| SWAZILAND Kingdom of Swaziland Umbuso weSwatini Joined United Nations: 24 September 1968 Human Rights as assured by their constitution Click here Updated 01/21/11 |
| CAPITALS |
| POPULATION |
| CHIEF OF STATE |
| SELECTION PROCESS |
Lobamba (royal and legislative)
Mbabane (administrative)
Mbabane (administrative)
1,354,051
note: estimates for this country explicitly take into account the effects of excess mortality
due to AIDS; this can result in lower life expectancy, higher infant mortality and death
rates, lower population and growth rates, and changes in the distribution of population by
age and sex than would otherwise be expected (July 2010 est.)
note: estimates for this country explicitly take into account the effects of excess mortality
due to AIDS; this can result in lower life expectancy, higher infant mortality and death
rates, lower population and growth rates, and changes in the distribution of population by
age and sex than would otherwise be expected (July 2010 est.)
Barnabas Sibusiso Dlamini
Prime Minister since 16 October 2008
Prime Minister since 16 October 2008
The monarchy is hereditary
Next scheduled election: None
Next scheduled election: None
HEAD OF GOVERNMENT
SELECTION PROCESS
Prime minister appointed by the monarch from among the elected
members of the House of Assembly Elections last held on 19
September 2008
Next scheduled election: 2013
members of the House of Assembly Elections last held on 19
September 2008
Next scheduled election: 2013
| DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS |
| ETHNIC GROUPS |
African 97%, European 3%
| RELIGIONS |
Zionist 40% (a blend of Christianity and indigenous ancestral worship), Roman Catholic 20%, Muslim 10%, other (includes Anglican,
Bahai, Methodist, Mormon, Jewish) 30%
Bahai, Methodist, Mormon, Jewish) 30%
| GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE |
Monarchy with 4 districts; Legal system is based on South African Roman-Dutch law in statutory courts and Swazi traditional law
and custom in traditional courts; accepts compulsory ICJ jurisdiction with reservations
Executive: The monarch is hereditary; prime minister appointed by the monarch from among the elected members of the House of
Assembly
Legislative: Bicameral Parliament or Libandla consists of the Senate (30 seats; 10 members appointed by the House of Assembly
and 20 appointed by the monarch; to serve five-year terms) and the House of Assembly (65 seats; 10 members appointed by the
monarch and 55 elected by popular vote; to serve five-year terms)
elections: House of Assembly - last held 19 September 2008 (next to be held in 2013)
Judicial: High Court; Supreme Court; judges for both courts are appointed by the monarch
and custom in traditional courts; accepts compulsory ICJ jurisdiction with reservations
Executive: The monarch is hereditary; prime minister appointed by the monarch from among the elected members of the House of
Assembly
Legislative: Bicameral Parliament or Libandla consists of the Senate (30 seats; 10 members appointed by the House of Assembly
and 20 appointed by the monarch; to serve five-year terms) and the House of Assembly (65 seats; 10 members appointed by the
monarch and 55 elected by popular vote; to serve five-year terms)
elections: House of Assembly - last held 19 September 2008 (next to be held in 2013)
Judicial: High Court; Supreme Court; judges for both courts are appointed by the monarch
| LANGUAGES |
English (official, government business conducted in English), siSwati (official)
| BRIEF HISTORY |
According to tradition, the original followers of the present Dlamini royal house of the Swazi nation migrated south before the 16th
century to what is now Mozambique. Following a series of conflicts with people living in the area of modern Maputo, the Ngwane,
as they then called themselves, settled in northern Zululand in about 1750. Unable to match growing Zulu strength, the Ngwane
moved the center of their kingdom northward in the 1810s and 1820s. Under King Sobhuza I they established themselves in the
heartland of modern Swaziland, conquering and incorporating many long-established independent chiefdoms, whose descendants
also make up much of the modern Swazi nation. The Dlamini aristocracy consolidated their hold under several able leaders. The
most important was Mswati II, from whom the Swazi derive their name. Under his leadership from the 1840s to 1865, the Swazi
expanded their territory to the north and west, and stabilized the southern frontier with the Zulu. Contact with the British came early
in Mswati's reign, when he asked British authorities in South Africa for assistance against Zulu raids into Swaziland. It also was
during Mswati's reign that the first whites, Transvaal Boers, settled in the country. Following Mswati's death, the Swazis reached
agreements with British and South African Republic authorities over a range of issues, including independence, claims on resources
by Europeans, administrative authority, and security, though the white parties later reneged on those agreements. Over Swazi royal
protest, the South African Republic with British concurrence established incomplete colonial rule over the Swaziland from 1894 to
1899, when they withdrew their administration with the start of the Anglo-Boer War. In 1902 British forces entered the territory,
proclaiming British overrule and jurisdiction in 1903, initially as part of the Transvaal. In 1906 Swaziland was separated
administratively when the Transvaal Colony was granted responsible government. Throughout the colonial period from 1906 to
1968, Swaziland was governed by a resident commissioner who ruled according to decrees issued by the British High
Commissioner for South Africa. Such decrees were formulated in close consultation with the resident commissioners, who in turn
took informal and formal advice from white settler interests and the Swazi royalty. In 1921 the British established Swaziland's first
legislative body--an European Advisory Council (EAC) of elected white representatives mandated to advise the British high
commissioner on non-Swazi affairs. In 1944, the high commissioner both reconstituted the basis and role of the EAC, and, over
Swazi royal objections, issued a Native Authorities Proclamation constituting the paramount chief, as the British called the king, as
the native authority for the territory to issue legally enforceable orders to the Swazis subject to restrictions and directions from the
resident commissioner. Under pressure from royal non-cooperation this proclamation was revised in 1952 to grant the Swazi
paramount chief a degree of autonomy unprecedented in British colonial indirect rule in Africa. In 1921, after more than 20 years of
regency headed by Queen Regent Labotsibeni, Sobhuza II became Ngenyama (lion) or head of the Swazi nation. In the early years
of colonial rule, the British expected that Swaziland would eventually be incorporated into South Africa. After World War II,
however, South Africa's intensification of racial discrimination induced the United Kingdom to prepare Swaziland for independence.
Political activity intensified in the early 1960s. Several political parties were formed and jostled for independence and economic
development. The largely urban parties had few ties to the rural areas, where the majority of Swazis lived. The traditional Swazi
leaders, including King Sobhuza II and his Inner Council, formed the Imbokodvo National Movement (INM), a political group that
capitalized on its close identification with the Swazi way of life. Responding to pressure for political change, the colonial government
scheduled an election in mid-1964 for the first legislative council in which the Swazis would participate. In the election, the INM and
four other parties, most having more radical platforms, competed in the election. The INM won all 24 elective seats. Having
solidified its political base, INM incorporated many demands of the more radical parties, especially that of immediate independence.
In 1966, the UK Government agreed to discuss a new constitution. A constitutional committee agreed on a constitutional monarchy
for Swaziland, with self-government to follow parliamentary elections in 1967. Swaziland became independent on September 6,
1968. Swaziland's post-independence elections were held in May 1972. The INM received close to 75% of the vote. The Ngwane
National Liberatory Congress (NNLC) received slightly more than 20% of the vote which gained the party three seats in parliament.
In response to the NNLC's showing, King Sobhuza repealed the 1968 constitution on April 12, 1973 and dissolved parliament. He
assumed all powers of government and prohibited all political activities and trade unions from operating. He justified his actions as
having removed alien and divisive political practices incompatible with the Swazi way of life. In January 1979, a new parliament was
convened, chosen partly through indirect elections and partly through direct appointment by the king. King Sobhuza II died in
August 1982, and Queen Regent Dzeliwe assumed the duties of the head of state. In 1984, an internal dispute led to the
replacement of the prime minister and eventual replacement of Dzeliwe by a new Queen Regent Ntombi. Ntombi's only child,
Prince Makhosetive, was named heir to the Swazi throne. Real power at this time was concentrated in the Liqoqo, a supreme
traditional advisory body that claimed to give binding advice to the Queen Regent. In October 1985, Queen Regent Ntombi
demonstrated her power by dismissing the leading figures of the Liqoqo. Prince Makhosetive returned from school in England to
ascend to the throne and help end the continuing internal disputes. He was enthroned as Mswati III on April 25, 1986. Shortly
afterwards he abolished the Liqoqo. In November 1987, a new parliament was elected and a new cabinet appointed. In 1988 and
1989, an underground political party, the People's United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO) criticized the king and his
government, calling for 'democratic reforms'. In response to this political threat and to growing popular calls for greater
accountability within government, the king and the prime minister initiated an ongoing national debate on the constitutional and
political future of Swaziland. This debate produced a handful of political reforms, approved by the king, including direct and indirect
voting, in the 1993 national elections.
Source: Wikipedia: History of Swaziland
century to what is now Mozambique. Following a series of conflicts with people living in the area of modern Maputo, the Ngwane,
as they then called themselves, settled in northern Zululand in about 1750. Unable to match growing Zulu strength, the Ngwane
moved the center of their kingdom northward in the 1810s and 1820s. Under King Sobhuza I they established themselves in the
heartland of modern Swaziland, conquering and incorporating many long-established independent chiefdoms, whose descendants
also make up much of the modern Swazi nation. The Dlamini aristocracy consolidated their hold under several able leaders. The
most important was Mswati II, from whom the Swazi derive their name. Under his leadership from the 1840s to 1865, the Swazi
expanded their territory to the north and west, and stabilized the southern frontier with the Zulu. Contact with the British came early
in Mswati's reign, when he asked British authorities in South Africa for assistance against Zulu raids into Swaziland. It also was
during Mswati's reign that the first whites, Transvaal Boers, settled in the country. Following Mswati's death, the Swazis reached
agreements with British and South African Republic authorities over a range of issues, including independence, claims on resources
by Europeans, administrative authority, and security, though the white parties later reneged on those agreements. Over Swazi royal
protest, the South African Republic with British concurrence established incomplete colonial rule over the Swaziland from 1894 to
1899, when they withdrew their administration with the start of the Anglo-Boer War. In 1902 British forces entered the territory,
proclaiming British overrule and jurisdiction in 1903, initially as part of the Transvaal. In 1906 Swaziland was separated
administratively when the Transvaal Colony was granted responsible government. Throughout the colonial period from 1906 to
1968, Swaziland was governed by a resident commissioner who ruled according to decrees issued by the British High
Commissioner for South Africa. Such decrees were formulated in close consultation with the resident commissioners, who in turn
took informal and formal advice from white settler interests and the Swazi royalty. In 1921 the British established Swaziland's first
legislative body--an European Advisory Council (EAC) of elected white representatives mandated to advise the British high
commissioner on non-Swazi affairs. In 1944, the high commissioner both reconstituted the basis and role of the EAC, and, over
Swazi royal objections, issued a Native Authorities Proclamation constituting the paramount chief, as the British called the king, as
the native authority for the territory to issue legally enforceable orders to the Swazis subject to restrictions and directions from the
resident commissioner. Under pressure from royal non-cooperation this proclamation was revised in 1952 to grant the Swazi
paramount chief a degree of autonomy unprecedented in British colonial indirect rule in Africa. In 1921, after more than 20 years of
regency headed by Queen Regent Labotsibeni, Sobhuza II became Ngenyama (lion) or head of the Swazi nation. In the early years
of colonial rule, the British expected that Swaziland would eventually be incorporated into South Africa. After World War II,
however, South Africa's intensification of racial discrimination induced the United Kingdom to prepare Swaziland for independence.
Political activity intensified in the early 1960s. Several political parties were formed and jostled for independence and economic
development. The largely urban parties had few ties to the rural areas, where the majority of Swazis lived. The traditional Swazi
leaders, including King Sobhuza II and his Inner Council, formed the Imbokodvo National Movement (INM), a political group that
capitalized on its close identification with the Swazi way of life. Responding to pressure for political change, the colonial government
scheduled an election in mid-1964 for the first legislative council in which the Swazis would participate. In the election, the INM and
four other parties, most having more radical platforms, competed in the election. The INM won all 24 elective seats. Having
solidified its political base, INM incorporated many demands of the more radical parties, especially that of immediate independence.
In 1966, the UK Government agreed to discuss a new constitution. A constitutional committee agreed on a constitutional monarchy
for Swaziland, with self-government to follow parliamentary elections in 1967. Swaziland became independent on September 6,
1968. Swaziland's post-independence elections were held in May 1972. The INM received close to 75% of the vote. The Ngwane
National Liberatory Congress (NNLC) received slightly more than 20% of the vote which gained the party three seats in parliament.
In response to the NNLC's showing, King Sobhuza repealed the 1968 constitution on April 12, 1973 and dissolved parliament. He
assumed all powers of government and prohibited all political activities and trade unions from operating. He justified his actions as
having removed alien and divisive political practices incompatible with the Swazi way of life. In January 1979, a new parliament was
convened, chosen partly through indirect elections and partly through direct appointment by the king. King Sobhuza II died in
August 1982, and Queen Regent Dzeliwe assumed the duties of the head of state. In 1984, an internal dispute led to the
replacement of the prime minister and eventual replacement of Dzeliwe by a new Queen Regent Ntombi. Ntombi's only child,
Prince Makhosetive, was named heir to the Swazi throne. Real power at this time was concentrated in the Liqoqo, a supreme
traditional advisory body that claimed to give binding advice to the Queen Regent. In October 1985, Queen Regent Ntombi
demonstrated her power by dismissing the leading figures of the Liqoqo. Prince Makhosetive returned from school in England to
ascend to the throne and help end the continuing internal disputes. He was enthroned as Mswati III on April 25, 1986. Shortly
afterwards he abolished the Liqoqo. In November 1987, a new parliament was elected and a new cabinet appointed. In 1988 and
1989, an underground political party, the People's United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO) criticized the king and his
government, calling for 'democratic reforms'. In response to this political threat and to growing popular calls for greater
accountability within government, the king and the prime minister initiated an ongoing national debate on the constitutional and
political future of Swaziland. This debate produced a handful of political reforms, approved by the king, including direct and indirect
voting, in the 1993 national elections.
Source: Wikipedia: History of Swaziland
| ECONOMIC OVERVIEW |
In this small, landlocked economy, subsistence agriculture occupies approximately 70% of the population. The manufacturing sector
has diversified since the mid-1980s. Sugar and wood pulp remain important foreign exchange earners. In 2007, the sugar industry
increased efficiency and diversification efforts, in response to a 17% decline in EU sugar prices. Mining has declined in importance
in recent years with only coal and quarry stone mines remaining active. Surrounded by South Africa, except for a short border with
Mozambique, Swaziland is heavily dependent on South Africa from which it receives more than nine-tenths of its imports and to
which it sends 60% of its exports. Swaziland's currency is pegged to the South African rand, subsuming Swaziland's monetary
policy to South Africa. Customs duties from the Southern African Customs Union (SACU) account for two-thirds of Swaziland's
government revenues, and worker remittances from South Africa substantially supplement domestically earned income. Customs
revenues plummeted during the global economic crisis and Swaziland has appealed to SACU for assistance. With an estimated
40% unemployment rate, Swaziland's need to increase the number and size of small and medium enterprises and attract foreign
direct investment is acute. Overgrazing, soil depletion, drought, and sometimes floods persist as problems for the future. More than
one-fourth of the population needed emergency food aid in 2006-07 because of drought, and more than one-quarter of the adult
population has been infected by HIV/AIDS.
Source: CIA World Factbook (select Swaziland)
has diversified since the mid-1980s. Sugar and wood pulp remain important foreign exchange earners. In 2007, the sugar industry
increased efficiency and diversification efforts, in response to a 17% decline in EU sugar prices. Mining has declined in importance
in recent years with only coal and quarry stone mines remaining active. Surrounded by South Africa, except for a short border with
Mozambique, Swaziland is heavily dependent on South Africa from which it receives more than nine-tenths of its imports and to
which it sends 60% of its exports. Swaziland's currency is pegged to the South African rand, subsuming Swaziland's monetary
policy to South Africa. Customs duties from the Southern African Customs Union (SACU) account for two-thirds of Swaziland's
government revenues, and worker remittances from South Africa substantially supplement domestically earned income. Customs
revenues plummeted during the global economic crisis and Swaziland has appealed to SACU for assistance. With an estimated
40% unemployment rate, Swaziland's need to increase the number and size of small and medium enterprises and attract foreign
direct investment is acute. Overgrazing, soil depletion, drought, and sometimes floods persist as problems for the future. More than
one-fourth of the population needed emergency food aid in 2006-07 because of drought, and more than one-quarter of the adult
population has been infected by HIV/AIDS.
Source: CIA World Factbook (select Swaziland)
| POLITICAL CLIMATE |
Politics of Swaziland takes place in a mixed framework of an absolute monarchy and a constitutional monarchy. Swaziland today is
foremost ruled by a monarch, although for all of its administrative history prior to British colonization in 1903, it might have more
properly been called a diarchy.
The king and the senior queen rule together in theory, and did so in practice up until the reign of Sobhuza II, making the term
"monarchy" somewhat misleading historically. Before colonization the senior queen acted as a check and counterweight to the king's
power, both through her direct control of some military forces and her control of rainmaking medicines and rites and of key aspects
of the Ncwala national ritual that annually binds the fate of the king and the nation together. British policy and the strength of
Sobhuza II's personality shifted power decisively toward the king and away from the senior queen during his long reign.
A Swazi king's first two wives are chosen for him by the national councillors. These two have special functions in rituals and their
sons can never claim kingship. The first wife must be a member of the Matsebula clan, the second of the Motsa clan. According to
tradition, he can only marry his fiancées after they have fallen pregnant, proving they can bear heirs. Until then, they are Liphovela.
Political parties are banned by the constitution promulgated on 13 October 1978; illegal parties are prohibited from holding large
public gatherings. At the last elections, 18 October 2003, only non-partisans were elected. One of them is a member of the
opposition Ngwane National Liberatory Congress. Most opposition politicians boycotted the elections.
Source: Wikipedia: Politics of Swaziland
foremost ruled by a monarch, although for all of its administrative history prior to British colonization in 1903, it might have more
properly been called a diarchy.
The king and the senior queen rule together in theory, and did so in practice up until the reign of Sobhuza II, making the term
"monarchy" somewhat misleading historically. Before colonization the senior queen acted as a check and counterweight to the king's
power, both through her direct control of some military forces and her control of rainmaking medicines and rites and of key aspects
of the Ncwala national ritual that annually binds the fate of the king and the nation together. British policy and the strength of
Sobhuza II's personality shifted power decisively toward the king and away from the senior queen during his long reign.
A Swazi king's first two wives are chosen for him by the national councillors. These two have special functions in rituals and their
sons can never claim kingship. The first wife must be a member of the Matsebula clan, the second of the Motsa clan. According to
tradition, he can only marry his fiancées after they have fallen pregnant, proving they can bear heirs. Until then, they are Liphovela.
Political parties are banned by the constitution promulgated on 13 October 1978; illegal parties are prohibited from holding large
public gatherings. At the last elections, 18 October 2003, only non-partisans were elected. One of them is a member of the
opposition Ngwane National Liberatory Congress. Most opposition politicians boycotted the elections.
