Swaziland@Newsletter Extra
Published by Southern Africa Contact (Denmark)
Letter from People's United Democratic Movement to African Human Rights Commission
The Director
The African Human Rights Commission
Dear Madam
PUDEMO is pleased at being afforded the opportunity by
the commission to brief it about its position regarding the adoption and coming
into force and effect of the Swaziland Constitutional Act 001/2006.
BRIEF BACKGROUND
The purported 'acceptance' of the
Constitution by His Majesty the King and a small section of the Swazi nation is
to be lamented as it will be recalled that such "acceptance" was done amidst
objection by organised civil society, basically for the reason among many that
the process was exclusionary, in that it prevented and prohibited a large
section of the people of Swaziland from participating and making submissions to
both Constitution Review Commission and the Constitution Drafting Commission.
While the said reception of the Constitution by His Majesty the King and some
members of the Swazi nation cannot be said to have been acceptance by all the
people of Swaziland, the enactment thereof by Parliament was also flawed in
that Parliament was not authorised and mandated to do so, particularly given
that it is not itself a product of a democratic process representing the
general consensus of the people of Swaziland.
In this regard, it
should be noted that in as much as the Tinkhundla system of Government was
imposed upon the Nation by King Sobhuza II, it does not represent the exercise
of sovereignty by the people. The Tinkhundla system of government
criminalises and bans political parties. The electoral process under this
system is an important element of deception as evidenced by the fact that both
the candidates and the voters do not decide anything fundamental and basic, but
are used to rigidly set the term and parameters on acceptable position of major
political questions. The report of the Commonwealth Expert Team of October
2003 stresses this point by saying "We do not consider the creditability of
the national elections as an issue; no elections can be credible when they are
for parliament which has no power and when political parties are banned'.
It must not be left out of account that this electoral system and the
regime governing its operation which this constitution purports to enshrine in
section 79 thereof does not come any closer to the electoral bench mark
envisaged by the Electoral Institute of Southern Africa.
Note
further that the African Commission after due consideration and determination
of the Swaziland Lawyers for Human Rights petition found that the Swaziland
constitution-making process was exclusionary and in the result undemocratic and
contravening international conventions which Swaziland was signatory to. This
constitution is a recipe for national strife, whose consequences are too
ghastly to contemplate.
CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE
After
long preparatory discussions and consultations with various stakeholders and
legal experts, PUDEMO and other organised civil society groupings have
ultimately resolved to institute legal proceedings to challenge the validly of
the 2005 Swaziland Constitution on the following
grounds.
a) That the process did not comply with spirit, object and purport
of the provisions of the King's Proclamation to the Nation of 1973,
particularly paragraph 2(e) thereof which reads thus:-
That I and
all my people heartily desire at long last after a long constitutional
struggle, to achieve full freedom and independence under a constitution created
by ourselves for ourselves in complete liberty and without outside pressures; as
a Nation we desire to march forward progressively under our own constitution
guaranteeing peace, order and good government and the happiness of all our
people.
The fact that the said Proclamation was a legal nullity from
its inception is no longer an issue, serving only to show the propensity of the
powers that be even in future to act unconstitutionally and unlawfully and to
the further detriment of real and genuine national interests. It should be
noted that in terms of the constitution at issue, His Majesty the King can even
unilaterally and/or on the advice of the prime minister, who is appointed by
him, repeal this constitution.
b) The 2005 Swaziland Constitution
was not accepted by the King and the whole Swazi nation as envisaged by Section
80 (2) of the 1978 King's Order Council, pursuant to the spirit of the 1973
Proclamation. PUDEMO holds the view that a process of returning the country to
a constitutional multiparty parliamentary democracy has to be initiated and
implemented by a body that has been created through universally recognised
democratic principles. Any other body, including the Constitutional Review
Commission (CRC) and the Constitutional Drafting Commission (CDC), created
outside this minimum standard, invariably lacks the mandate and is unable to
command national respect and support, and as such cannot create the necessary
foundation for peace and good government.
