Constitutionally Speaking: Human Rights Swaziland
Wednesday, 1 October 2014
Thursday, 1 August 2013
Swaziland women can now sue.
Assessing the Swaziland
High Court Judgment on marital power (Nombuyiselo Sihlongonyane v MholiSihlongonyane High Court Case No. 470/2013 A).
On
18 July 2013, the Swazi High Court passed a judgement declaring marital power
unconstitutional. The concept of marital power denies women married under civil
rites and in community of property the ability to sue and being sued in their
own name. Much as this judgment has been received with delight by lots of women
in Swaziland, the practical implications are depressing. This is due to the
fact that the discrimination of women in administering matrimonial property
continues to persist. The case which brought the matter to the fore involved a
husband and wife who got married under a civil rites marriage in community of
property with the husband retaining the power to administer the matrimonial possessions.
The wife made an application to the court to have her husband removed as
administrator of the joint property as a result of the husband’s alleged
mismanagement of the estate. The Constitutional question arose after the
husband challenged his wife’s capacity to institute legal proceedings without
his assistance. Consequently the High Court had to interrogate sections 20 and
28 (on equality and non-discrimination of women) of the Swaziland Constitution
and determine if the common law position of marital power still exist in light
of the constitutional dispensation. Under the common law, the property of
spouses falls into a common pool which, although jointly owned by the spouses,
is entirely controlled by the husband unless the spouses execute an ante-nuptial contract before marriage. This places the wife, in relation to the property of
the marriage, in almost the same position as a minor child except the fact that
guardianship of a minor serves the interests of the minor, whereas marital
power serves the interests of the husband. Marital power embraces three
elements, namely:
a)
The
husband’s power as head of the family by virtue of which he has the decisive
say in all matters concerning the common life of the spouses and determines,
inter alia where and in what lifestyle they are to live,
b)
The husband’s
power over the person of his wife, including her representation in legal
proceedings and
c)
The
husband’s power over the property of the wife which enables him, in his
absolute discretion, to deal with the joint estate as its administrator.
The
overall effect of the husband’s exercise of marital power is to subject the
wife to the husband’s guardianship, effectively making her subservient to her
husband. The court relying on the case
of The Attorney General v Mary Joyce DooAphane, Civil Appeal case 12/2010 held that marital power unlawfully and
arbitrarily subordinates the wife to the power of her husband and was an unfair
discrimination based on sex or gender inasmuch as it adversely affects women
who have contracted a civil rites marriage in community of property with no ante-nuptial contract. The court further
observed that, whilst it is accepted in common law that a married woman who is
subject to the marital power may approach the court for leave to sue without
the aid of her husband, such notion or concept is discriminatory of such women
in so far as it applies to such class of women and not men. “A married man does
not, under any circumstances, have to apply for such leave and therefore this common
law requirement constitutes an unfair discrimination”, the court noted.
Notwithstanding this observation, the court did not entirely abolish the common
law position of marital power. It confined itself to the issue of women’s
capacity to institute and defend legal proceedings without the assistance of their
husbands. Undoubtedly, the root cause of
the dispute in this case relates to the husband’s inability to exercise marital
power to administer the joint estate in good faith. In this case the Applicant
approached the court as a result of her husband’s maladministration of the
matrimonial property in the exercise of such marital power. Thus even if her husband
did not challenge her legal capacity, she would have still proceeded under
common law to prove that her husband had acted fraudulently in dealing with the
joint property to her loss as this will be the case in the main application
which will be held at a later stage. In other words, if marital power is
declared unconstitutional, the starting point in making a just and equitable inquiry would be for the court to place the wife
on an equal footing as her husband by pronouncing joint administration of the
matrimonial property. This therefore means that in order for this kind of
marriage to comply with the Constitution, the entire concept of marital power
must be abolished. For other women in the same position as the Applicant, their
emancipation only extends as far as their capacity to institute and defend
legal actions; however, their husbands retain their common law status of being sole
administrators of their matrimonial properties.
