As legislatures across the globe tighten codes of conduct to curb undue influence, a growing debate has surfaced within Eswatini’s parliamentary corridors: Should the kingdom adopt strict global standards on restricting and disclosing gifts given to Members of Parliament?
In modern democracies and constitutional monarchies alike, the regulation of parliamentarian gifts, ranging from corporate tickets and sponsored international travel to lavish tokens of appreciation, has moved from an ethical afterthought to a cornerstone of public trust. However, in Eswatini, where deep-rooted cultural traditions of gift-giving (Kwetfula) intersect with legislative duties, the question of whether to enforce strict global thresholds presents a nuanced debate.
Transparency and integrity as a global standard
Around the world, gift restrictions are designed to prevent conflicts of interest and ensure that lawmakers act solely in the public’s best interest. In South Africa, for example, Parliament enforces a strict Code of Conduct requiring members to disclose any gift or hospitality exceeding E3 000 in a public register. In the United Kingdom and Commonwealth Nations, lawmakers face mandatory registers of financial interests, strict caps on corporate hospitality and prohibitions on accepting cash or gifts that could be perceived as lobbying.
According to International Governance Standards, organisations like the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA) consistently emphasise the need for clear codes of conduct to strengthen legislative accountability and public confidence.
Advocates for greater accountability of the Legislature and guarantee of public trust, they argue that without clear parameters, gift-giving can easily turn into corporate capture of Parliament, undermining public faith in legislative decisions.
Governance analysts argue that formalising gift restrictions in the Eswatini Legislature is long overdue. Proposed anti-corruption measures, such as the Leadership Code of Conduct, have previously highlighted statutory limits such as capping permissible gifts. Proponents of gift restrictions, outline several reasons why adopting this global practice is necessary for the Eswatini Parliament: It addresses negative perceptions of State capture, where clear limits prevent private interests, corporate bodies or foreign entities from exerting undue influence over legislation and policy debates. It also fosters standardisation of public Sector ethics. We are all aware that public procurement laws prohibit officials from receiving gifts from suppliers; to this end, lawmakers should be held to an equally high, if not higher, benchmark, as they are key in oversight. As Eswatini affiliates to regional and international bodies, putting a cap on gifts, enhance international credibility for Eswatini Legislature thus aligning parliamentary practice with international anti-corruption frameworks and strengthening Eswatini’s standing among global partners. Activist Rabbi Michael Pollack noted: “When legislatures allow themselves to be legally greased, ‘Bribery is Legal’ in the eyes of a frustrated public.”
Balancing rules
Despite the clear benefits of global ethical practices, opponents and traditionalists caution against a blanket copy-and-paste approach. In Eswatini, gifting is deeply woven into social and traditional structures, such as customary respect shown to community elders, traditional leaders and national authorities. Distinguishing hospitality from Influence is a key challenge that confronts the Eswatini Legislature as they ponder on cap restriction. This is because disentangling legitimate traditional practices (Kwetfula) or customary community gestures from corrupt motives requires carefully crafted legal definitions. Also to bear in mind is that law is only as strong as its enforcement. Without an independent ethics committee or registrar’s office to monitor compliance, gift limits risk becoming symbolic. As Eswatini continues to modernise its legislative frameworks and strengthen its oversight role, the consensus among legal experts and civil society is that restricting and regulating gifts is not just necessary, it is unavoidable. However, for such a policy to succeed in Eswatini, it cannot merely replicate Western models. The Legislature must craft a tailored code of conduct that takes into account Eswatini’s cultural and traditional practices and values. Ultimately, restricting parliamentary gifts is not about questioning the integrity of lawmakers, but about safeguarding the institution of Parliament itself, ensuring that the voice of the electorate remains the only currency that matters in the legislative chamber.
Opposition to gift restrictions arguments
Opponents of strict gift limits, including several lawmakers, argue that banning or forfeiting gifts overlooks the operational realities of legislative work. During recent parliamentary debates, politicians expressed reservations, questioning whether normal hospitality provided during official duties, such as sponsored travel, hotel accommodations or meals at stakeholder workshops, would be misclassified as illegal gifts.
Furthermore, critics point out that in the Eswatini context, gift-giving carries deep cultural significance. Token exchanges during community visits (Tinkhundla meetings) or traditional ceremonies are customary gestures of respect rather than attempts at political bribery. Lawmakers argue that overly punitive restrictions risk criminalising routine constituency engagements and legitimate policy discussions with interest groups. Members of Parliament in Eswatini should be bold enough to align the Eswatini Parliament with global practices. This will safeguard Parliament’s integrity.