Source: Wikipedia: Politics of Swaziland
| INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES |
In 2006, Swazi king advocates resort to ICJ to claim parts of Mpumalanga and KwaZulu-Natal from South Africa.
| REFUGEES AND INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS (IDPS) |
None reported.
| ILLICIT DRUGS |
None reported.
| HUMAN RIGHTS STATEMENTS, ANALYSIS AND CRITIQUES |
2009 Human Rights Report: Swaziland
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
2009 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices
March 11, 2010
Swaziland is an absolute monarchy, and King Mswati III has ultimate authority over the cabinet, legislature, and judiciary. The population
was approximately 1.02 million, according to the 2007 census. There was a prime minister and a partially elected parliament, but political
power remained largely with the king and his traditional advisors, the most influential of whom remained the queen mother. International
observers concluded that parliamentary elections held in September 2008 did not meet international standards. The 2008 Suppression of
Terrorism Act to silence dissent and ban certain political organizations remained in effect. While civilian authorities generally maintained
effective control of the security forces, there were some instances in which elements of the security forces committed abuses
Human rights problems included:
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
2009 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices
March 11, 2010
Swaziland is an absolute monarchy, and King Mswati III has ultimate authority over the cabinet, legislature, and judiciary. The population
was approximately 1.02 million, according to the 2007 census. There was a prime minister and a partially elected parliament, but political
power remained largely with the king and his traditional advisors, the most influential of whom remained the queen mother. International
observers concluded that parliamentary elections held in September 2008 did not meet international standards. The 2008 Suppression of
Terrorism Act to silence dissent and ban certain political organizations remained in effect. While civilian authorities generally maintained
effective control of the security forces, there were some instances in which elements of the security forces committed abuses
Human rights problems included:
- inability of citizens to change their government;
- extrajudicial killings by security forces;
- mob killings;
- police use of torture, beatings, and excessive force on detainees;
- police impunity;
- arbitrary arrests and lengthy pretrial detention;
- arbitrary interference with privacy and home;
- restrictions on freedoms of speech and press and harassment of journalists;
- restrictions on freedoms of assembly, association, and movement;
- prohibitions on political activity and harassment of political activists;
- discrimination and violence against women;
- child abuse;
- trafficking in persons;
- societal discrimination against members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transsexual community;
- discrimination against mixed-race and white citizens;
- harassment of labor leaders;
- restrictions on worker rights;
- child labor.
29 September 2006
COMMITTEE ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD
CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS SUBMITTED BY STATES PARTIES UNDER ARTICLE 44 OF THE CONVENTION
Concluding Observations: Swaziland
Introduction
2. The Committee welcomes the submission of the initial report as well as the written replies to its list of issues (CRC/C/SWZ/Q/1). It
commends their self-critical and analytical nature, which gave a better understanding of the situation of children in the State party.
3. The Committee is encouraged by the frank and constructive dialogue it had with the State party’s high-level multisectoral delegation
and welcomes the positive reactions to the suggestions and recommendations made during the discussion.
Positive aspects
4. The Committee welcomes a number of positive developments in the reporting period inter alia:
a) The adoption of the Constitution Act of 2005, which incorporates human rights in the domestic law and contains specific provisions
regarding the recognition and protection of the rights of the child;
b) The amendment of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act (Section 223 bis) which resulted in the establishment of the Children’s
Court, within the High Court in 2005;
c) The adoption of the National HIV and AIDS policy and the Second National Strategic and Action Plan (2006-2008);
C. Factors and difficulties impeding the implementation of the Convention
6. The Committee acknowledges that the HIV/AIDS pandemic facing the State party had, and continues to have a negative impact on the
situation of children and hampers the full implementation of the Convention. The Committee further notes that drought and the related
lack of food security also adversely affect the full implementation of the Convention.
Principal areas of concern and recommendations
Legislation
7. The Committee welcomes the enactment of the Constitution in 2005 which includes provisions which aim at guaranteeing that
children are afforded special protection. It also notes that a Children’s Bill and a Sexual Offences and Domestic Violence Bill are
currently being discussed in the State party. However, the Committee remains concerned at the lack of a systematic and comprehensive
legislative review regarding compatibility of domestic legislation, policy and practice with the Convention.
8. The Committee recommends that the State party expedite as much as possible the adoption of the before mentioned Bills and
strengthen its efforts to bring domestic laws into full compliance with the Convention. The Committee also recommends that the State
party seek the assistance of UNICEF in order to have an advisor to the Parliament.
Click here to read more »
COMMITTEE ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD
CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS SUBMITTED BY STATES PARTIES UNDER ARTICLE 44 OF THE CONVENTION
Concluding Observations: Swaziland
Introduction
2. The Committee welcomes the submission of the initial report as well as the written replies to its list of issues (CRC/C/SWZ/Q/1). It
commends their self-critical and analytical nature, which gave a better understanding of the situation of children in the State party.
3. The Committee is encouraged by the frank and constructive dialogue it had with the State party’s high-level multisectoral delegation
and welcomes the positive reactions to the suggestions and recommendations made during the discussion.
Positive aspects
4. The Committee welcomes a number of positive developments in the reporting period inter alia:
a) The adoption of the Constitution Act of 2005, which incorporates human rights in the domestic law and contains specific provisions
regarding the recognition and protection of the rights of the child;
b) The amendment of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act (Section 223 bis) which resulted in the establishment of the Children’s
Court, within the High Court in 2005;
c) The adoption of the National HIV and AIDS policy and the Second National Strategic and Action Plan (2006-2008);
C. Factors and difficulties impeding the implementation of the Convention
6. The Committee acknowledges that the HIV/AIDS pandemic facing the State party had, and continues to have a negative impact on the
situation of children and hampers the full implementation of the Convention. The Committee further notes that drought and the related
lack of food security also adversely affect the full implementation of the Convention.
Principal areas of concern and recommendations
Legislation
7. The Committee welcomes the enactment of the Constitution in 2005 which includes provisions which aim at guaranteeing that
children are afforded special protection. It also notes that a Children’s Bill and a Sexual Offences and Domestic Violence Bill are
currently being discussed in the State party. However, the Committee remains concerned at the lack of a systematic and comprehensive
legislative review regarding compatibility of domestic legislation, policy and practice with the Convention.
8. The Committee recommends that the State party expedite as much as possible the adoption of the before mentioned Bills and
strengthen its efforts to bring domestic laws into full compliance with the Convention. The Committee also recommends that the State
party seek the assistance of UNICEF in order to have an advisor to the Parliament.
Click here to read more »
Troubling Decline in Rights in Swaziland
Washington
June 1, 2010
The arrest of opposition leader Mario Masuku on the frivolous charge of publicly saying the name of his political party, Peoples United
Democratic Movement (PUDEMO), is an egregious violation of Mr. Masuku’s civil liberties and a further indication of an alarming
deterioration in the political environment in Swaziland.
Swaziland, Africa’s last absolute monarchy, has banned political parties since 1973. Mr. Masuku’s arrest occurred immediately
following the funeral of PUDEMO member, Sipho Jele, who was found hanging from rafters in a prison toilet three days after being
imprisoned for wearing a T shirt with a PUDEMO logo. Although the Swazi authorities informed Mr. Jele’s family that he had
committed suicide, injuries visible on the corpse raised doubts about the cause of death. Mr. Jele had participated in a Freedom House
civil society workshop in 2009.
“It is clear the political situation in Swaziland continues to be dangerous for anyone opposing the regime. In light of what happened to
Sipho Jele, we are obviously very concerned about the safety of Mario Masuku,” said Paula Schriefer, director of advocacy at Freedom
House.