Recommendations
In
order for Swazi women to realize their rights as enshrined in the Constitution,
there needs to be a holistic review of the marriage laws in the country. A positive way to start would be amending all
marriage laws by passing a legislation that will effectively facilitate
equality of spouses in marriage. Similar legislation have been passed by
several countries in the region. For instance Botswana and Namibia abolished
marital power by enacting the Abolition of Marital Power Act of 2004 and the
Married Persons Equality Act of 1996 respectively, thereby giving equal power
to spouses to administer their joint property. In promoting equality and
non-discrimination of women as required by the Convention on the Elimination of
all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and other regional and
international obligations, Swaziland must take positive action to pass a law
that will put to an end the power of husbands to choose the domicile for their
wives just like South Africa did by passing the Domicile Act in 1992. There is
also a crucial need for Swazi civil society to collaborate with lawyers in
providing refresher courses and discussion forums that will enable them to
develop appropriate litigation strategies to ensure the meaningful realization
of the Bill of Rights.
Thursday, 27 June 2013
Human Rights versus Animal Welfare.
Analysis of killings by game rangers
The intention of this article
is to gain familiarity with the fundamental concept of human rights in
contradistinction to animal welfare. This will be attained by reviewing the
Constitution of the Kingdom of Swaziland Act, 2005 especially chapter three
which deals with human rights protection. In the process I will strive to
demonstrate that the provisions of the Game Act of 1992 which give impunity to
game rangers for human rights violations caused to suspected poachers violates
the bill of rights. Essentially all laws that hamper the enjoyment of
fundamental rights as enshrined in the Constitution should be abolished or
amended to comply with the supreme law of the land.
The Constitution seeks to re-order and improve human interaction and the environment by ensuring that people are able to enjoy their basic human rights. Our Constitution does not have a provision on environmental rights hence animal welfare should not override human rights. The rights to life and dignity are the most important of all human rights and the source of all the other personal rights, thus the state has a duty to ensure their full realization. According to section 15(1) of the Constitution, a person shall not be deprived of life intentionally except in the execution of a sentence of a court in respect of a criminal offence under the laws of Swaziland of which that person has been convicted. The Constitution goes on to state that the death penalty shall not be mandatory. These provisions clearly demonstrate the extent to which extrajudicial killings are condemned by the Constitution, as the taking of human life is only permitted under exceptional circumstances which involve the justice system. However, the Constitution goes on to provide other circumstances under which the right to life can be taken, amongst of which is self defence.
Self Defence.
As a rule, our law does not
support community justice, vigilantism or self- help, requiring rather that
citizens resort to the law. However, it
is recognised that there are circumstances when an individual has to gain
necessary and/or immediate redress that will not be achieved by waiting for the
law to intervene. In such circumstances,
the law permits the individual a right to resort to self-defence (Jonathan
Burchel on Principles of Criminal Law; 2005). This is where section 23(3) of
the Game Act which provides immunity for game rangers come to play. The provision guarantees the safety of game rangers in
protecting themselves against any unlawful attacks from poachers. However this
does not give them a general licence to kill suspected poachers as we have seen
in the past. In our criminal law, self defence is treated as a ground for
justifying an otherwise unlawful act (e.g murder). Thus,
when self-defence is raised in evidence, the accused person is, in fact,
seeking to negate the element of unlawfulness from his/her conduct by claiming
that his/her action, despite meeting the definitional elements of the crime, is
nevertheless justified and, consequently, not unlawful.
The process of proving whether the act is justifiable in law should be done by the courts which are the ultimate interpreters and enforcers of the fundamental freedoms that are enshrined in the Constitution. Therefore, the impunity that is enjoyed by game rangers is not only unconstitutional but also offends the basic principles of justice and fairness. The law sets a threshold that must be met by a person seeking to apply self defence to justify his/her unlawful action. For instance, it must be proved that the defence was necessary to protect the interest threatened, and there must be a relationship between the attack and the defensive act.
This implies that for the game ranger, shooting to kill must be the only available remedy to defend his/her life and that of the wild animals under attack. In fact, self-defence requires that a person should rather flee than kill his assailant where he can save himself by flight, however, no one is expected to take flight to avoid an attack where flight would not afford him a safe way of escape (Shiba v. Rex 1977-1978 SLR 16). Furthermore, the law requires that the retaliation be proportionate or rather the method used to avert the attack must be reasonable under the circumstances and if excessive force is used, the plea of self defence fails. Therefore, it suffices to say that shooting to kill is not sensible to protect wild life since there are always other available alternatives to track down suspected poachers especially when they are using vehicles to escape. In fact even police officers fire warning shots in the air before shooting at suspects, this should be the same approach with game rangers.
