IRIN Focus on press freedom constraints

The absence of a democratic culture in Swaziland for more than three decades has insulated its journalists, media owners and the general public from the ethos of critical appraisal of the royal family and the government, analysts told IRIN this week. This erosion of press freedom and freedom of expression, they said, has created a general belief that the king and the queen mother, especially, can do no wrong and are therefore above reproach. The tiny kingdom, sandwiched between South Africa and Mozambique, has been ruled by a succession of monarchs or royal councils since it gained independence from Britain in 1968. The current monarch, King Mswati III, 34, now reigns over the only absolute monarchy still surviving in a Southern African region that has embraced democratic forms of government. Self-censorship the norm In a country where political parties have been banned since 1973, activists and journalists agree that the country’s two daily newspapers, the independently-owned ‘Times of Swaziland’ and the royal family-owned ‘Swazi Observer’, have been cowed into self-censorship. Siphiwe Nkambule, chairwoman of Media Institute of Swaziland (MISWA), told IRIN: “This self-censorship has resulted in a lack of depth in the coverage of real issues of national importance.” Sifiso Dlamini, a senior journalist at the ‘Swazi Observer’, told IRIN that although newspapers did enjoy a degree of freedom, journalists did not address national issues seriously in their reporting. Traditional considerations often stood in the way of objective reporting on issues of national importance. “Swazis revere the monarchy, which has led journalists to practice self-censorship as far as reporting critically on the institution of the monarchy. A public outcry usually follows reports that criticise the monarchy and what it stands for,” he said. Editor fired Paul Loffler, the publisher of ‘Times of Swaziland’, told IRIN there is no official law prohibiting his 101-year-old newspaper from publishing anything. “We can print anything we want,” he said. “However, the only threat to press freedom is the proposed Media bill that the information ministry plans to enact.” But in an example of the kind of controversy Dlamini raised, Loffler recently fired the former editor of his Sunday edition, ‘Times on Sunday’. last September, the editor Baheki Makhubu, ran a series of articles stating that King Mswati III’s latest fiancée was a high school dropout who had been de-registered from at least two high schools for truancy. Although Loffler told IRIN that he did not receive any instructions from either the monarchy or the royal house to fire Makhubu, his general manager was summoned to the royal residence where he met with members of the king’s council and the minister of information. Makhubu was arrested four days after the meeting, spent a night in jail and was charged with criminal defamation. He was released on bail and his travel documents were confiscated. He was ordered to report to the police every fortnight and refrain from publishing information relating to the king’s fiancée. Makhubu told IRIN he believes his bosses made a deal with the royal family on his fate. “I made enemies in political circles by reporting on the king’s fiancée. My employers said I embarrassed the king with the reports on his fiancée. The deal, I suspect, was that my employers should get rid of me, agree to my arrest and arraignment in return for the continued publication of the paper.” The two Swazi newspapers, according to Dlamini, are also in tough competition for a limited readership base of about 50,000. “None of the newspapers can afford to to be too critical of the monarchy for fear of alienating readers, who might then be lost to the competitor.” Broadcast media Dlamini said radio and television, managed by the Swaziland Broadcasting and Information Services (SBIS) on behalf of the royal family, only broadcast issues related to the monarchy, members of parliament and cultural events. “Although SBIS journalists have had the best media training compared to newspaper journalists, they merely report on the monarchy’s activities and follow the prime minister and his ministers around in every function they attend.” Although the two newspapers usually report on the activities of political parties which operate despite the ban, and even run regular columns by high-profile pro-democracy academics, radio and television, he said virtually ignore them. When the country’s labour movement, the Swaziland Federation of Trade Unions (SFTU) organised mass strikes in support of work-related and political demands in 1997, the SBIS ignored the week-long action. When a news item announcing a meeting of the SFTU was broadcast on television, the prime minister reportedly demanded that Swaziland Television hand over the footage of what he called an “illegal message”. Although the journalists refused, the station has subsequently not broadcast any items relating to either the trade union movement or the pro-democracy groups. Said Nkambule: “Swazis had to watch South Africa’s television on the SFTU strikes as the local station did not cover the events.” A Media Bill Journalists are also concerned at Information Ministry plans to enact a Media Council bill, which, they say, is aimed mainly at controlling who can practise as a journalist. Vusi Ginindza, news editor of ‘Times of Swaziland’, told IRIN that journalists are opposed to most of the bill’s provisions. Said Ginindza: “Some of the provisions journalists are opposed to include the establishment of a media council to be appointed by the information minister. The council would then have the right to grant a licence to operate as a journalist as well as de-register those it considers unsuitable to practice journalism.” The bill, introduced in October 1997, was deferred later that year following widespread protests by journalists, who were supported in their protests by SFTU, which called on the government to scrap it. Ginindza said the information ministry has established a sub-committee which is studying the journalists’ objections, with a view to redrafting the provisions. Makhubu, who says he now has no prospect of employment in the Swazi media again, does not believe the information ministry is in a hurry to enact the bill. “There is already an understanding of co-existence between the media and royalty whereby the latter will not meddle in the former’s affairs if the editors and owners keep their journalists in check. There is already a dearth of depth in news coverage. “Regression in the quality of journalism will only get worse, which will make it unnecessary for royalty to impose any controls. Pliant editors and keen-to-please owners will do that for royalty,” Makhubu said.