SELF-CENSORSHIP OF POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT

BY THE TIMES OF SWAZILAND

Here is an example of self-censorship in action in the media in Swaziland.

A group on non-government organisations that are advocating democratic reform in the

kingdom ruled by King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch submitted
a paid advertisement to the Times of Swaziland group of newspapers, the only
independent press in Swaziland.

The advertisement contained mild criticisms of King Mswati. The newspaper refused to
publish the advert without alterations. Version 1 is the original as supplied with the text
that the newspaper objected to highlighted. Version 2 is a ‘cean’ copy of the advert that
actually appeared.

(Dr Richard Rooney 13 August 2010).

VERSION 1

Following a Civil Society consultative meeting held at the Tum’s George Hotel
(Manzini) on Thursday, 29th July 2010, Civil Society representatives there present,
considered the implications of His Majesty’s the King’s rejection of political Dalogue as
well as the Death threats against journalists who cover those considered to be dissenting
from the way the country is currently Governed, and resolved to respond as follows:

1. That His Majesty King Mswati III’s emphatic renouncing of political dialogue at
the conclusion of the Smart Partnership Dialogue on 21 st July 2010 was
unfortunate, regrettable and, most significantly, unSwazi.
2. That Civil Society collectively believes that political dialogue has always formed
an integral part of traditional Swazi life since time immemorial; hence the adage
“injobo itfungelwa ebandla” (in pursuit of consensual solutions).
3. That the King’s assertion that “There will never be exclusive dialogue for a
minority of dissenters” is, unfortunately, not informed by facts in that the
Constitutional Development Commission’s (CDC) official reports revealed that of
the 1501 people who took part in the collection of views during the drafting
process, back in 2004, 80% of individual submissions were irrelevant and failed
to issues in the constitution, and that 26% spoke in favour of multi-party. The
chairman of the CDC is also on record stating that out of a population of around
1.1 million citizens, 600 000 were eligible to submit. Of these, only 1 501 actually
submitted. According to the laws of mathematics, there is no way that this figure
represents the majority view. Even if the entire 1501 of the voting population of
600,000 then spoke in one voice, they would form an insignificant minority of
0.25% who would have voted for the Tinkhundla political Order which is far from
being representative of the majority Swazi voting population.
 4. That the PM’s caution for the media to deny space to political dissenters was
regrettable and unfortunate. We are of the view that in a country that claims to be
democratic as well as being an open society, the media should be allowed to
operate without fear of reprisal. Such practice is the hallmark of SMART
partnership, which His Majesty the King wants to see being supported.
Particularly that Swaziland is Signatory to the Windhoek Declaration on Media
Freedom, this is a blatant defiance to Section 24 of the Constitution on Freedom
of Expression, Section 25 on the freedom of Association and assembly and
paragraph 5 of the Preamble which reads thus “Whereas it is necessary to
promote the fundamental rights and freedoms of ALL in our Kingdom in terms of
a Constitution which binds the Legislature , the Executive, the Judiciary and the
other Organs, and Agencies of the government.”
5. That Civil Society equally condemns death threats directed at the media for
reporting about the monarchy. We cannot help but reflect that such serious threats
from the King’s advisory body (Liqoqo) and the Prime Minister sadly resonate
with His Majesty’s pre-emptive threat on 16th October 2008 to strangle
“Abekhanywe” political dissidents.
6. That Civil Society notes and laments that death threats and rejection of dialogue
come on the back of His Majesty’s receipt of the AU torch of peace on his
birthday on 19th April 2010.
7. That Civil Society notes that the King’s rejection of political dialogue contradicts
his mediation role in political conflicts in the Region, in his capacity as the
chairperson of the SADC Troika on politics, defence, peace and security.
8. That Civil Society condemns both the local and London based Secretariat of the
Smart Partnership Movement, for failure to condemn both Prince Mahlaba’s death
threats and the King’s clampdown on political dialogue.
9. That Civil Society is of the firm view that the king in his capacity of head of state
has a national responsibility to urgently create a climate conducive to an all-
inclusive, representative, and people-driven dialogue about the socio-economic
and political future of Swaziland and that attendance to such a forum should be
completely unconditional.
10. That Civil Society should never be intimidated but remain resolute in fighting a
just cause and never forget that the journey is fraught with risks and pitfalls.
11. That the media should remain courageous and always strive to abide by their
uncomfortable and risky responsibility to call the state to order for this is
ultimately what their role as members of the Fourth Estate entails.
12. That the general Swazi society should not forget that we all have one country, to
which we have rights as citizens, and that, therefore, we aught to safeguard and
jealously preserve, as these are our God-given rights to free expression, freedom
of association, and freedom of peaceful assembly. It is for this reason that we urge
every Swazi national to stand up and take charge of their destiny and that of their
only country of birth: Swaziland.

