Swaziland : Evictions case could pull the rug from under absolute royal rule

The pro-democracy movement in the tiny southern African state of
Swaziland has been boosted in recent weeks with the start of a
landmark legal challenge to the monarchy of King Mswati III.

289 residents of the small rural community of Kashali have been
threatened with eviction from their homes by an emissary of the King’s
acting on the monarch’s orders. 18 of their homes have been
demolished. The King wants the land they live on to produce income for
the royal family. The residents have initiated a class action against
the King’s emissary, and against the head of the Police.

The King, Africa’s last absolute monarch, rules Swaziland with an iron
fist. Political parties are banned in the country, as is all civil
society activity that criticizes or opposes the monarchy. The King is
above the country’s Constitution and derives much of his income, which
is used to support a large royal family of 13 wives and 26 children,
from the expropriation of wealth from agriculture and businesses.

Swaziland is classed as a middle-income country by the World Bank, and
yet 70% of its population of one million live in poverty. It has the
highest HIV-AIDS rate in the world – 26% among the population as a
whole – and one of the lowest average levels of life expectancy – just
31 years.

The King’s income is estimated by sources within government and civil
society at about $US6.1 million a month. Royal expenditure, plus that
of the ruling elite who populate the country’s top government
structures, constitutes a major drain on Swaziland’s economy.

This has been a central criticism by the pro-democracy opposition –
comprising the banned People’s United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO) and
its youth wing the Swaziland Youth Congress (SWAYOCO). These
organisations have long pointed out that the vast wealth inequalities
of the country are central to the massive poverty forced on the
majority of Swazis and are a key reason why autocratic rule persists.
PUDEMO and the as yet unbanned Swaziland Democracy Campaign are
pressing for an end to the monarchic autocracy and the creation of a
multi-party democracy.

Now, however, the small community of Kashali have decided to try to
apply the law that protects people from unfair eviction from their
land to their own situation. So far the King has acted with impunity
when it comes to taking land that he wants to use or taking crops and
livestock.

“This all happens quite arbitrarily,” says Chief Matatazela who, under
the traditional system of chiefs that controls much of Swaziland’s
local government, is nominally in charge of Kashali. “If the King
feels that he is not getting enough income then he takes what he likes
from the Swazi National Land that he supposedly keeps safe for the
Swazi nation.”

According to the Swazi Constitution Mswati III’s holding of land “in
trust for the nation” is a largely symbolic entitlement. Lawyers for
Kashali’s residents affected by the demolition orders say that this
does not extend to the destruction of property to enforce evictions.

At the beginning of March the Swazi High Court froze all demolitions
and construction in the disputed area, pending a final ruling in
April. The judge presiding over the case, Justice Bheki Maphalala,
described it as “a serious constitutional and human rights matter”.

His comment has boosted the plaintiffs’ hopes of that they will have
their complaint against the king’s emissary upheld and be compensated
for the loss of their homes. If this happens, the case would represent
a first legal challenge by a community to the monarch’s powers. But
how this will unfold remains uncertain. The case has been adjourned
until late April.

“For some, the houses represented a lifetime of savings and
aspirations,” says Senator Dlamini of the Shakali Development
Committee, which supports the class action. “Forced evictions through
the destruction of homes go right against the spirit and letter of the
Swazi Constitution. It was the most terrible thing to do – to destroy
people’s homes. Those whose houses have been spared so far are scared
to live in them.”

The Swazi legal system has a certain degree of independence from
government interference, but pro-democracy campaigners, who are
watching the case with much anticipation, say that the courts have
never been used to tackle the autocratic powers of the King.

But the story does not end there. A further twist to the situation
facing Kashali’s residents lies in the rivalry between the King and
Chief Matatazela, who is in fact the Kings older brother and himself a
Prince.

The Prince supports the residents in their fight to reverse the
demolition and eviction orders and to receive compensation for their
lost homes. He has put up most of the funds for financing the case.

There is famously bad blood between the Prince and Mswati III, as the
King allegedly usurped the throne, and he had his older brother held
for many months in detention while he consolidated his power. The
Prince was later readmitted to Swazi society but has never been one of
the king’s cronies. He lives in virtual seclusion and is rarely seen
in public. The Prince supports the creation of a constitutional
monarchy under a multi-party democracy, which is another reason he is
a thorn in the Kings side.

Some human pro-democracy activists, such as Senator Dlamini, see the
Kashali evictions as evidence of the King seeking to impose his
authority over his recalcitrant older brother, in addition to his
straightforward desire to gain more control over the land. Others see
the court case is could be the start of something much bigger – a
precedent for rolling back the autocratic power of the King.

According to Quinton Dlamini, the president of the Swaziland National
Association of Civil Servants and a prominent human rights activist,
who is also advising the lawyers for the plaintiffs, the court case
represents the opening round of what he believes will be the King’s
‘Tunisia moment’.

Dlamini believes the case will call into question the King’s
expropriations of Swaziland’s wealth. “It is a definite blow to the
King’s efforts to remain unbound by the constitution. It will be a
major challenge to his generally arbitrary and despotic rule.”

By Mark Waller

The writer is a freelance journalist living in Soshanguve, South Africa.