More than one in three of
the government workforce in Swaziland is employed in the police or security
services, figures recently released reveal.
King Mswati III, who
rules Swaziland as an absolute monarch, is the Commander-in-Chief of the
Umbutfo Swaziland Defence Force (USDF), holds the position of Minister of
Defence, and is the Commander of the Royal Swaziland Police Service (RSPS) and
His Majesty’s Correctional Service (HMCS).
He presides over a civilian
Principal Secretary of Defence and a Commanding General.
In 2014, about 35 percent
of the government workforce was assigned to security-related functions.
The RSPS is responsible for maintaining internal security. The USDF is
responsible for external security but also has domestic security
responsibilities, including protecting members of the Royal Family.
The HMCS is responsible for the protection, incarceration, and
rehabilitation of convicted persons and keeping order within HMCS institutions.
HMCS personnel, however, routinely work alongside police during protests and
demonstrations.
This has been revealed in
the United States Department of State report on human
rights in Swaziland for the year
2014.
There are thought to be
more than 35,000 people on the government payroll in Swaziland.
The report stated, ‘While
the conduct of the RSPS, USDF, and HMCS was generally professional, members of
all three forces were susceptible to political pressure and corruption. There
were few prosecutions or disciplinary actions taken against security officers
accused of abuses.’
Reviewing 2014, the
report stated, ‘There were credible reports of use of excessive force by
community police and security forces during the year. For example, on July 21,
the Times of Swaziland reported that on July 13, three Malindza
community police beat to death a mentally challenged man who had escaped from
the National Psychiatric Center. The three were arrested, jailed, denied bail,
and awaiting High Court trial at year’s end.
‘The Times of
Swaziland of July 28 reported that during the first week of July
correctional services officers from Big Bend correctional facility
re-apprehended an escaped prisoner, beat him, and locked him overnight in a
truck as punishment for escaping. The inmate died, reportedly due to lack of
medical attention and exposure to the cold.’
The report also said the
Swazi Government permitted very limited monitoring of prison conditions.
‘Independent monitoring groups found it difficult to access prison facilities during the year, and none issued public reports. The government routinely denied prison access to local human rights organizations, African Union Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression Pansy Tlakula, and foreign diplomatic representatives.’
‘Independent monitoring groups found it difficult to access prison facilities during the year, and none issued public reports. The government routinely denied prison access to local human rights organizations, African Union Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression Pansy Tlakula, and foreign diplomatic representatives.’
The report added,
‘Authorities generally did not allow journalists inside prisons. On April 12,
the HMCS denied visitation rights to six journalists from different media
houses seeking to visit incarcerated Nation magazine editor Bheki
Makhubu and stated visitors must
obtain permission from the commissioner of correctional services. Several
international NGOs attempted to obtain permission without response from the
commissioner.’
There were also arbitrary
arrests in Swaziland.
The report stated,
‘Although the constitution and law prohibit arbitrary arrest and detention,
police arbitrarily arrested and detained numerous persons, primarily to prevent
their participation in public protests. For example, on August 30, the Times
of Swaziland newspaper reported police detained 25 residents of KaLuhleko for three days for their opposition to the
authority of a certain chief. Residents, including persons over the age of 71,
alleged police tied their hands and legs to benches and covered their heads for
three days.’
The judiciary in the
kingdom was not independent.
The report stated, ‘The
constitution and law provide for an independent judiciary, but the King’s power
to appoint the judiciary on recommendation of the Judicial Services Commission
limits judicial independence.
‘The judiciary was
generally impartial in nonpolitical criminal and civil cases not involving the Royal
Family or government officials. In cases involving high-level government
officials or Royal Family members, however, outcomes in favor of these
individuals were predetermined.
‘High Court judges who
exercised a degree of independence were sidelined and blocked from ruling on
political cases, including human rights cases.’
See also
TRIALS POLITICALLY MOTIVATED: AMNESTY
SWAZI
HUMAN RIGHTS WORSEN: AMNESTY
No comments:
Post a Comment