In line with the United Nations
Universal Periodic Review recommendations on Swaziland’s human rights status,
the country must amend the Game Act to comply with section 15 of the
Constitution protecting the right to life. This will help in ensuring the rule
of law and provide means to protect the rights under threat. Since Swaziland
is party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (acceded
to on 26 March 2004) and the African Charter on human and Peoples’ Rights
(ratified 15 September 1995), the state is obliged to investigate and prosecute
game rangers who exceed the permissible confines of self defence. Additionally
efforts must be made to rejuvenate the co-existence of wildlife and human
beings in order to create a more self-sustainable environment. This can be achieved
if the Swaziland National Trust Commission can intensify its efforts to
implement a policy that will ensure the participation of the communities
neighbouring game parks in order to protect wild life. Studies indicate that a
high level of community participation in nature conservation has a positive
impact in reducing the rate of poaching. For example, in Zambia as a result of a national policy of
wildlife management called the Administrative Management Design (ADMADE) in a
three-year period, poaching of elephants declined by over 90 percent in one
wildlife area where local participation was actively promoted.
Furthermore, the communities must be assisted to establish projects that will enable them to have alternative protein sources other than game (i.e. introduction of fish farming, more intensive farming of plant protein species, etc.) Furthermore, game parks must allot a sustainable quota of animals to the local communities for food purposes, and employ the community members to guard the game and further assist them to establish strong community policing mechanisms. Ultimately the communities will have a sense of ownership and work together to protect the wildlife in their communities. Since animals do not have rights in the way that humans do, we should recognize that animals can be used for reasonable purposes, but should not be abused. Hence in protecting wildlife, the rights of human beings should not be relegated.
Furthermore, the communities must be assisted to establish projects that will enable them to have alternative protein sources other than game (i.e. introduction of fish farming, more intensive farming of plant protein species, etc.) Furthermore, game parks must allot a sustainable quota of animals to the local communities for food purposes, and employ the community members to guard the game and further assist them to establish strong community policing mechanisms. Ultimately the communities will have a sense of ownership and work together to protect the wildlife in their communities. Since animals do not have rights in the way that humans do, we should recognize that animals can be used for reasonable purposes, but should not be abused. Hence in protecting wildlife, the rights of human beings should not be relegated.
CELEBRATING THE SWAZI CHILD
CELEBRATING THE #SWAZI CHILD
The 16th of June marks an important day for
children in Africa. Countries celebrate the African child by commemorating the
courage of the youths of South Africa that lost their lives in the streets of
Soweto in 1976.
In a march more than
half a mile long, they protested the inferior quality of their education and
demanded their right to be taught in their own language. Hundreds of young boys
and girls were shot down by security forces. In the two weeks of protest that
followed, more than a hundred people were killed and more than a thousand were
injured. To honour the memory of those killed and the courage of all those who
marched, the Day of the African Child has been celebrated on 16 June every year
since 1991, when it was first initiated by the Organization of African Unity
(now the African Union).
The theme for this year's event is
Eliminating Harmful Social and Cultural Practices Affecting Children: Our
Collective Responsibility. I’m very much inspired by the last part of the theme
which charges the nation with the collective responsibility of protecting
children. The idea of collectivity is embedded in the African and Swazi way of
life through the concept of buntfu or
the respect for the humanity of every human being. The day of the African child
comes at a time when the lives of some of our children are threatened. I refer
to the children who are victims of the impending evictions at Malkerns, Madonsa
and KaShali. I must point however that there is nothing sinister about the recent
Supreme Court judgment where the eviction of four homesteads was ordered.
I must emphasize that the government
has done well in formulating laws and policies to protect children. These
include the promulgation of the Child Welfare Protection Act, the provision of
free primary education and the establishment of child friendly court systems. Despite the significant progress that has
been made in addressing the rights and needs of children, including the
progressive legislative frameworks and programmes that have been put in place,
Swazi children are still faced with formidable challenges.
