SWAZILAND@NEWSLETTER EXTRA
PUBLISHED BY SOUTHERN AFRICA CONTACT (DENMARK)

The People's United Democratic Movement of Swaziland
PUDEMO International Office
Australia, Asian and the Pacific Region
E-mail: pudemo@...
February 13, 2006


Smoking Gun or a Replica?
The Government of Swaziland parades “state witness” against political
prisoners


On February 7, 2006, the office of the Director of Public Prosecution
(DPP) unexpectedly brought the high treason case against Mduduzi Dlamini
for trial. Mduduzi is one of the 16 pro-democracy activists arrested
between December 2005 and January 2006 when the Royal Swaziland Police
pounced on members of The People’s United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO) and
its youth wing The Swaziland Youth Congress (SWAYOCO). The pro-democracy
activists were charged with a string of offences ranging from arson to
high treason. They are accused of petrol bombing state buildings and
private property belonging to members of the ruling regime. Some of the
detainees, including Mduduzi, are due to appear before the High Court for
a hearing on their bail applications on March 7, 2005.

The case against Mduduzi was heard by a single judge, Justice Mbutfo
Mamba. Mduduzi pleaded guilty to the charge of treason and was sentenced
to two years in prison with an option of E10 000 (approximately $US1,
600). Half of the sentence was suspended and the High Court deferred
payment of the fine (approximately US$800) to March 31, 2006. After the
brief trial, Mduduzi was released pending payment of the fine by the due
date. This was an extremely lenient sentence and generous conditions of
payment, given the seriousness of the charge which carries a possible
death penalty or life imprisonment.

In a surprising twist, the DPP did not oppose the lenient sentence.
Earlier, the DPP strongly opposed applications for bail arguing that the
public is frightened of the detainees and that “they will endanger the
maintenance of Law and Order and national security” (see The Swazi
Observer, January 1, 2006). On January 17, 2006, the acting Director in
the DPP’s office, Mumsy Dlamini, again opposed applications for bail and
pleaded with the High Court not to release the detainees including
Mduduzi. The reason for this change of heart is obvious – the DPP will now
use Mduduzi as its trump card and an example of the existence of the
“bomber”.

We don’t know what prompted Mduduzi to plead guilty to the charge of high
treason and to implicate PUDEMO but we have reason to believe that he
might have been coerced. According to local media reports (see The Times
of Swaziland and The Swazi Observer, February 8, 2006), Mduduzi told the
Court that he was acting with other PUDEMO members under orders from the
organisation’s leadership to attack state infrastructure. In his plea of
guilty, Dlamini asserted that he:

…unlawfully engaged in conduct with the intent to overthrow the Kingdom
and/or coerce the Kingdom by violence into certain actions.
I acted with hostile intent against the government. I am a sympathiser of
The People's United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO). At a PUDEMO meeting in
March 2005, with senior members of the organisation, I decided to embark
on a campaign of bombing government structures in order to overthrow the
Kingdom or coerce it into accepting political change. On the evening of
August 6, 2005 I met with members of PUDEMO in Mbabane.
We travelled to Sidzakeni in a vehicle of which the registration plates
had been removed. Our intent was to throw a petrol bomb at the Sandleni
Inkhundla, a government structure, in furtherance of our hostile intent.
In the late hours of the same day we arrived at our destination. I opened
the gate and the vehicle entered. I followed in foot. An accomplice and
myself spilled petrol on the door and the accomplice set the petrol alight
by means of a petrol saturated cloth. We left the scene while the doors
were still burning” (The Swazi Observer, February 8, 2006)

There are a number of anomalies in this statement, particularly the last
paragraph. Firstly, parts of the first and second paragraphs read as if
they are directly lifted from the charge sheet which reads:

The accused persons each or both of them acting jointly in furtherance of
a common purpose did, unlawfully and with hostile intent against the
kingdom to overthrow or coerce the government of the kingdom.

Secondly, a vehicle travelling at night with its registration plates
removed would obviously arouse suspicion and attract police attention.
Oddly, Dlamini is claiming to have deliberately acted in a manner which
would attract the attention of the police, at the very time that he was
also engaged in clandestine activity for which the penalty may be death.
Furthermore, the entry of the vehicle into the premises of the Sandleni
Inkhundla constituency would have undoubtedly alerted the security guard.
Mduduzi states that he opened the gate and gives the impression that the
gate was unlocked at the time. As Tinkhundla constituency premises are
used for storing valuable material for community development projects, it
is normal practice to secure these premises with a fenced structure, a
lockable gate and the services of a security guard. It is therefore not
clear why a gate of a secured facility was unlocked at the time of the
alleged attack.

Thirdly, it has been alleged by the police, the DPP and the media that the
accused persons used explosive devices to commit the offences. At no time
have these institutions publicly explained what, in their view constitutes
an explosive device. The terms “bomb”and “explosive device/charge” have
been widely used to generate public fear and give credibility to state
allegations of terrorist threats.

Mduduzi’s statement exposes the abuse of these terms. There is nothing in
his statement that suggests that a bomb or an explosive device/charge was
used to set fire to the Sandleni Tinkhundla constituency. For example, he
indicates that the building was set alight by spilling petrol and setting
it alight with a petrol-saturated piece of cloth. The Worldreference.com
English Dictionary defines explosive device as “device that bursts with
sudden violence from internal energy”. Explosive charge is defined as
“quantity of explosive to be set off at one time.”

Yet the Honourable Justice Mamba appears to be labouring under the belief
that Mduduzi did use an explosive device. Thus, the honourable Judge erred
in law by failing to closely examine the defendant’s statement. It appears
that he convicted Mduduzi not on the evidence of the accused and his
accusers but on the advice of the defendant’s lawyer. In his judgement, as
reported in The Swazi Observer (February 8, 2006), Justice Mamba
commented:
Your lawyer has advised me that you are a sympathiser of the People's
United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO) though I have not been told its ideals
and the change that you wanted.
What I have been told is that you wanted to destroy government structures
and overthrow the Kingdom. I have not been told that you wanted change,
whether for the better or worst.
Your lawyer has further informed me that you were in the company of others
you conspired with to destroy the Sandleni constituency by throwing an
explosive charge. It was submitted that the door to the structure was
damaged, but I was not told to what extent.
According to the Times of Swaziland (February 8, 2006), the defence lawyer
also advised the Judge that “the accused was coerced in the participation
of the offence.” However, this allegation does not appear in Mduduzi’s
statement as it is given in The Swazi Observer (February 8, 2006).

Justice Mamba’s statement raises important questions about the defence
lawyer’s advice to the court and as a consequence, about the authenticity
of the defendant’s plea of guilty. For example, was the defendant in the
right state of mind to make the decision? Did he have adequate knowledge
of the charge and the DPP’s evidence against him? Did he receive proper
legal advice about the implications of incriminating himself in a charge
of this nature? Did Mduduzi jump or was he pushed? Did the legal system
provide adequate protection to Mduduzi against compulsory
self-incrimination?

PUDEMO leadership is treating the events relating to this hearing with
extreme caution and a high degree of suspicion. We are waiting for a copy
of the court transcript to determine the full nature of this case. Given
the regime’s reputation of torture, we have reason to believe that the
plea of guilty was made under duress. In the 1990 treason trial against
PUDEMO members, the state coerced two people to give false testimonies in
court. This backfired when the two confessed in court that the testimonies
were made under extreme duress.

It is puzzling that Mduduzi was brought in for trial before his
application for bail was heard. As noted earlier in this document, Mduduzi
was among the detainees awaiting the hearing of their bail application in
the High Court on March 7, 2006. It is not yet clear when this pending
hearing was removed from the registrar.

Furthermore, like the other detainees, Mduduzi was charged with a string
of offences including high treason, sedition, attempted murder and
malicious damage to property. However, he was tried and convicted on one
charge - high treason. Again, it is not yet clear whether or not the other
charges have been withdrawn or the DPP is keeping them as a dagger in its
back pocket.

Combined, the events associated with this trial arouse curiosity about the
intentions of the state. For a while now we have harboured suspicions that
the state was working hard to turn Mduduzi into a state witness. Since his
arrest in December 2005, he has been completely isolated from the rest of
the detainees and PUDEMO officials were prohibited from making contacts
with him. Unlike the rest of the detainees, Mduduzi instructed his own
legal representative making it extremely difficult for PUDEMO to access
information about the case. At the time of the trial, PUDEMO had made
arrangement to get power of attorney from Mduduzi to transfer the case to
lawyers instructed by the organisation to represent the detainees. The
state pre-empted this arrangement and conspired with Mduduzi’s legal
representative to secretly bring the case to court without due public
notice. There was no hint whatsoever that a high profile case such as this
one was scheduled for hearing. In anyone’s imagination, this was speedy
trial which is uncharacteristic of the speed at which courts in the
country deal with cases.