Issued by:
1. Swaziland Democracy Campaign
 2. Foundation for Socio – Economic Justice
3. Swaziland Coalition of Concerned Civic Organization
4. Swaziland Democratic Front
5. SWAPOL

VERSION 2

PRESS STATEMENT

Following a Civil Society consultative meeting held at the Tum's George Hotel (Manzini)
on Thursday, 29th July 2010, Civil Society representatives there present, considered the
implications of His Majesty's the King's statement on political Dialogue as well Prince
Mahlaba’s death threats against journalists who cover those considered to be dissenting
from the way the country is currently Governed, and resolved to respond as follows:

1. That His Majesty King Mswati III's emphatic renouncing of political

dialogue at the conclusion of the Smart Partnership Dialogue on 21st July
2010 was unfortunate, and regrettable.
2. That Civil Society collectively believes that political dialogue has always
formed an integral part of traditional Swazi life since time immemorial;
hence the adage “injobo itfungelwa ebandla” (in pursuit of consensual
solutions).
3. That the King's assertion that “There will never be exclusive dialogue for
a minority of dissenters” is, unfortunately, not informed by facts in that the
Constitutional Development Commission's (CDC) official reports revealed
that of the 1501 people who took part in the collection of views during the
drafting process, back in 2004, 80% of individual submissions were
irrelevant and failed to issues in the constitution, and that 26% spoke in
favour of multi-party. The chairman of the CDC is also on record stating
that out of a population of around 1.1 million citizens, 600 000 were
eligible to submit. Of these, only 1 501 actually submitted. According to
the laws of mathematics, there is no way that this figure represents the
majority view. Even if the entire 1501 of the voting population of 600,000
then spoke in one voice, they would form an insignificant minority of
0.25% who would have voted for the Tinkhundla political Order which is
far from being representative of the majority Swazi voting population.
4. That the PM's caution for the media to deny space to political dissenters
was regrettable and unfortunate. We are of the view that in a country that
claims to be democratic as well as being an open society, the media should
be allowed to operate without fear of reprisal. Such practice is the
hallmark of SMART partnership, which His Majesty the King wants to see
being supported. Particularly that Swaziland is Signatory to the Windhoek
Declaration on Media Freedom, this is a blatant defiance to Section 24 of
the Constitution on Freedom of Expression, Section 25 on the freedom of
Association and assembly and paragraph 5 of the Preamble which reads
 thus “Whereas it is necessary to promote the fundamental rights and
freedoms of ALL in our Kingdom in terms of a Constitution which binds
the Legislature , the Executive, the Judiciary and the other Organs, and
Agencies of the Government.”
5. That Civil Society equally condemns death threats directed at the media
for reporting about Government.
6. That Civil Society condemns both the local and London based Secretariat
of the Smart Partnership Movement, for failure to condemn Prince
Mahlaba's death threats to the media for reporting about Government.
7. That Civil Society is of the firm view that the king in his capacity of head
of state has a national responsibility to urgently create a climate conducive
to an all-inclusive, representative, and people-driven dialogue about the
socio-economic and political future of Swaziland and that attendance to
such a forum should be completely unconditional.
8. 8.That Civil Society should never be intimidated but remain resolute in
fighting a just cause and never forget that the journey is fraught with risks
and pitfalls.
9. 9.That the media should remain courageous and always strive to abide by
their uncomfortable and risky responsibility to call the state to order for
this is ultimately what their role as members of the Fourth Estate entails.
10. 10.That the general Swazi society should not forget that we all have one
country, to which we have rights as citizens, and that, therefore, we aught
to safeguard and jealously preserve, as these are our God-given rights to
free expression, freedom of association, and freedom of peaceful
assembly. It is for this reason that we urge every Swazi national to stand
up and take charge of their destiny and that of their only country of birth:
Swaziland.

Issued by: 1. Swaziland Democracy Campaign

2. Foundation for Socio Economic Justice
3. Swaziland Coalition of Concerned Civic Organization
4. Swaziland Democratic Front
5. SWAPOL

Swaziland, Swazi, King Mswati III, censorship, self-censorship, freedom of the press,
press freedom, newspapers, media, human rights,