This I say because notwithstanding the
country being signatory to the Convention on the Rights of the
Child(CRC-ratified 7 September 1995) which obliges states parties to ensure that in
every transaction involving children, the best interest of the child take
precedence, children threatened with evictions continue to be neglected. This principle
(best interest of the child) must be integrated in all legislative frameworks,
programmes, projects, services and decision-making processes affecting
children. Therefore in
matters of evictions, the best interest of the child should be considered and
such children must be treated with dignity and protection. Evictions are not only
a threat to the education and social development of children but also pose a
danger to the lives of such children. The traumatic experiences that the
children go through has a potential to destroy them for the rest of their
lives, hence the need for intervention cannot be overemphasized. These children
also stand the risk of losing their education as they would have to relocate
with their parents at times to places remote from their schools as a
consequence of the evictions. Furthermore the risks of sexual violence and
child trafficking are more likely for such children as they become more
vulnerable in the transition stage where their parents go through depression.
The CRC and the Constitution protects children against any form of
discrimination in the application and the enjoyment of their basic freedoms
hence the state should provide equal protection to children threatened with
evictions.
As
the country celebrates the day of the Swazi child it is necessary to take
positive action towards ensuring that children threatened with evictions are
protected. Accordingly, government should ensure that eviction judgments are
not executed in a way that will have a negative impact on children and
formulate land reform policies that will foster equal access to land by all
citizens. The land question has been avoided far too long amid the rampant
evictions that are taking place in the country.
One of the reasons could be that perhaps the majority of Swazis who are
living on communal land (Swazi Nation Land) believe they are safe from eviction
as they are protected by chiefs. However, the rise of chieftaincy disputes and
concealed demarcations could result to many Swazis facing evictions and the
lives of many children will be put at risk as a consequence. Hence the eradication
of harmful social practices for the development of children cannot be isolated
from the broader national development plan that would be achieved through the
collaboration of grassroots structures (including families) and the government.
The
realisation of children’s rights is not only fundamental for their development
and well-being; it is also pivotal to creating a world of peace, equity, security,
freedom, respect for the environment and shared responsibility. Umntfwana
ngumliba loya embili – children are the future and the vehicle to
development therefore we have the collective responsibility to protect them.
Thursday, 13 June 2013
Human
Rights are #Swazi
This
article was published by the Swazi Observer on 13 June 2013.
African cultures have
rightfully been criticised for not respecting fundamental rights especially the
rights of women, mostly because of harmful practices which negate gender
equality. Many campaigns have been launched against these practices and laws
have been passed to ensure that women enjoy the same rights as their male
counterparts. Having discussed the key provisions of the preamble in the
previous article, it is necessary to examine constitutional provisions that
secure Swazi cultural practices and norms which promote human rights. The
ultimate aim for this discussion is to identify the good cultural norms that
can be promoted for human rights protection and national development. Culture
can be understood to be the foundation of society; integrating the values,
customs and characteristics of a people, and promoting interaction and dialogue
amongst people is necessary. This is the reason in Swazi culture we have the saying
that goes; ‘injobo itfungelwa ebandla’
(issues are better resolved through consultation and people involvement).
Within this value of consultation or public participation there is the essence
of the respect for the worth of every human being in society, hence it is
encouraged for leaders to involve their communities in the decision-making
processes.
Swazi customary law is
entrenched in the Constitution as one of the laws in force in Swaziland
although it is subjected to the provisions of the Constitution (section 252(2).
This therefore means that customary law is recognized but its application is
limited by its consistency with the Constitution. The Constitution further
subjects customary law to other laws, natural justice, morality and humanity.
It is necessary therefore to identify the cultural values that comply with the
Constitution and use them to promote fundamental freedoms. For instance the
principle of humanity is embedded in the Swazi way of life through the spirit
of buntfu(humanity) which stems from
the idiom that a person exists in unity with other people (umunftu ngumuntfu ngebantfu). The spirit of humanity acknowledges
both the right and responsibilities of every citizen in promoting individual
and societal wellbeing. This concept is about the individual being so rooted in
the community that your personal identity is defined by what you give to the
community. A person with buntfu is
open and available to others, affirms and respects others, does not feel
threatened by others’ strengths or abilities, because he or she recognises that
we all belong to a greater whole.
