POLITICS-SWAZILAND: Lawmakers Engage the King in Constitutional Reforms

By James Hall Reprint | | Print |

James Hall

LOBAMBA, Swaziland, Apr 4 2003 (IPS) - Country maps of this small Southern Africa kingdom show Mbabane as Swaziland’s capital. But just as the single-tribe nation is ruled by a dual monarchy, with King Mswati from his royal village Engabezweni and Queen Mother Ntombi from her royal village Ludzidzini, Swaziland has a traditional capital 20 kilometres outside the ministerial high-rises of Mbabane. This is Lobamba, where long-reigning King Sobhuza, Mswati’s father, had his royal village.

This is Lobamba, where long-reigning King Sobhuza, Mswati’s father, had his royal village.

”It is appropriate that Sobhuza chose Lobamba as the seat of the national parliament,” says Swazi historian Fanyana Dlamini. ”By the time the first parliament building was erected, in 1972, Sobhuza was only months away from assuming absolute governing powers. Parliament would henceforth serve at his pleasure, and at Lobamba he could keep an eye them.”

On Apr 12, 1973, Sobhuza overturned the Independence Constitution, and banned political opposition to royal rule, including political parties and political meetings of any kind. Parliament continued, and elections were held every five years, but they were no longer lawmakers.

”Are we nothing more than rubber stamps?” MP Marwick Khumalo asked recently during deliberations at the House of Assembly. It was a question, invariably intoned as a lament, that is often raised by MPs. Unable to affiliate with political parties, each of the 55 elected Members of Parliament (MPs) has to create his or her (there are only two women MPs in Swaziland’s parliament) own platform that might please the constituents back home.

As Swaziland’s parliament faces another election, to be held in October, an understanding of parliament’s role of national government has become a key issue debated amongst lawmakers who make no laws. MPs deliberate on legislation brought to them by the Prime Minister’s cabinet, who like the premier is appointed by King Mswati to carry out palace polices. No legislation has ever originated from MPs themselves, although in theory they have the office of the attorney general to draft any bill an MP might wish to present.

”The Court of Appeal ruled that King Mswati may not decree laws unilaterally, without parliament, but government will not implement the court decision,” attorney Rudolph Maziya said.

In fact, the prime minister’s rejection of that ruling led to the resignation of the six-member court of appeal bench, and began a rule of law crisis that has flared for months. Traditional authorities are pitted against the courts and business community, which wants government to affirm its commitment to law to guarantee the security of their investments.

”In a country where the king makes the laws, what do we do as parliamentarians, other than affirm our loyalty to His Majesty?” one MP who preferred anonymity said.

Two recent events have focused MPs on their roles within a royal government. The first was this week’s cabinet shake-up, which required replacement ministers who by law must come from the ranks of MPs, and a parliamentary decision on the purchase of a luxury jet aircraft for King Mswati.

Foreign envoys and developmental non-governmental organisations (NGOs) have condemned the 72-million-U.S.-dollar jet purchase at a time when nearly 40 percent of adult Swazis are HIV-positive, and over a third of the population is without food and dependant on international donor assistance. Two-thirds of Swazis live in poverty.

The king decided to allow parliament to have the final say. However, when MPs voted against the jet last year, they were overridden by cabinet. A parliamentary select committee then looked into the issue, and recommended against the acquisition.

”The Prime Minister and three cabinet ministers acted beyond their constitutional responsibilities by entering into a financial arrangement and committing national funds in a dubious project,” the committee report stated.

Adopting the committee’s recommendations, MPs voted a second time against the jet. But Prime Minister Sibusiso Dlamini this week said the vote would be considered as one of several recommendations he would present to King Mswati, and that cabinet had not yet deliberated on the matter.

”If the cabinet goes against parliament, it would be a major constitutional crisis,” a source at the Swaziland Law society said.

Cabinet’s delay in considering the jet purchase, which has become a symbol of misplaced government priorities in the opinion of Britain’s ambassador to Swaziland David Reader, may have something to do with disorder in its own house. This week, two cabinet ministers were fired, one because he was implicated in the illegal sale of state assets, while eight others were shifted to new ministries.

The two new ministers were drawn from the ranks of MPs. One, a chief who is also a noted regional administrator, was selected for his royal connections. The second, MP Mahlaba Mamba, now minister of natural resources, happened to have been only one of two MPs who voted in favour of the king’s jet. The other MP was a palace appointee.

Mamba is now ”on the other side”, said MP Mfomfo Nkambule, a vociferous cabinet critic. ”He will now have to deal with us.”

But behind criticism of Mamba was an undercurrent of jealousy from other MPs who had yet to achieve their ambition of appointment to a lucrative cabinet post.

They may have another chance soon. After this year’s parliamentary election, a new cabinet must be appointed.

”Parliamentarians are, after all, the highest elected officials in Swaziland, and because they do represent democracy in a monarchial system, they should be respected,” Maziya said.