swaziland advertisement censorship

8/9/2019 Swaziland Advertisement Censorship

1/4

SELF-CENSORSHIP OF POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT

BY THE TIMES OF SWAZILAND

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

A group on non-government organisations that are advocating democratic reform in thekingdom ruled by King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africas last absolute monarch submitteda paid advertisement to the Times of Swaziland group of newspapers, the only

independent press in Swaziland.

The advertisement contained mild criticisms of King Mswati. The newspaper refused topublish the advert without alterations. Version 1 is the original as supplied with the text

that the newspaper objected to highlighted. Version 2 is a cean copy of the advert thatactually appeared.

(Dr Richard Rooney 13 August 2010).

VERSION 1

Following a Civil Society consultative meeting held at the Tums George Hotel

(Manzini) on Thursday, 29th

July 2010, Civil Society representatives there present,considered the implications of His Majestys the Kings rejection of political Dalogue as

well as the Death threats against journalists who cover those considered to be dissentingfrom the way the country is currently Governed, and resolved to respond as follows:

1. That His Majesty King Mswati IIIs emphatic renouncing of political dialogue atthe conclusion of the Smart Partnership Dialogue on 21st July 2010 wasunfortunate, regrettable and, most significantly, unSwazi.

2. That Civil Society collectively believes that political dialogue has always formedan integral part of traditional Swazi life since time immemorial; hence the adage

injobo itfungelwa ebandla (in pursuit of consensual solutions).3. That the Kings assertion that There will never be exclusive dialogue for a

minority of dissenters is, unfortunately, not informed by facts in that theConstitutional Development Commissions (CDC) official reports revealed that of

the 1501 people who took part in the collection of views during the draftingprocess, back in 2004, 80% of individual submissions were irrelevant and failed

to issues in the constitution, and that 26% spoke in favour of multi-party. Thechairman of the CDC is also on record stating that out of a population of around

1.1 million citizens, 600 000 were eligible to submit. Of these, only 1 501 actuallysubmitted. According to the laws of mathematics, there is no way that this figure

represents the majority view. Even if the entire 1501 of the voting population of600,000 then spoke in one voice, they would form an insignificant minority of

0.25% who would have voted for the Tinkhundla political Order which is far frombeing representative of the majority Swazi voting population.


2/4

4. That the PMs caution for the media to deny space to political dissenters wasregrettable and unfortunate. We are of the view that in a country that claims to be

democratic as well as being an open society, the media should be allowed tooperate without fear of reprisal. Such practice is the hallmark of SMART

partnership, which His Majesty the King wants to see being supported.

Particularly that Swaziland is Signatory to the Windhoek Declaration on MediaFreedom, this is a blatant defiance to Section 24 of the Constitution on Freedomof Expression, Section 25 on the freedom of Association and assembly and

paragraph 5 of the Preamble which reads thus Whereas it is necessary topromote the fundamental rights and freedoms of ALL in our Kingdom in terms of

a Constitution which binds the Legislature , the Executive, the Judiciary and theother Organs, and Agencies of the government.

5. That Civil Society equally condemns death threats directed at the media forreporting about the monarchy. We cannot help but reflect that such serious threats

from the Kings advisory body (Liqoqo) and the Prime Minister sadly resonatewith His Majestys pre-emptive threat on 16

thOctober 2008 to strangle

Abekhanywe political dissidents.6. That Civil Society notes and laments that death threats and rejection of dialoguecome on the back of His Majestys receipt of the AU torch of peace on hisbirthday on 19

thApril 2010.

7. That Civil Society notes that the Kings rejection of political dialogue contradictshis mediation role in political conflicts in the Region, in his capacity as the

chairperson of the SADC Troika on politics, defence, peace and security.8. That Civil Society condemns both the local and London based Secretariat of the

Smart Partnership Movement, for failure to condemn both Prince Mahlabas deaththreats and the Kings clampdown on political dialogue.

9. That Civil Society is of the firm view that the king in his capacity of head of statehas a national responsibility to urgently create a climate conducive to an all-

inclusive, representative, and people-driven dialogue about the socio-economicand political future of Swaziland and that attendance to such a forum should be

completely unconditional.10.That Civil Society should never be intimidated but remain resolute in fighting a

just cause and never forget that the journey is fraught with risks and pitfalls.11.That the media should remain courageous and always strive to abide by their

uncomfortable and risky responsibility to call the state to order for this isultimately what their role as members of the Fourth Estate entails.