The
erosion of the spirit of bunftu and
moral degradation has led to the many human rights violations that we see
almost every day. Domestic violence, child abuse, harassment, property
grabbing, ritual murders have become a norm as a consequence. Swazis of the
past used to respect the country and its people; live liyengcayelwa is the essence of respect for the people, land
and the environment. With this kind of respect people would treat each other in
a spirit of brother/sisterhood knowing that if you harm your fellow human being
you harm yourself. This approach can also be adopted to solve the many social
ills we experience today. The society of Swaziland (especially the older
generation) must revive the good cultural values that define the true Swazi way
of life. Those in leadership (from community level to national government) must
formulate and implement moral regeneration programmes that seek to counteract
the social ills faced by our societies.
These very cultural norms can be used to send the right messages that
build and unite society instead of creating division among people. If children
are indeed the future (umnftwana ngumliba
loya embili) they should be trained the right way and not be used as
instruments to promote division and hatred in society. Live linye ngetjani; the strength of a nation is derived from its
diversity in opinions and experiences hence the respect for freedom of expression,
opinion, assembly and association. It is necessary to blend the good
institutions of traditional law and custom with those of an open and democratic
society in order to promote development (paragraph 5 preamble of the
Constitution). Thus traditional practices like those regulating the land tenure
system under communal land (kukhonta)
can be merged with the right to property and equality as enshrined in the
Constitution (sections 19 and 20 respectively). Government must undertake
research to establish the number of people who do not have access to land and
work together with traditional leaders to ensure that such people are assisted
at a low cost to obtain land to build their households. This will reduce the
alarming rate of evictions and demolitions as well as guarantee the well being
of the people. Therefore, culture should serve the great cause of holding the
Swazi people together and strengthening their unity in diversity: whether
within families, public life, communities or organisations. As the election
process advances it is imperative for the people of Swaziland to rejuvenate the
fundamental values that promote a sense of community and be wary of people who
rush to serve the king without having done any service to their chiefdoms
because it is through selflessness that a nation can prosper. Therefore
cultural norms and values should help the nation to make a sense of itself in
order to assert its roots, reflect on its troubles and forge a better, safer
and prosperous way forward through a shared vision.
HUMAN
RIGHTS TOO EXPENSIVE IN SD
This
article was published by the Swazi Observer on June 6 at page 17.
Swazis continue to suffer human
rights violations despite the presence of a bill of rights in the Constitution
guaranteeing human rights protection. This may be attributable to factors such
as poor or absence of concrete policies
that are aimed to promote and protect human rights. Such polices cannot be
developed if there is not political will in the authorities especially the
mysterious labadzala(traditional
authorities) who yield huge influence in the decision-making process of the
country. The Constitution in the preamble (first paragraph) states that as a
people of Swaziland we undertake to start afresh under a framework of a
constitutional dispensation. It further provides that it is necessary to blend
the good institutions of traditional law and custom with those of an open and
democratic society so as to promote transparency and the social, economic and
cultural development of the nation (paragraph 5). Paragraph 6 provides the
protection of fundamental rights and binds the executive, legislature,
judiciary and other organs of government to uphold these rights. Paragraph 7
makes these branches of government the guardians of the Constitution and
provides the courts as the ultimate interpreters of the Constitution. This therefore
means that every issue arising on the Constitution will be determined by the
courts. However this does not imply that we have to litigate everything in
order for the government to comply with the Constitution. The three branches of
government although independent play a complementary role to each other. In
other words, the executive and the legislature can formulate policies and laws
that will operationalize the Constitution in order to ensure the meaningful
realization of the rights that are contained therein.
In this column I seek to demonstrate
the expensive nature of human rights in Swaziland by highlighting examples of
cases that have been brought to court for determination and other violations
that are taking place in the country. The fundamental point that I wish to express
is that political will is crucial for the realization of human rights in the
country. If we could go by the letter of the Constitution and approach the
court for every matter to enforce our rights then the likes of Sipho Jele and
other victims of extrajudicial killings (my their souls rest in peace) would
have to rise from the dead in order to claim their right to life. The families
of these victims would have to sue government for these atrocities and the
economic and social losses they have suffered as a consequence. Since 2004 the
courts have been dealing with cases touching on the Constitution. The first one
was the progressives cases that sought to nullify the constitution (Jan Sithole
(N.O) & Others v. The Prime Minister of Swaziland).In 2008 the Supreme
Court had to determine the constitutionality on the composition of the
Elections and Boundaries Commission (SCCCO & Others v Elections and
Boundaries Commission & Others Civil Case 26/08. In 2009, the Supreme Court decided the fate of
political parties in Swaziland where a passing statement equating democracy to
beauty (only lies in the eyes of the beholder) was made. In 2010 ex-miners went
to court to claim the right to free primary education for Swazi children, up to
today the right has not been realized as parents are required to pay top-up
fees. Also in the same year Doo Aphane challenged the constitutionality of the
Deeds Registry Act in relation to the registration of immovable property under
the names of married women. In this case the government was ordered to amend
the law within one year but it took two years to comply with the judgment and
further made the promulgation of the amended law a secrete.
The citizens and organizations
who have managed to use the courts to interpret the Constitution have spent a
fortune in legal fees just to force the government to comply with the law.
Beyond the courts we have seen a clampdown on freedom of expression and
association; the house arrests of TUCOSWA leadership, the quashing of a womens
march to protest against gender based violence at Siphofaneni, the Luvatsi
civic education that was stopped by the police at Sidvokodvo, prayer meetings
that are blocked by the state using the police, and not forgetting the dire
consequences of the waya waya teachers strike. In order to
exercise these rights other citizens resort to go to neighbouring countries
because their government is too paranoid to let them hold debates in their own
country. Civil Society prefers to use regional and international mechanisms to
discuss human rights issues for their country since the government has no
agenda to engage them.
The suggestion that was made by
the Prime Minister last week for people to approach the courts for their rights
is true but unrealistic for the many poor Swazis who are victims of forced
evictions, with no access to medical suppliers, without proper shelter, food
and jobs as these are central to living a life in dignity. It is not only
outdated but misguided in relation to the issue of political parties. This
matter was resolved by the Supreme Court (highest court of the land) as earlier
mentioned hence there is no other available remedy at the local level except a
genuine national dialogue that should be preceded by extensive civic education
on the matter. Traditional structures and government must create space for
honest and positive deliberations for the substantive democratization of the
country instead of going on a dark horse to revise the tinkhundla system. This
process must be inclusive of political parties (including the banned political
parties) and all Swazis living in Swaziland and abroad (even those in exile). A
Swaziland worthy of a first world status can only be facilitated by a people
who are patriotic to their country and honest to the sufferings of the nation.
We cannot therefore shutdown and proscribe other citizens for having different
opinions from what the authorities believe. South Africa did it, Lesotho did
it, recently Zimbabwe through a coalition government went through a peaceful
referendum, and therefore, nothing can stop us from doing the same. The people
of Swaziland as the king always puts it “have a right to determine their own
destiny”. Let the powers that be identify their role and work with all the
people of Swaziland to usher in a genuine democratic constitutional
dispensation that will harness the diverse opinions of the people. In
conclusion I would like to invite traditionalists, conservatives and the rest
of the people of Swaziland to meditate on paragraph 8 of the preamble in the
Constitution. It reads “whereas as a Nation we desire to march forward
progressively under our own constitution guaranteeing peace, order and good
governance and the happiness and welfare for ALL our people.
Food for votes poisons democracy and violates human rights.
CONSTITUTIONALLY
SPEAKING
This
article was published by the Swazi Observer on May 30 page 11.
Food for votes poisons democracy and violates human
rights.
It is an honour to have this
space to share ideas and provoke discussions among my fellow citizens on matters
affecting our everyday life with the understanding of our Constitution. Our Constitution
may not be the best in the world but it does aspire to meet some of the
internationally recognized standards. For example, the Constitution in chapter
3 provides a comprehensive bill of rights protecting among others, freedom of
thought and expression – which I seek to exercise in this column. These rights
are further emphasized in many other provisions, including the right to vote,
found in section 85 of the Constitution. Swaziland’s Constitution, like many
others all over the world, declares and guarantees the right to life, liberty,
free speech, free thinking, association, and dignity. As we move into the
elections mode, it is important for us to be fully armed with the necessary
knowledge in order to exercise our right to vote, knowing that elections are
not the end but the beginning of a long journey to self governance.