The plea of guilty is not the smoking gun the government is hoping to use
to generate public fear and tarnish the good name of PUDEMO but a replica
which presents no threat to our reputation as a peaceful movement for
democracy. It is a throw away line from a regime desperate to salvage its
badly damaged political image. Corruption, misuse of public monies, poor
economic performance and neglect of basic public services have badly
damaged the government’s credibility to govern. The government is now
trying desperately to hide behind an illusion of a terrorist threat to
avoid dealing with these issues. The government can keep looking for the
smoking gun but it won’t find one because there isn’t one. Through this
plea of guilty, the state hopes to make the terrorist illusion stick to
the public psyche. We will fight this act of political bastardry by
exposing the true intention behind the Mduduzi case.

We have confidence in the people of Swaziland that they will view this
latest development for what it is – a cheap shot and crude plot against
political parties and those who represent progress in Swaziland. In 1973,
the monarchy government under the leadership of King Sobhuza II lied and
conspired against the Ngwane National Liberation Congress (NNLC). Today
they are abusing the judicial system to concoct lies about PUDEMO in an
attempt to resuscitate the 1973 discourse about political parties as
destructive and disruptive.

There is not an ounce of truth and credibility in Mduduzi’s statement that
senior PUDEMO officials discussed and approved a policy of violence to
coerce the state. From the 1990s to date, PUDEMO has publicly defended
accusations from the local media, the police and government officials that
it is responsible for petrol bomb attacks against state infrastructure.
Unlike the government, we have a clear policy of resolving the political
crisis at a non-violent political level. We have invited the government
for talks but it has refused to open dialogue with PUDEMO and the broader
movement for multi-party democracy.

As stated previously, the government has no strategy other than violence
and innuendoes to engage with political parties at a political level.
Under the 1973 King’s Proclamation, the state violently suppressed
political parties wishing they would go away. Realising that political
parties would never go away and are now an integral part of Swazi society,
the regime invented a lie about terrorism to justify the exclusion of
party politics from the Constitution.

The Commonwealth Secretariat, a recent major player in Swaziland politics,
also ignored PUDEMO’s call for a collective peaceful approach to the
political crisis. Instead, the Commonwealth under the leadership of Don
McKinnon, advised the Government of Swaziland to shut out political
parties from the constitution making process. Consequently, the process
delivered a constitution which bans democracy and political parties. On
February 10, 2006, McKinnon was in Swaziland to celebrate the death of
democracy at the inauguration of the Constitution.

Let it be known that PUDEMO is a disciplined and transparent organisation
with a clear political direction and policies guiding our action. We
collectively pledge to liberate the people of Swaziland from the absolute
monarchy repression through peaceful means. This policy has not changed
and remains the mainstay of our struggle for multi-party democracy and
responsible governance. As a disciplined organisation, PUDEMO has rules
and all members abide by these rules. Those who decide to deviate from
these rules and engage in activities that are contrary to our policies
effectively remove themselves from the organisation. PUDEMO and SWAYOCO
are therefore NOT GUILTY, your Honour !

Dr. Jabulane Matsebula
PUDEMO Representative
Australia, Asia and the Pacific Region

-------------------
SWAZILAND NEWSLETTER is published by Southern Africa Contact (SAC,
Denmark), and appears twice monthly. If there are suggestions as to the
content of the newsletter, please let us know at pmm@...

If you wish either to subscribe or discontinue subscription send a mail
to: SAK-Swazinewsletter-subscribe@...

Earlier issues can be read at
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/SAK-Swazinewsletter

Support the democratic movement in Swaziland. Donations can be made
through the MANDELA FUND: BG Bank, Norre Voldgade 68, 1358 Copenhagen K,
Denmark. SWIFT-BIC: DABADKKK. Registration Number: 0274. Account Number:
3327000. The MANDELA FUND is a registered national collection in Denmark.
==========================================