Harassment of Swazi civil society has increased of late, including an attempt by Swazi police to prevent two civil society leaders, Musa
Hlophe and Jan Sithole, from entering South Africa en route to Germany at the invitation of Bread for the World.
Swaziland is ranked Not Free in Freedom in the World 2010, Freedom House's survey of political rights and civil liberties, and Not Free
in Freedom of the Press 2010.
Click here to read more »
Washington
June 1, 2010
The arrest of opposition leader Mario Masuku on the frivolous charge of publicly saying the name of his political party, Peoples United
Democratic Movement (PUDEMO), is an egregious violation of Mr. Masuku’s civil liberties and a further indication of an alarming
deterioration in the political environment in Swaziland.
Swaziland, Africa’s last absolute monarchy, has banned political parties since 1973. Mr. Masuku’s arrest occurred immediately
following the funeral of PUDEMO member, Sipho Jele, who was found hanging from rafters in a prison toilet three days after being
imprisoned for wearing a T shirt with a PUDEMO logo. Although the Swazi authorities informed Mr. Jele’s family that he had
committed suicide, injuries visible on the corpse raised doubts about the cause of death. Mr. Jele had participated in a Freedom House
civil society workshop in 2009.
“It is clear the political situation in Swaziland continues to be dangerous for anyone opposing the regime. In light of what happened to
Sipho Jele, we are obviously very concerned about the safety of Mario Masuku,” said Paula Schriefer, director of advocacy at Freedom
House.
Harassment of Swazi civil society has increased of late, including an attempt by Swazi police to prevent two civil society leaders, Musa
Hlophe and Jan Sithole, from entering South Africa en route to Germany at the invitation of Bread for the World.
Swaziland is ranked Not Free in Freedom in the World 2010, Freedom House's survey of political rights and civil liberties, and Not Free
in Freedom of the Press 2010.
Click here to read more »
TOO LATE, TOO LITTLE
THE FAILURE OF LAW REFORM FOR WOMEN IN SWAZILAND
25 November 2010
WOMEN’S ORGANIZATIONS IN SWAZILAND ARE BATTLING TO REFORM LAWS THAT TREAT WOMEN AS SECOND-
CLASS CITIZENS. THE GOVERNMENT HAS FAILED TO CHANGE THESE LAWS, DESPITE REPEATEDLY PROMISING TO DO
SO. THE RESULT IS THAT WOMEN IN SWAZILAND ARE NOT PROTECTED by THE LAW AND FACE DISCRIMINATION
THAT IS PERMITTED by LAW.
Women and girls have no legal protection from rape by their husbands. In the country with the highest prevalence of HIV in the world,
there are no laws criminalizing domestic violence, forced marriages or early marriages. Most married women are denied equal status as
legal adults and cannot administer property, sign contracts or conduct legal proceedings without their husband’s consent. Denied the
right to own land, many widows are forced from their homes.
In a breakthrough in the fight for equality, Swaziland agreed in 2004 to be bound by the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms
of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) – the key international treaty on women’s human rights. The Constitution of the Kingdom
of Swaziland was enacted in the following year. For the first time, national law guaranteed to women the right to equal treatment with
men and some protection from being “compelled to undergo or uphold any custom to which [they are] in conscience opposed”.
However, the laws that govern the daily lives of Swazi men and women have not been brought into line with CEDAW or the Constitution
and leave Swaziland in flagrant violation of its international commitments to women’s rights.
BROKEN PROMISES
“[T]he Respondents [Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs and others] have had sufficient time since the coming into effect of
the Constitution to embark on aggressive legal reforms especially those relating to women who have been marginalised over the years in
many areas of the law.”
Justice Q.M. Mabuza, ruling in the High Court in a case related to women’s rights to own property, February 2010, case number
383/2009 More than half a decade after ratifying CEDAW and adopting a new Constitution, official steps to reform the laws affecting
women’s rights have achieved very little. The Sexual Offences and Domestic Violence bill was only introduced in Parliament for full
debate on 28 October 2010. This is despite the active lobbying by women’s rights activists and other interested parties, including
Amnesty International, since 2005.
Click here to read more »
THE FAILURE OF LAW REFORM FOR WOMEN IN SWAZILAND
25 November 2010
WOMEN’S ORGANIZATIONS IN SWAZILAND ARE BATTLING TO REFORM LAWS THAT TREAT WOMEN AS SECOND-
CLASS CITIZENS. THE GOVERNMENT HAS FAILED TO CHANGE THESE LAWS, DESPITE REPEATEDLY PROMISING TO DO
SO. THE RESULT IS THAT WOMEN IN SWAZILAND ARE NOT PROTECTED by THE LAW AND FACE DISCRIMINATION
THAT IS PERMITTED by LAW.
Women and girls have no legal protection from rape by their husbands. In the country with the highest prevalence of HIV in the world,
there are no laws criminalizing domestic violence, forced marriages or early marriages. Most married women are denied equal status as
legal adults and cannot administer property, sign contracts or conduct legal proceedings without their husband’s consent. Denied the
right to own land, many widows are forced from their homes.
In a breakthrough in the fight for equality, Swaziland agreed in 2004 to be bound by the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms
of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) – the key international treaty on women’s human rights. The Constitution of the Kingdom
of Swaziland was enacted in the following year. For the first time, national law guaranteed to women the right to equal treatment with
men and some protection from being “compelled to undergo or uphold any custom to which [they are] in conscience opposed”.
However, the laws that govern the daily lives of Swazi men and women have not been brought into line with CEDAW or the Constitution
and leave Swaziland in flagrant violation of its international commitments to women’s rights.
BROKEN PROMISES
“[T]he Respondents [Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs and others] have had sufficient time since the coming into effect of
the Constitution to embark on aggressive legal reforms especially those relating to women who have been marginalised over the years in
many areas of the law.”
Justice Q.M. Mabuza, ruling in the High Court in a case related to women’s rights to own property, February 2010, case number
383/2009 More than half a decade after ratifying CEDAW and adopting a new Constitution, official steps to reform the laws affecting
women’s rights have achieved very little. The Sexual Offences and Domestic Violence bill was only introduced in Parliament for full
debate on 28 October 2010. This is despite the active lobbying by women’s rights activists and other interested parties, including
Amnesty International, since 2005.
Click here to read more »
SADC: Press Zimbabwe to Implement Rights Reforms
Southern African Leaders Should Urge End to Politically Motivated Abuses
August 31, 2009
(Johannesburg) - Southern African leaders should press Zimbabwe's power-sharing government to end ongoing human rights violations
and to implement legal reforms, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. Heads of state from members of the Southern
African Development Community (SADC) are holding a summit meeting in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo, on September 7
and 8, 2009.
The 20-page report, "False Dawn: The Zimbabwe Power-Sharing Government's Failure to Deliver Human Rights Improvements,"
highlights the transitional government's lack of progress in rights reforms in the six months since it was created. The former ruling
party, Zimbabwe Africa National Union - Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF), has demonstrated a lack of political will to effect change and
wields more power than the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), the former opposition party and now a partner in government.
Police, state prosecutors, and court officials aligned to ZANU-PF conduct politically motivated prosecutions of MDC legislators and
activists, and fail to ensure justice for victims of abuses or to hold perpetrators of human rights violations to account.
"Southern African leaders should stop looking at Zimbabwe through rose-colored glasses," said Georgette Gagnon, Africa director at
Human Rights Watch. "The region's leaders need to press Zimbabwe openly and publicly for human rights reforms to prevent the
country from backsliding into state-sponsored violence and chaos."
At the summit meeting, heads of state are expected to assess Zimbabwe's compliance with a number of rulings by the SADC Tribunal on
illegal land seizures in Zimbabwe. President Jacob Zuma of South Africa, the organization's current chairman, is also expected to brief
leaders on the progress made by Zimbabwe's power-sharing government, which has been in place since February. The government was
created by a SADC-brokered September 2008 agreement, which followed a period when ZANU-PF and its allies unleashed a campaign
of violence to prevent an MDC electoral win.
In its new report, Human Rights Watch urged Southern African leaders to extract concrete commitments on human rights from the
government of Zimbabwe and to tie them to specific benchmarks for progress within a clear time frame. The summit meeting's
participants were also urged to raise concerns about Zimbabwe's failure to enact basic institutional and legislative reforms that would
guarantee the rule of law as well as fundamental rights for Zimbabweans.
Click here to read more »
Southern African Leaders Should Urge End to Politically Motivated Abuses
August 31, 2009
(Johannesburg) - Southern African leaders should press Zimbabwe's power-sharing government to end ongoing human rights violations
and to implement legal reforms, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. Heads of state from members of the Southern
African Development Community (SADC) are holding a summit meeting in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo, on September 7
and 8, 2009.
The 20-page report, "False Dawn: The Zimbabwe Power-Sharing Government's Failure to Deliver Human Rights Improvements,"
highlights the transitional government's lack of progress in rights reforms in the six months since it was created. The former ruling
party, Zimbabwe Africa National Union - Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF), has demonstrated a lack of political will to effect change and
wields more power than the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), the former opposition party and now a partner in government.
Police, state prosecutors, and court officials aligned to ZANU-PF conduct politically motivated prosecutions of MDC legislators and
activists, and fail to ensure justice for victims of abuses or to hold perpetrators of human rights violations to account.
"Southern African leaders should stop looking at Zimbabwe through rose-colored glasses," said Georgette Gagnon, Africa director at
Human Rights Watch. "The region's leaders need to press Zimbabwe openly and publicly for human rights reforms to prevent the
country from backsliding into state-sponsored violence and chaos."
At the summit meeting, heads of state are expected to assess Zimbabwe's compliance with a number of rulings by the SADC Tribunal on
illegal land seizures in Zimbabwe. President Jacob Zuma of South Africa, the organization's current chairman, is also expected to brief
leaders on the progress made by Zimbabwe's power-sharing government, which has been in place since February. The government was
created by a SADC-brokered September 2008 agreement, which followed a period when ZANU-PF and its allies unleashed a campaign
of violence to prevent an MDC electoral win.
In its new report, Human Rights Watch urged Southern African leaders to extract concrete commitments on human rights from the
government of Zimbabwe and to tie them to specific benchmarks for progress within a clear time frame. The summit meeting's
participants were also urged to raise concerns about Zimbabwe's failure to enact basic institutional and legislative reforms that would
guarantee the rule of law as well as fundamental rights for Zimbabweans.
Click here to read more »
STATEMENT BY H.E. ZWElETHU MNISI AMBASSADOR AND PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE OF THE KINGDOM OF
SWAZILAND BEFORE THE THIRD COMMITTEE OF THE 65TH SESSION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY
ON AGENDA ITEM 28: ADVANCEMENT OF WOMEN
13 OCTOBER 2010
NEW YORK
Chairperson,
The Kingdom of Swaziland strongly believes that without equal participation of women in political, social and economic spheres,
sustainable development and social justice would not be achieved. In this regard, our Government is fully committed to the
implementation of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action as we believe it is the proper policy framework to advance the
promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of women in the country.
The Government of the Kingdom of Swaziland recognizes women as equal citizens and has committed herself to the promotion and
protection of their human rights. Apart from the Beijing Platform for Action, Swaziland is party to the several critical human rights
instruments all of which promote gender equality and respect for the rights of women.
On this note, we are proud to announce that Cabinet has approved the National Gender Policy. The process of the development of this
policy was widely consultative. This Policy is meant to guide and direct the planning, programming and implementation of national,
regional, community and sectoral development programmes and projects through a gender lens. Also, it will provide a legal framework
for institutionalizing gender mainstreaming at all levels and in all sectors, including the allocation of adequate resources to achieve this
goal. At continental level, the Kingdom of Swaziland is actively participating in the African Women's Decade 2010-2020 proclaimed at
the 12th Ordinary Session of the AU Assembly in 2009, in Addis Ababa.
Our Constitution provides for non-discrimination and the rights and freedoms of women. We therefore welcome the recent
establishment of the new United Nations Gender Entity, namely UN-WOMEN and look forward to its operationalization by January 2011.
We believe UN-WOMEN will be a dynamic and strong champion for women and girls, providing them with a powerful voice at the
international, regional and local levels.
The Government of the Kingdom of Swaziland is committed to improving the health of women and girls and has made significant
progress in the achievement of MDG 5 (Improvement of Maternal Health). For example, we have improved the integration of
reproductive health services within all levels of the health system, improved sexual and reproductive health commodity security,
integration of prevention and treatment of STls in the health care delivery system, expanded Prevention of Mother-to Child Transmission
(PMTCT) of HIV to cover over 80 percent of health facilities in 2009 from 2 percent in 2003, increased coverage in the distribution of
Anti-Retroviral Therapy medication, implementation of integrated management of childhood illnesses to promote child
survival,introduction of male involvement in programming and up-scaling of efforts to reduce maternal mortality as part of the Campaign
for Accelerated Reduction of Maternal Mortality in Africa (CARMMA).
Click here to read more »
SWAZILAND BEFORE THE THIRD COMMITTEE OF THE 65TH SESSION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY
ON AGENDA ITEM 28: ADVANCEMENT OF WOMEN
13 OCTOBER 2010
NEW YORK
Chairperson,
The Kingdom of Swaziland strongly believes that without equal participation of women in political, social and economic spheres,
sustainable development and social justice would not be achieved. In this regard, our Government is fully committed to the
implementation of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action as we believe it is the proper policy framework to advance the
promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of women in the country.