12.That the general Swazi society should not forget that we all have one country, towhich we have rights as citizens, and that, therefore, we aught to safeguard and

jealously preserve, as these are our God-given rights to free expression, freedomof association, and freedom of peaceful assembly. It is for this reason that we urge

every Swazi national to stand up and take charge of their destiny and that of theironly country of birth: Swaziland.

Issued by:

1. Swaziland Democracy Campaign


3/4

2. Foundation for Socio Economic Justice

3. Swaziland Coalition of Concerned Civic Organization

4. Swaziland Democratic Front

5. SWAPOL

VERSION 2

PRESS STATEMENT

Following a Civil Society consultative meeting held at the Tum's George Hotel (Manzini)on Thursday, 29th July 2010, Civil Society representatives there present, considered the

implications of His Majesty's the King's statement on political Dialogue as well PrinceMahlabas death threats against journalists who cover those considered to be dissenting

from the way the country is currently Governed, and resolved to respond as follows:

1.

That His Majesty King Mswati III's emphatic renouncing of politicaldialogue at the conclusion of the Smart Partnership Dialogue on 21st July

2010 was unfortunate, and regrettable.2. That Civil Society collectively believes that political dialogue has always

formed an integral part of traditional Swazi life since time immemorial;hence the adage injobo itfungelwa ebandla (in pursuit of consensual

solutions).3. That the King's assertion that There will never be exclusive dialogue for

a minority of dissenters is, unfortunately, not informed by facts in that theConstitutional Development Commission's (CDC) official reports revealed

that of the 1501 people who took part in the collection of views during thedrafting process, back in 2004, 80% of individual submissions were

irrelevant and failed to issues in the constitution, and that 26% spoke infavour of multi-party. The chairman of the CDC is also on record stating

that out of a population of around 1.1 million citizens, 600 000 wereeligible to submit. Of these, only 1 501 actually submitted. According to

the laws of mathematics, there is no way that this figure represents themajority view. Even if the entire 1501 of the voting population of 600,000

then spoke in one voice, they would form an insignificant minority of0.25% who would have voted for the Tinkhundla political Order which is

far from being representative of the majority Swazi voting population.4. That the PM's caution for the media to deny space to political dissenters

was regrettable and unfortunate. We are of the view that in a country thatclaims to be democratic as well as being an open society, the media should

be allowed to operate without fear of reprisal. Such practice is thehallmark of SMART partnership, which His Majesty the King wants to see

being supported. Particularly that Swaziland is Signatory to the WindhoekDeclaration on Media Freedom, this is a blatant defiance to Section 24 of

the Constitution on Freedom of Expression, Section 25 on the freedom ofAssociation and assembly and paragraph 5 of the Preamble which reads


4/4

thus Whereas it is necessary to promote the fundamental rights andfreedoms of ALL in our Kingdom in terms of a Constitution which binds

the Legislature , the Executive, the Judiciary and the other Organs, andAgencies of the Government.

5. That Civil Society equally condemns death threats directed at the mediafor reporting about Government.6. That Civil Society condemns both the local and London based Secretariatof the Smart Partnership Movement, for failure to condemn Prince

Mahlaba's death threats to the media for reporting about Government.7. That Civil Society is of the firm view that the king in his capacity of head

of state has a national responsibility to urgently create a climate conduciveto an all-inclusive, representative, and people-driven dialogue about the

socio-economic and political future of Swaziland and that attendance tosuch a forum should be completely unconditional.

8. 8.That Civil Society should never be intimidated but remain resolute infighting a just cause and never forget that the journey is fraught with risks

and pitfalls.9. 9.That the media should remain courageous and always strive to abide bytheir uncomfortable and risky responsibility to call the state to order forthis is ultimately what their role as members of the Fourth Estate entails.

10. 10.That the general Swazi society should not forget that we all have onecountry, to which we have rights as citizens, and that, therefore, we aught

to safeguard and jealously preserve, as these are our God-given rights tofree expression, freedom of association, and freedom of peaceful

assembly. It is for this reason that we urge every Swazi national to standup and take charge of their destiny and that of their only country of birth:

Swaziland.

Issued by: 1. Swaziland Democracy Campaign2. Foundation for Socio Economic Justice

3. Swaziland Coalition of Concerned Civic Organization4. Swaziland Democratic Front

5. SWAPOL

Swaziland, Swazi, King Mswati III, censorship, self-censorship, freedom of the press,

press freedom, newspapers, media, human rights,

swaziland advertisement censorship

Documents