Note further that the commissioners
for both the said CRC and the CDC were hand-picked and appointed by an
individual [the king] who further imposed on them the terms of reference. If
this, on the part of our absolute monarchy does not amount to absolute
dictatorship, the latter needs to be redefined.
c) The CRC and
the CDC were wrong in giving a narrow meaning to Decree No.2 of 1996 and in the
result, prohibiting, preventing and refusing all organised groups, particularly
the applicants, from participating and to receive submissions from them.
d) In any case, the constitution-making process was instituted by
Decrees, yet His Majesty the King did not have power to legislate by decree;
see Ray Gwebu vs. The King. Given that even the repeal of the Swaziland
Independence Constitution was done unconstitutionally and unlawfully, the said
propensity poses a real and immediate threat to the peace, prosperity and
stability of the nation as pointed out in paragraph [a] herein supra.
e) In interpreting the provisions of the 1973 King's Proclamation to the
nation as read with the 1978 Establishment of Parliament Order, the 1996 Decree
No.1 of 2002, the CRC and the CDC were obliged to take into account the
provisions of international human rights instruments and international law in
order to give effect to the rights of each and every citizen of Swaziland,
whether individually or as organisations especially in the context of
constitution-making. For these reasons, PUDEMO and the other applicants
request that the Court declares the 2005 Swaziland Constitution null and void,
and of no force or effect.
In the alternative, it will be requested
that the provision of the Bill of Rights, particularly Section 25 thereof must
be interpreted to mean that the people of Swaziland have the right, not just to
form associations such as churches, farmers association, community development
schemes and others, but fundamentally that they have a right to form, join and
belong to political parties and organisations of their own free will and of
their voluntary choice for purposes of forming a Government. This is so
particularly given that eight times the constitution pays respect to democratic
principles, values and standards. In this respect Section 79 which purports to
prevent and prohibit multi-party parliamentary national elections must be set
aside as being null and void from the inception.
It is the view of
PUDEMO, the other applicants and all right thinking and reasonable men and
women of the Swaziland that democracy and good governance have already been
adequately and correctly defined and articulated and in the light hereof,
Swaziland cannot re-invent the wheel. The basic tenets and attributes of
democracy and governance are no longer in dispute even behind the façade of
the so called unique Swazi culture and custom, which in order to survive the
assault of time, should adapt to socio-economic and political transformation.
It is accordingly unreasonable and as such unacceptable that the Swazi
authorities in their Constitution Review Report undertake to domesticate the
various international conventions, which the country has ratified only if they
are not inconsistent with the as yet uncodified Swazi law and custom.
PLEA
Good governance, human rights and constitutionalism have been
long denied in Swaziland. This so-called new constitution is not worthy of the
paper it is written on. It entrenches a system of government which we as a
people have not agreed upon. That system is a discriminatory system and not
giving value to the dignity (buntfu) of all Swazis. We have not only a moral
obligation, but a duty to strive for a constitution that will ensure equitable
sharing of resources, equal treatment of all people before the law, as well as
the creation of independent structures that will guarantee the growth and
development of constitutionalism.
It is not only for the reason of
being excluded from the process that PUDEMO and other applicants denounce and
reject this 'cattle byre' Constitution, it is also because of the unacceptable
contents thereof. We call upon the Swazi people to galvanise themselves so
that, at the end of the day, they can all enjoy a better life under a
government truly created by themselves, for themselves and accountable to them
for all intents and purposes. We want a constitution that will create a
conducive environment for peace and prosperity. A constitution that will,
within the framework of civilised and acceptable constitutional law, provide an
enabling environment wherein the people of this country can severally and/or
jointly pursue, to the fullest, their separate and/or combined interests in
social, economic, political and other fields of public life.
It is
not only in the interest of the Swaziland, but of the whole SADC region and
Africa at large that Swaziland should be assisted in amicably resolving her
constitutional and political problems. In this connection, the importance of
pre-emptive action by the SADC region cannot be overstated.
The
struggle continues.
Yours in the struggle
KISLON P. SHONGWE
DEPUTY SECRETARY GENERAL - PUDEMO
cc: Electoral Institute of
Southern Africa - Victor Shale / Southern African Litigation Centre -
Nicole Fritz
--------------------------------------
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.
Previous issues of Swaziland@Newsletter can be read at http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/SAK-Swazinewsletter