The Government of the Kingdom of Swaziland recognizes women as equal citizens and has committed herself to the promotion and
protection of their human rights. Apart from the Beijing Platform for Action, Swaziland is party to the several critical human rights
instruments all of which promote gender equality and respect for the rights of women.
On this note, we are proud to announce that Cabinet has approved the National Gender Policy. The process of the development of this
policy was widely consultative. This Policy is meant to guide and direct the planning, programming and implementation of national,
regional, community and sectoral development programmes and projects through a gender lens. Also, it will provide a legal framework
for institutionalizing gender mainstreaming at all levels and in all sectors, including the allocation of adequate resources to achieve this
goal. At continental level, the Kingdom of Swaziland is actively participating in the African Women's Decade 2010-2020 proclaimed at
the 12th Ordinary Session of the AU Assembly in 2009, in Addis Ababa.
Our Constitution provides for non-discrimination and the rights and freedoms of women. We therefore welcome the recent
establishment of the new United Nations Gender Entity, namely UN-WOMEN and look forward to its operationalization by January 2011.
We believe UN-WOMEN will be a dynamic and strong champion for women and girls, providing them with a powerful voice at the
international, regional and local levels.
The Government of the Kingdom of Swaziland is committed to improving the health of women and girls and has made significant
progress in the achievement of MDG 5 (Improvement of Maternal Health). For example, we have improved the integration of
reproductive health services within all levels of the health system, improved sexual and reproductive health commodity security,
integration of prevention and treatment of STls in the health care delivery system, expanded Prevention of Mother-to Child Transmission
(PMTCT) of HIV to cover over 80 percent of health facilities in 2009 from 2 percent in 2003, increased coverage in the distribution of
Anti-Retroviral Therapy medication, implementation of integrated management of childhood illnesses to promote child
survival,introduction of male involvement in programming and up-scaling of efforts to reduce maternal mortality as part of the Campaign
for Accelerated Reduction of Maternal Mortality in Africa (CARMMA).
Click here to read more »
Friday, 21 January 2011
LUTFO: SWAZI MEDIA TALK IN RIDDLES
I wish the newspapers in Swaziland would stop talking in riddles about the Lutfo Dlamini corruption scandal.
Today (21 January 2011), it’s the turn of the Times of Swaziland, the kingdom’s only independent daily newspaper.
Its managing editor Mbongeni Mbingo writes about how the Swaziland Government Cabinet often talks about ‘collective responsibility’.
He then asks, ‘How does Cabinet reconcile this with what is happening with their colleague at foreign affairs?
‘We do not know as yet the extent of the problem that we are made to believe the minister has got to answer to, to his superiors, but I
was just thinking that his colleagues would perhaps have taken the fall too.
‘But then again, perhaps this was a decision that did not involve Cabinet! Only time will tell, and the public waits, with bated breath.’
Indeed, if by the ‘public’ Mbingo means Times’ readers, they do indeed wait with baited breath to find out what’s going on. The rest of
us know that Lutfo Dlamini, Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, and Phesheya Dlamini, Swaziland Ambassador to
Kuwait, were both sacked from their jobs last week because they are implicated in a corruption scandal involving missing millions of
emalengeni that was intended for King Mswati III, King of Swaziland and the last absolute monarch in sub-Saharan Africa.
Yesterday, the Swazi Observer, the newspaper in effect owned and edited by King Mswati, dribbled on about Lutfo Dlamini being away
from work ‘sick’ and his cabinet post being assigned temporarily to Clement Dlamini, the Agriculture Minister.
We expect this misleading reporting from the Observer, but the Times claims to be an ‘independent’ newspaper. Could the people at the
Times show us that independence and tell their readers what is really going on. Please.
Click here to read more »
LUTFO: SWAZI MEDIA TALK IN RIDDLES
I wish the newspapers in Swaziland would stop talking in riddles about the Lutfo Dlamini corruption scandal.
Today (21 January 2011), it’s the turn of the Times of Swaziland, the kingdom’s only independent daily newspaper.
Its managing editor Mbongeni Mbingo writes about how the Swaziland Government Cabinet often talks about ‘collective responsibility’.
He then asks, ‘How does Cabinet reconcile this with what is happening with their colleague at foreign affairs?
‘We do not know as yet the extent of the problem that we are made to believe the minister has got to answer to, to his superiors, but I
was just thinking that his colleagues would perhaps have taken the fall too.
‘But then again, perhaps this was a decision that did not involve Cabinet! Only time will tell, and the public waits, with bated breath.’
Indeed, if by the ‘public’ Mbingo means Times’ readers, they do indeed wait with baited breath to find out what’s going on. The rest of
us know that Lutfo Dlamini, Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, and Phesheya Dlamini, Swaziland Ambassador to
Kuwait, were both sacked from their jobs last week because they are implicated in a corruption scandal involving missing millions of
emalengeni that was intended for King Mswati III, King of Swaziland and the last absolute monarch in sub-Saharan Africa.
Yesterday, the Swazi Observer, the newspaper in effect owned and edited by King Mswati, dribbled on about Lutfo Dlamini being away
from work ‘sick’ and his cabinet post being assigned temporarily to Clement Dlamini, the Agriculture Minister.
We expect this misleading reporting from the Observer, but the Times claims to be an ‘independent’ newspaper. Could the people at the
Times show us that independence and tell their readers what is really going on. Please.
Click here to read more »
Monday, July 5, 2010
The Swazi Human Rights Commission & the Black Stars
Some weeks ago, we were all summonsed to partake in a consultation regarding the Human Rights Commission (HRC) in Swaziland.
The consultation was undertaken by the Commonwealth, and as it was a government shindig, the lunches were sumptuous.
The facilitator - ennoblingly titled 'Guest of Honour' - was Justice Emile Short, the Ghanaian Human Rights Commissioner. He did a
fantastic job. The draft Bill for the Commission was distributed, and it is modelled on the Ghanaian Commission, which has by all
accounts been fantastically successful.
But it became clear throughout the sessions that Swaziland is a far cry from Ghana. There is a fear here of government commissions
and powers that perplexed the facilitators. When it was explained, for example, that the Elections & Boundaries Commission here in
Swaziland had attempted to prevent democratic voter education, under the rubric that it and it alone had the authority to 'facilitate voter
education' (see the EBC case), the Commonwealth facilitators were all stunned. Still, they pushed on with peddling the Ghanaian model.
So what is the model?
Well, unlike most HRCs in the developed world, the Ghanaian model allows individuals to take other individuals directly to the
Commission. This makes the HRC rather like a less formal court. In most countries in the West, a person can take a case alleging a
violation of human rights by another individual, but the focus of the complaint is the government. So, one might allege that a neighbour
has invaded one’s right to privacy, but the complaint will centre on why the government has not outlawed the neighbour’s behaviour, or
taken appropriate action to enforce the law. This type of HRC is usually given power to investigate complaints about “actions or
practices” (including omissions) undertaken (or not) by the state that are said to violate human rights. Or, usually a human rights treaty.
Not so the Swazi HRC. It is proposed to give this the power to investigate “violations of human rights.” This specifically allows
individuals to make complaints against other individuals. Perhaps more worryingly, it also specifically allows any governmental body to
make complaints against individuals.
In addition to this, the definition of “human rights” is somewhat vague in the proposed Bill. It is defined as follows:
“‘human rights’ means human rights guaranteed by or under the Constitution or any other law in force in Swaziland, including
international law.”
This might be fine in Ghana, although it is the sort of definition that should be avoided for uncertainty. Just what are the ‘human rights
guaranteed by...any...law in Swaziland’? There may be certain rights existing in unwritten Swazi Law & Custom (which is ‘law in
Swaziland’), for example, that might be construed as being ‘human rights’ and therefore form a proper basis for an investigation by the
HRC. I hope that you can appreciate we are on slippery ground here. When this was raised at the consultation, the Commonwealth
dismissed those concerned with the statement that they were misunderstanding what human rights were. But this rather misses the
point. There are safer ways of defining the HRC’s mandate, ways that would avoid any possible misunderstandings. And these
misunderstandings could easily be abuses in the guise of misunderstandings. Coupled with the ability of the HRC to investigate
individuals at the behest of the state, the Swazi HRC could end up being the exact opposite of what any right-thinking people would want
from it. And if you think that is ridiculous, just speak to some of the people that ended up on the wrong side of the Elections &
Boundaries Commission’s attentions.
Ghana, as I said, is a long way from Swaziland.
Just as the Black Stars are a long way from Sihlangu.
Click here to read more>>
The Swazi Human Rights Commission & the Black Stars
Some weeks ago, we were all summonsed to partake in a consultation regarding the Human Rights Commission (HRC) in Swaziland.
The consultation was undertaken by the Commonwealth, and as it was a government shindig, the lunches were sumptuous.
The facilitator - ennoblingly titled 'Guest of Honour' - was Justice Emile Short, the Ghanaian Human Rights Commissioner. He did a
fantastic job. The draft Bill for the Commission was distributed, and it is modelled on the Ghanaian Commission, which has by all
accounts been fantastically successful.
But it became clear throughout the sessions that Swaziland is a far cry from Ghana. There is a fear here of government commissions
and powers that perplexed the facilitators. When it was explained, for example, that the Elections & Boundaries Commission here in
Swaziland had attempted to prevent democratic voter education, under the rubric that it and it alone had the authority to 'facilitate voter
education' (see the EBC case), the Commonwealth facilitators were all stunned. Still, they pushed on with peddling the Ghanaian model.
So what is the model?
Well, unlike most HRCs in the developed world, the Ghanaian model allows individuals to take other individuals directly to the
Commission. This makes the HRC rather like a less formal court. In most countries in the West, a person can take a case alleging a
violation of human rights by another individual, but the focus of the complaint is the government. So, one might allege that a neighbour
has invaded one’s right to privacy, but the complaint will centre on why the government has not outlawed the neighbour’s behaviour, or
taken appropriate action to enforce the law. This type of HRC is usually given power to investigate complaints about “actions or
practices” (including omissions) undertaken (or not) by the state that are said to violate human rights. Or, usually a human rights treaty.
Not so the Swazi HRC. It is proposed to give this the power to investigate “violations of human rights.” This specifically allows
individuals to make complaints against other individuals. Perhaps more worryingly, it also specifically allows any governmental body to
make complaints against individuals.
In addition to this, the definition of “human rights” is somewhat vague in the proposed Bill. It is defined as follows:
“‘human rights’ means human rights guaranteed by or under the Constitution or any other law in force in Swaziland, including
international law.”
This might be fine in Ghana, although it is the sort of definition that should be avoided for uncertainty. Just what are the ‘human rights
guaranteed by...any...law in Swaziland’? There may be certain rights existing in unwritten Swazi Law & Custom (which is ‘law in
Swaziland’), for example, that might be construed as being ‘human rights’ and therefore form a proper basis for an investigation by the
HRC. I hope that you can appreciate we are on slippery ground here. When this was raised at the consultation, the Commonwealth
dismissed those concerned with the statement that they were misunderstanding what human rights were. But this rather misses the
point. There are safer ways of defining the HRC’s mandate, ways that would avoid any possible misunderstandings. And these
misunderstandings could easily be abuses in the guise of misunderstandings. Coupled with the ability of the HRC to investigate
individuals at the behest of the state, the Swazi HRC could end up being the exact opposite of what any right-thinking people would want
from it. And if you think that is ridiculous, just speak to some of the people that ended up on the wrong side of the Elections &
Boundaries Commission’s attentions.
Ghana, as I said, is a long way from Swaziland.
Just as the Black Stars are a long way from Sihlangu.
Click here to read more>>
| Click map for larger view |
| Click flag for Country Report |
Mswati III
King since 25 April 1986
King since 25 April 1986
| TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS |
Current situation: Swaziland is a source, destination, and transit country for women and children trafficked internally and
transnationally for the purposes of commercial sexual exploitation, domestic servitude, and forced labor in agriculture; Swazi girls,
particularly orphans, are trafficked internally for commercial sexual exploitation and domestic servitude, as well as to South Africa
and Mozambique; Swazi boys are trafficked for forced labor in commercial agriculture and market vending; some Swazi women are
forced into prostitution in South Africa and Mozambique after voluntarily migrating to these countries in search of work
Tier rating: Tier 2 Watch List - the government of Swaziland does not comply with the minimum standards for the elimination of
trafficking and is not making significant efforts to do so; the government believes that trafficking probably does occur, but does not
know the extent of the problem; the government does not judge trafficking to be an "important" problem and chooses to direct its
limited resources towards other issues, a judgment which significantly limited the government's current efforts to eliminate human
trafficking, or to plan anti-trafficking activities or initiatives for the future (2010)
transnationally for the purposes of commercial sexual exploitation, domestic servitude, and forced labor in agriculture; Swazi girls,
particularly orphans, are trafficked internally for commercial sexual exploitation and domestic servitude, as well as to South Africa
and Mozambique; Swazi boys are trafficked for forced labor in commercial agriculture and market vending; some Swazi women are
forced into prostitution in South Africa and Mozambique after voluntarily migrating to these countries in search of work
Tier rating: Tier 2 Watch List - the government of Swaziland does not comply with the minimum standards for the elimination of
trafficking and is not making significant efforts to do so; the government believes that trafficking probably does occur, but does not
know the extent of the problem; the government does not judge trafficking to be an "important" problem and chooses to direct its
limited resources towards other issues, a judgment which significantly limited the government's current efforts to eliminate human
trafficking, or to plan anti-trafficking activities or initiatives for the future (2010)
