement.
During the sitting at the House of Assembly yesterday, the AG offered clarity on the issue, after Lushaba posed a question to the Chairperson of the Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs Portfolio Committee, Kwaluseni MP Michael Masilela, on whether the responses provided by the minister, as contained in the report, were similar to what the Judiciary had said.
Lushaba said he was asking because, while MPs waited for responses from the minister, the Judiciary then bought space in newspapers and responded to exactly what he had sought answers on in the House.
“I would like to know if the response they put in the newspapers is consistent with what the minister has said in the report. I also want to know if it is procedural that while we wait for the minister to respond, the Judiciary comes in and responds on other platforms,” Lushaba submitted.
At that point, the Chairperson of the portfolio committee, Masilela, responded by stating that there was no one too tall to see the future.
Without dwelling much on what he meant, Masilela explained that there is a Standing Order, which stipulates that if a member discusses an issue in Parliament and it is responded to by another person outside the House, the member should bring the newspaper and request the Speaker to bring up the matter.
Masilela admitted that it was unprocedural for questions posed by MPs in the House to be responded to in newspapers.
As the debate went on, the AG was then requested to offer clarity on the issue.
The AG began by stating that it is the duty of Parliament to play an oversight role over the Executive and demand accountability.
He said in this particular case, it was the duty of Parliament to seek answers from the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Affairs, who is a member of the Executive.
The AG revealed that the Office of the Speaker had engaged him to consult on the matter and that he then listened to the Hansard, in order to understand the submission made by Lushaba and what it centred on.
He clarified that, generally, what can be deemed an insult to one person may be deemed otherwise by another.
“What we found, however, is that the words that were used are those that, in the ordinary course of business in Parliament, are used. In the course of Parliament business, they can be found to be of no derogatory nature,” said the AG.
Elaborating, the AG said that while there is freedom to debate – and all parliaments appreciate it – he was not saying that when members debate, they should use derogatory words.
“However, our assessment found that the language was in the ordinary course of Parliament business. Of course, I have said that someone else can feel otherwise,” he said.
He explained that freedom of speech is protected and allows MPs in Parliament to speak and debate freely without fear.
Full article available in our publication.
Leave a comment