By James Hall
Mar 10 2000 (IPS)

The sudden and unexplained closure of the Swazi Observer newspaper by its owner, the royal conglomerate Tibiyo TakaNgwane, seems to have put to rest the question of how an unfettered press can exist in a country ruled by sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarchparticularly when the king owns the newspaper.

After a series of stories considered critical of, or embarrassing to, government, 70 Observer employees were told to pack their things, and within minutes the offices in downtown Mbabane were padlocked.

“It happened on last Thursday evening, after we had already put the next day’s edition to bed,” recalls news reporter Musa Magagula. “We were told to get out.”

The demise of the Observer leaves only one newspaper in the country, the independently-owned Times of Swaziland. For that matter, the Times is the only non-governmental source of news in the country.

The electronic media, both radio and TV, are the exclusive domain of government’s broadcast services, and Internet is in its infancy in Swaziland, leaving the informal dissemination of news between users something for the future.

“There is always tension between governments and the press, an adversarial relationship, even in the freest societies on earth,” says a professor of journalism at the University of Swaziland.

He prefers anonymity because the university chancellor is King Mswati III. “The mix is even more volatile in a traditional government, where no one is allowed to second guess the king, and where criticism is not tolerated.”

Most palace advisors consider criticism treason, even a form of regicide. Newspaper editors from the Times and Observer have been summoned regularly to the palace to explain stories considered offensive to royalty.

Vusie Ginindza, editor of the Times Sunday, relates how he was summoned before a furious Dibanisa Mavusa, who as governor of the Queen Mother’s royal village Ludzidzini, has assumed the mantel of royal protector.

“He was raging that we at the Times were disrespecting the king. What set him off was a printer’s error that placed a white smear over a photo of the king. He wanted to know why we did not also deface a photo on the same page of labour leader Jan Sithole, who is loathed there because he is at the forefront of the pro- democracy movement.”

At least the Times followed custom by giving a prominent, higher position to the king’s photo on the page. As for Sithole, he has condemned the closure of the Observer as a violation of press freedom and labour laws.

“Workers were given no notice of the closure, and they were not provided for in terms of retrenchment settlements, as per law.”

Like Ginindza, the Observer’s editorial staff did not bow to pressure from the paper’s owners to excise controversial stories, or to reveal news sources.

The last straw may have been government’s anger about Observer coverage of a rift between Foreign Affairs Minister Albert Shabangu and Prime Minister Sibusiso Dlamini over the premier’s attempt to enforce fiscal discipline by reining-in free spending ambassadors.

The Observer was launched by Tibiyo TakaNgwane, a huge royal conglomerate with interests in agriculture, manufacturing, transportation, and tourism, in 1982 to coincide with the Diamond Jubilee of the reign of King Sobhuza II, Mswati’s father.

Unable to lure readership from the Times, which began in 1897, the newspaper never earned a profit, and its circulation was artificially bolstered by purchases by government ministries.

Advertising revenues were supplemented by government announcements, which were placed only in the Observer. The conglomerate’s managing director, A. N. Dlamini, told Observer staffers last year that he would never close the newspaper. He was reportedly overruled by higher authorities.

Prime Minister Dlamini denies that government was behind the closure. “I heard about it on the radio,” he said. “It has been years since the prime minister was part of the board of directors for Tibiyo.”

Condemnations of the closure came from media and human rights groups. The Media Institute of Southern Africa castigated “this flagrant violation of the freedom of expression.”

The Human Rights Association of Swaziland lamented “a set back on the road to democracy, where citizens are now less informed about their country because some news stories did not conform to a picture the authorities wished to have presented.”

The Observer’s middling appeal to readers had always been a result of suspicions among Swazis that the paper was mandated to foster government views.

There were elements of propaganda in some stories, and a notable lack of investigative reporting, but in recent years Editor Lathu Jonga and Managing Editor Vusie Sibidzi struck an independent chord while reporting government corruption and national scandal.

This resulted in improved sales, and the newspaper was headed toward profitable operations at the time of its closure.

The Times of Swaziland’s Managing Editor Pat Nxumalo feels the Observer’s closure was also a message to the Times.

“The authorities are showing how easy it is to shut down a newspaper,” he says. The Ministry of Information is sponsoring legislation, the Media Council Bill, that is aimed at circumscribing the Times, according to the Swaziland National Association of Journalists.

If passed by parliament, the law will create a government- appointed press watchdog that can fine and even jail journalists for stories found in violation of ‘standards.’

Journalists will also be licensed by government, and if they try to work in Swaziland without approval, they will face jail time.

“King Mswati is making headway in luring foreign investors to Swaziland,’ says Editor Sipho Vilakati. “But can we have a sound economy without democratic institutions such as press freedom?”

He notes that statutory human rights were abolished by Mswati’s father in 1973 when he abrogated the Independence Constitution and assumed supreme executive, legislative and judicial authority.

Everyone has their opinion about the subject in Swaziland. But in the absence of the Swazi Observer, there is one fewer place where those opinions may be expressed.

Excerpt: