The King made the
pronouncement on his 50th birthday in April 2018 and later signed a
legal notice.
The Institute for Democracy
and Leadership (IDEAL) is challenging the notice in the Swazi High Court. The
King is above the law and cannot be challenged so the respondents in the case
are the Government and the Attorney General.
Human Rights Lawyer Thulani
Maseko for IDEAL said the order contravened the Swaziland Constitution as no public discussions was held before the
King’s announcement.
The Times
of Swaziland reported on Friday (6 July 2018) that in his founding
affidavit Maseko said Section 58(1) of the constitution stated people had the
right to be involved when the decision to change the name of the kingdom was
taken.
The section provides that: ‘Swaziland
shall be a democratic country dedicated to principles which empower and
encourage the active participation of all citizens at all levels in their own
governance.’
The newspaper reported
Maseko saying, ‘The name change has constitutional implications in as much as
the name is entrenched is Section 1 and is mentioned at least 200 times in
other provisions of the Constitution.’
The King’s unilateral
decision to change the name of the kingdom demonstrates his power. Political
parties are barred from taking part in elections and the monarch chooses the
Prime Minister, government ministers and top judiciary.
The European Union Election Experts Mission (EEM), one
of a number of international groups that monitored the conduct of Swaziland’s last
election in 2013, made much of how the kingdom’s absolute monarchy undermined
democracy.
In its report it
stated, ‘The King has absolute power and is
considered to be above the law, including the Constitution,
enjoying the power to assent laws and immunity from criminal proceedings. A
bill shall not become law unless the King has assented to it, meaning that the
parliament is unable to pass any law which the King is in disagreement with.
‘The King will refer back the provisions he is not in
agreement with, which makes the parliament and its elected chamber, the House
of Assembly, ineffective, unable to achieve the objective a parliament is
created for: to be the legislative branch of the state and maintain the
government under scrutiny.’
The EEM went on to say the ‘main principles for a
democratic state are not in place’ in Swaziland.
It stated, ‘Elections are a mechanism for the popular
control of government and ensure the government accountability to the people.
The King appoints the Cabinet. A
vote of no confidence in the prime minister and government from more
than two-thirds of the members of the House, in October [2012], was easily
reversed although the Constitution provides that in such cases the prime
minister shall be removed from office.
‘In this context, an analysis of the legal framework
for elections seems quite a redundant exercise, as the main principles for a
democratic state are not in place. Although the electoral legal framework
contains the technical aspects required for the proper administration of
elections, it does not conform to international principles for the conduct of
democratic elections, as it does not respect one of the fundamental rights for
participation –the freedom of association.’
See also
PEOPLE
NOT ELECTING THEIR GOVERNMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment