Across the annals of our nation’s history and indeed throughout the global journey towards justice, the invocation of ‘The Law’ has stood as a sentinel at the threshold between liberty and authority.
In the days long before many of our grandparents were born, the figure of the police officer or ‘peace officer’ as they were sometimes called, commanded a particular reverence in our communities.
It was customary for such an officer, before apprehending a suspect, to solemnly declare, ‘The Law’.
This simple proclamation encapsulated not only an intent to uphold the legal code but also a solemn commitment to ethical standards.
It was a demonstrative affirmation that personal feelings, social status and even the proximity to royal power would yield to one principle alone: The rule of law.
In the contemporary context of Eswatini, as in many countries facing rapidly evolving information environments, public confidence in this ideal is sometimes tested by widespread speculation, particularly on social media.
It has become a familiar refrain among online commentators and bloggers that certain individuals in our society, especially those perceived to be close to Their Majesties, the King or the Indlovukazi, enjoy protection from arrest or prosecution.
It is thus essential, especially for those with the responsibility and the privilege to reach and educate the public to clarify how justice truly operates in Eswatini. It is not only inaccurate, but wholly unjust to perpetuate the myth that the King shields certain individuals from legal consequence purely by virtue of their proximity or relation.
The bedrock of any functioning legal system, from the most ancient of times to our modern courts, is evidence. This is not a technicality ,but the very mechanism by which truth is separated from speculation and justice is administered fairly and impartially. In other words, it is not the Directorate of Public Prosecutions (DPP), the Anti-Corruption Commission or the Royal Eswatini Police Service (REPS) that convicts an accused. It is, and must always be, the evidence.
To appreciate the contemporary power and necessity of the law of evidence, it is instructive to recall what transpired in eras when this principle was neglected or non-existent. In ancient times, before the codification and systematic appreciation of evidence, courts often delivered judgments based not on demonstrable facts, but merely on accusation, reputation or the whims of authority figures. In such a world, the risk of wrongful convictions was ever present and individual liberty remained at the mercy of rumour and bias.
People could be condemned for high crimes based merely on the suspicions or dislikes of powerful individuals. There were no safeguards against false testimony and no requirement for corroboration.
The result, inevitably, was injustice as people innocent of wrongdoing languished in prison or suffered worse fates while the actual perpetrators walked free, protected by their influence or the failure of their accusers to substantiate the claim.
The advent of the law of evidence in judicial systems marked an epochal advance for civilisation. It established rigorous standards for what can and cannot be accepted in court.
Through requiring that accusations be substantiated by credible testimony, corroborative materials and demonstrable facts, the law of evidence became the shield and sword of justice, balancing public interest in accountability with the imperative to safeguard individual rights.
Against this backdrop, we must confront the persistent allegations that those close to the King or those with high social standing are somehow immune to the reach of justice in Eswatini. As someone who has closely observed and at times, personally witnessed high-profile legal cases in the kingdom, I can categorically state that proximity to power does not equate to protection from the law. If anything, those in the circle of authority are more closely scrutinised and often held to even higher expectations of conduct.
Consider the well-documented case of Prince Mbuyisa, who some two decades ago faced arrest and ultimately a seven-year prison sentence following his conviction. The nation quietly watched, many confidently predicting he would be shielded from consequence because of familial ties to the Monarch.
However, his journey through the justice system followed the same procedural path as any other citizen. He was released solely on technical grounds following his lawyer’s intervention, not because of clandestine royal pardons but due to a meticulous review of the legal process that unearthed irregularities in his conviction. I was among the journalists who covered his release from Matsapha Maximum Prison. His lawyer was the late Colleen Ntiwane who allowed us to interview him about his release.
Similarly, the case of Qhawe Mamba further illustrates this principle. Mamba was not only deeply connected to the royal family by blood but also had held a crucial post as the director of the Outside Broadcast Unit stationed at Lozitha Palace.
His role required frequent travel with His Majesty on State business, both locally and abroad. Nevertheless, when evidence justified law enforcement intervention, he was arrested, charged and ultimately convicted.
It is illogical, then, to assert that the King possesses or exercises a blanket authority to prevent prosecution for those close to him.
Individuals who were employed by the State, as well as others who are members of the royal family, include Alpheous Nxumalo, Macaleni Dlamini and Ntuthuko Dlamini, and the latter is still in custody.
The alleged rape case involving a certain prince was pursued privately, notably by Percy Simelane, who personally visited the police station to enquire about the lack of action. I am informed that Simelane received a response which did not indicate any royal interference in the matter.
The country has witnessed high-profile arrests, including those of Prince Bhekimphi, a former Prime Minister and Prince Mfanasibili.
If the ultimate Head of State, our King, savvy in politics, seasoned by experience and aware of the scrutiny that comes with holding such an esteemed position could be so evidently hands-off in these matters, it stands to reason that such interventions are more myth than reality.
A further complexity arises in the current climate, a climate in which the ‘court of public opinion’ exerts ever-growing pressure upon law enforcement agencies, prosecutors and judges to act decisively, sometimes irrespective of the sufficiency of evidence. This is a deeply concerning trend.
It is part of human nature to seek justice for perceived wrongs and to demand accountability, especially amid stories of rampant corruption or abuse of power. However, the danger is clear when the general public confuses suspicion with proof and emotion with evidence and the legal system risks becoming hostage to the loudest voices rather than the most compelling facts.
The case of the late Prince Phinda and the late Isaac Shabangu provides a salient reminder. Both were removed from their ministerial positions over the alleged possession of stolen vehicles, a decision made upon what was believed to be prima facie evidence at the time.
After thorough investigation, police determined there was no wrongdoing as the vehicles in question were not stolen. The damage, however, had already been done, careers ended, reputations sullied and public trust in government further shaken.
Such cases highlight the paramount importance of separating the impulse to judge from the duty to investigate and prosecute fairly. Whenever there is insufficient evidence or as legal professionals would say when the evidence is not ‘overwhelming’, it is not only just but fundamentally necessary for the presumption of innocence to prevail.
This notion brings us to, perhaps, the most misunderstood aspect of our justice system - the distinction between legal guilt and public suspicion. When official investigations conclude with no arrests or prosecutions, detractors are quick to search for scapegoats, suggesting that non-action equates to favouritism or complicity. It is not just a social mistake but a constitutional misunderstanding.
The continued liberty of an accused person does not emerge from the benevolence of those in power but from the rigour of the law and the sanctity of standards that require guilt to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. If the evidence is lacking or not of the required quality and quantity, it is the solemn duty of the State to maintain and protect the innocence and dignity of every person, regardless of public outcry or political expediency.
This is not to suggest that our law enforcement agencies or Judiciary are infallible. Indeed, no human institution is infallible. Mistakes can be made and miscarriages of justice do occur, but the solution is not to abandon evidential rigour in favour of satisfying the mob.
Instead, we have to strengthen our institutions, support the professionalism of investigators and promote public legal education.
The law of evidence is not simply a procedural device, but the keystone of justice in any society that values fairness and due process. Its dictates ensure that no one, no matter how powerful or how marginalised, is arbitrarily deprived of liberty.
Its standards guarantee that rumour and innuendo never alone become the basis for the loss of reputation or the destruction of livelihood.
As citizens, it is our responsibility to understand, respect and defend these principles. When individuals break the law, let the evidence speak. Let their guilt or innocence be determined not by their position, connections or the volume of accusations against them, but only by the credible testimony and material facts subjected to the scrutiny of an impartial court.
When we forget this, we risk a return to darker times when justice was arbitrary and the cry of the innocent went unheeded. It is only the law and, specifically, the law of evidence, that stands as the unyielding fortress against such injustice.
Brothers and sisters, let us be vigilant but also just. Let us demand honesty and accountability but insist that neither privilege nor prejudice sway the scales of justice.
Let us remind ourselves that ‘The Law’, when properly applied, defends all, convicts only on evidence and preserves the innocence and dignity of the suspect until and unless overwhelming facts dictate otherwise.
I thank you.
This simple proclamation encapsulated not only an intent to uphold the legal code but also a solemn commitment to ethical standards.