Since
our Constitution is similar to those in other countries, both internationally
and regionally, why is it that we are not able to meaningfully enjoy the bill
of rights? Some of our neighbours are able to freely express themselves (in
both speech and art); many are more free to question and to be questioned; meet
and discuss issues; elect and recall leaders. Does this mean that there is
something wrong with our Constitution?
In
an attempt to deal with this question one is reminded of Burmese democracy
activsit Aung San Suu Kyi, a Nobel Peace Prize Winner and longtime prisoner of
conscience, who said: “Within a system
which denies the existence of basic human rights, fear tends to be the order of
the day. Fear of imprisonment, fear of torture, fear of death, fear of losing
friends, family, property or means of livelihood, fear of poverty, fear of
isolation, fear of failure. A most insidious form of fear is that which
masquerades as common sense or even wisdom, condemning as foolish, reckless,
insignificant or futile the small, daily acts of courage which help to preserve
man's self-respect and inherent human dignity.”
She
continues, “It is not easy for a people conditioned by fear under the iron rule
of the principle that might is right to free themselves from the enervating
miasma of fear. Yet even under the most crushing state machinery courage rises
up again and again, for fear is not the natural state of civilized man.”
It
becomes clear, therefore, that fear is the greatest enemy of human rights. In
the past weekend the African Union celebrated its 50th Anniversary
with one clear message: “One Africa for Prosperity and Peace”. This theme was
complemented by other messages, freedom and liberation from colonial powers to
name two. We might have fought and received liberation as Africans to be
independent and govern ourselves but the bigger picture is the full attainment
of individual freedom to enjoy the fundamental rights as enshrined in our
Constitutions. For Swaziland it has been 45 years since independence and almost
eight years after the adoption of the Constitution.
Does
independence of the nation, achieved in 1968, also mean independence and
freedom for the individual? Have we taken steps as a country and as Swazi
citizens to realise our individual freedom? It’s from this point – individual
autonomy – that a stronger, more unifeid country can be built.
From
my experince of working with Swazi communities, we have a way to go before we
reach individual liberation. Many people confuse human rights with favours from
government. Some believe that kindness from government or other individuals is
akin to the protection of human rights.
This
perception exacerbates the many human rights violations being commited every
day. Newspapers report stories of ministers, MPs and powerful individuals who use
the name of poverty as a stepping stone to enter parliament.
It
is clear that behind this kindness is a wish to be elected to parliament and
possibly, the thought of enriching oneself ahead of the consituuceny.
The
Elections and Boundaries Commission (EBC) is franticically attempting to
caution Swazis, especially law-abiding citizens without much power, to refrain
from influencing people to vote for them before the actual campaigning period
begins. However we cannot blame the EBC, nor the law breakers for this – it is
a true reflection of our society.
It
is government’s job to provide for basic welfare needs, such as maintenance of
the elderly and other underprivileged groups in society; not to supoort –
directly or otherwise – law breakers who pose as good samaritans.
People
have a right to adequate standard of living, including the right to enough
food, as protected by Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic
Social and Cultural Rights which Swaziland acceded in 2004. Therefore, whether
people buy votes with food or money, they do not take away the obligation of
the government because poverty and hunger will remain even after elections if
the electorate does not have ideas that will influence the positive
implementation of the national poverty reduction strategy.
The
EBC must stand up and protect poor Swazis from manipulation because the success
of the electoral process will not only be determined by the number of voters
but by also the quality of leaders that will be produced. Yet we cannot keep
blaming the EBC for the indifference of our people but instead we should be
reminded of our obligation to respect the rights, freedoms and legitimate
interests of others, and generally refrain from doing acts that are detrimental
to the welfare of others (section 63(d) of the Constitution).
Food
for votes is poison to democracy and a serious violation of human rights. The only sure
bulwark of continuing liberty is a government strong enough to protect the
interests of the people, and a people strong enough and well enough informed to
maintain its sovereign control over the government, as said by former US
President Franklin Delano Roselvelt.
Or, as
Nelson Mandela put it : To be free is not merely to cast off one's chains, but
to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.
Phakama Shili; Advocacy Officer,
MISA-Swaziland
Comments to:phakamashili@gmai.com
Facebook; Phakama Shili
Twitter: @Pshili1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)