MBABANE – His Majesty’s Correctional Services says some of the individuals who face terrorism charges resulting from events of the 2021/22 civil unrest were transferred from Matsapha after engaging in a hunger strike.
The legal representative for six of the accused persons, Professor Dlamini of Professor M Dlamini Attorneys, has formally raised grievances regarding the alleged treatment and housing of his clients. In a letter dated January 15, 2026, the law firm addressed the Commissioner General of His Majesty’s Correctional Services, Phindile Dlamini, regarding his difficulty in consulting his clients, as they are housed in different Correctional centres.
The firm represents Thabo Kunene, who called himself the commander of the Swaziland International Solidarity Forces, Sibusiso Nkomonye, Muzi Mnisi, Sibusiso Nxumalo, Percy Sithole and Xolani Simelane. According to the correspondence, the first four individuals are held at Matsapha Correctional Centre, while the latter two are detained at Sidwashini Correctional Services. All six are currently awaiting trial.
The attorney expressed serious concern over the physical separation of the accused across two different Correctional facilities. He argued that this arrangement prevents collective consultation, which is essential as the preparation for their trial has reached a critical stage. Professor stated that he had been unable to obtain comprehensive instructions from their clients effectively.
Furthermore, the legal representative alleged that even within Matsapha Correctional Centre, officers allegedly refused requests for joint consultations. He claimed that the subordinates of the commissioner general split the accused persons during requested meetings, despite being informed that they are jointly charged.
The letter further highlighted existing court proceedings where the accused have complained about their treatment by Correctional staff. Professor contended that the interference in legal consultations constitutes a violation of the right to a fair hearing. Consequently, he requested that all mentioned accused be housed in a single facility and be permitted to consult collectively with their legal counsel.
His Majesty’s Correctional Services issued a formal response on February 9, 2026, rejecting the request to consolidate the accused persons into one facility. The department cited security classifications, the safety of other offenders and the safety of officers as the primary reasons for the separation.
The department maintained that the decision was informed by a security assessment and the need to maintain order. They noted that the commissioner general is permitted by the law to transfer offenders between facilities. The response detailed certain incidents that led to the current housing arrangements. The department alleged that while the accused were together at Matsapha Correctional Centre, they engaged in violent behaviour toward officers both inside the facility and during court appearances. It was specifically noted that the accused engaged in a hunger strike, which the department viewed as a threat to the safety of other offenders and a cause for the transfer of some individuals to Mbabane.
Addressing the claims of ill-treatment, His Majesty’s Correctional Services described the allegations as unfounded. The department asserted that the accused have constantly instigated chaos while in custody and in court. According to the Correctional authorities, the conduct of the detainees during their first months of incarceration was in constant conflict with the regulatory framework.
The Correctional Service’s response included several instances of alleged ill-discipline, including failure to obey orders from escorting officers, persistent attempts to have unpermitted interactions with supporters during court proceedings and instigating chaos to garner public sympathy and attention when officers enforced regulations. The authorities stated that they have the right to use necessary means to suppress such indiscipline. Regarding the issue of legal access, the Correctional Services denied that they had prevented joint consultations. They stated that while they will not house the accused in one facility, those who are already in the same facility and are jointly charged are permitted to consult collectively.
*Full article available on Pressreader*
Leave a comment