The Situation in Swaziland : briefing

Meeting report

FOREIGN AFFAIRS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
25 June 2003
BRIEFING ON THE SITUATION IN SWAZILAND

Chairperson: Dr. Z P Jordan

Relevant documents
Department's briefing on Swaziland(awaited)
Parliamentary Research Unit: Information on Swaziland

SUMMARY
The delicate situation in Swaziland regarding the lack of democracy and human rights abuses were the main issues discussed in the meeting. South Africa's position was that the people of Swaziland have to decide their own future. South Africa was however willing to act as a facilitator on any process. South Africa was also not willing to pursue the land issue which was disputed by Swaziland.

MINUTES
The Chair introduced the topic by pointing out that Swaziland seemed to out of step with the rest of the region. All other countries were moving towards democratic systems yet Swaziland seemed to retain a system which was a pre-modern one.

Dr. P Mathoma, the Chief Director: Southern Africa in Department of Foreign Affairs, addressed the committee and explained that the political problems in Swaziland had started in 1973 when King Sobuza II had made a decree which abolished free political activity. There was at the moment no political parties. Those that were there were registered as non-government organisations (NGOs). In June 2001, King Mswati III made a further decree which gave him powers over the media and limited the powers of the judicial commission. The king was then able to appoint the Attorney-General and the judges. This lead to the collapse of the judicial system. Human rights abuses also continued as certain chiefs and their people were evicted from their areas. The International Bar Association (IBA) had done research on the situation in Swaziland and had advised that the new draft constitution must include the issue of human rights and the powers of the king. It had become clear that that day to day decisions in the kingdom were being made by the king, his prime minister and the "Thursday Committee".

A constitution review process was started in 1996. In February 2002 a committee was appointed which was tasked with the responsibility of drafting a new constitution. The draft endorsed the king as the absolute monarch. The positive elements of the constitution was that freedom of assembly was still allowed. In April 2002, the Minister of Information declared that the media could not broadcast or publicise stories which were critical of the government. Those organisations which were pro-democratic were not allowed any free activity. The NGOs have asked for a meeting with President Mbeki in which they wanted advice on the situation. This request was still being processed. The South African government was having discussions with the Swazi government and had set up different clusters which discussed various issues such as political, economic and social matters. As recent as 16 June 2003, Swaziland had made pronouncements regarding the demarcation of boundaries between itself and South Africa. They had stated that they were impatient with South Africa regarding territory which they were disputing. King Mswati III had invited President Mbeki to the summit arranged by the Commonwealth in which NEPAD would be discussed.

Discussion
Mr. Macintosh (DA) referred to the fact that commercial farming was quite big in Swaziland and wanted to know if the South African government was aware of the smuggling of sugar across borders. He also wanted to know if human rights abuses would affect the Free Trade Agreement that was likely between the US and SACU. He also wanted to know how SADC was reacting to Swaziland's prime minister. Mr. Mathoma said that the smuggling of sugar was not brought to South Africa's attention. Human rights and democracy would probably be raised at the FTA discussions, but the issue was mainly trade. He was not aware of any SADC discussions regarding the Swazi prime minister.

Mr. Bapela (ANC) asked why the Thursday Committee had this name. He wanted some elaboration on cases of corruption and nepotism in Swaziland and wanted to know who was leading the discussions around the disputed territory. Mr. Mathoma replied that the Thursday Committee was so named because they met on a Thursday. Allegations have been made about corruption, but it was not possible for South Africa to do anything. Regarding the territorial dispute, he pointed out that South Africa took its standpoint from the 1964 Cairo Resolution in which the OAU had decided to respect the colonial boundaries. Swaziland had however kept the argument alive.

Mr. Zita (ANC) wanted to know the content of engagement with King Mswati III and what his attitude was. He also questioned whether the absence democracy in the country did not disqualify them from NEPAD. He was also keen to know the attitude of Swazis in South Africa towards Swaziland. Dr. Mathoma said that the situation in Swaziland and it was very difficult to say who was actually running the country. It did however seem as if the Thursday Committee was doing this. The king took advice from the structures which were in the country. There were varying views on democracy as a prerequisite in NEPAD. The issue of democracy would however be handled in the peer review mechanism.

Mr. Sithole (ANC) referred to the land dispute and wanted to know whether the Swazi king ever recognised the colonial borders as set out by the OAU. He wanted to know what South Africa's view was of transformation in Swaziland and what the government's view was of the presence of the Swazi opposition in South Africa. Dr. Mathoma said that South Africa was willing to engage Swaziland around the land issue. King Sobuza II had not subscribed to the Cairo Resolution (1964) even though it had only gained independence in 1968. South Africa felt that the transformation of Swaziland was the preserve of the Swazi people. It was however prepared to facilitate the process. The issue if the Swaziland Solidarity Network was raised in discussions. They were however not funded by the South African government, but South Africa was aware of them. The ANC had operated out of Swaziland and therefore South Africa had no problem housing them.

Ms. Mohammed (ANC) said that it seemed as if the principles of NEPAD and the AU was not internalised by the leaders of Swaziland and wanted to know whether this attitude filtered down to other civil society organs. It was reported that 25% of the Swazi population was HIV positive. She wanted to know whether there was any co-operation between South Africa regarding this. Dr. Mathoma said that it was a challenge to get support for all the principles f the AU and NEPAD. The internalisation of these principles varied from country to country. The AIDS problem was viewed seriously by SADC and they had organised a summit in Lesotho on the 4 July 2003.

Mr. Mokoena (ANC) wanted to know whether it was true that Swaziland was the longest serving absolute monarchy and whether they had ratified the AU protocol. Dr. Mathoma said that he was not sure whether they were the longest absolute monarchy. Swaziland had ratified the AU Constitutive Act but had not yet ratified the Peace and Security Protocol. President Mbeki had urged all countries in Africa to ratify the protocol.

The Chair concluded the meeting by saying that the problems in Swaziland would continue for some time. The apartheid regime had opened up the territorial issues so that King Sobuza II would clampdown on the ANC in Swaziland. If this issue was re-opened, it would cause all kinds of problems as other countries would also want to claim land from neighbours that they felt was rightfully theirs.

The meeting was adjourned.