Swazi rule of law in the spotlight

The conviction and subsequent 15-month incarceration of two men may have resulted in something good as the world will be watching what happens in Swaziland when it comes to the rule of law.

“I think our case in a way helped Swaziland to fix itself. Politicians may now be reluctant to phone judges and making deals with them at the risk of us reminding them what happened,” Bheki Makhubu, editor of The Nation magazine, said during an interview with the Pretoria News.

He and Swazi human rights lawyer Thulani Maseko were on Thursday officially welcomed back by Lawyers for Human Rights after spending 15 months in a Swazi prison.

The pair were arrested and convicted after they criticised the judiciary in Swaziland, but their names were cleared on appeal and they were released on June 30.

This came in the wake of (now former) Swazi chief justice Michael Ramodibedi and his sidekick, former judge Mpendulo Simelane, being investigated on charges of corruption.

Swazi King Mswati, meanwhile, dismissed Ramodibedi. He left the country and was believed to be in Lesotho. Both Ramodibedi and Simelane were instrumental in the trial and sentence of Makhubu and Maseko to two years’ imprisonment each.

They strongly criticised the judiciary in Swaziland and the behaviour of Ramodibedi in particular, in a series of articles which appeared in The Nation. Ramodibedi at the time appointed Simelane to preside over the case.

Makhubu said while Ramodibedi was back at home (in Lesotho) the people of Swaziland had to pick up the pieces.

“I’m hoping things will get better. But it won’t get better because they (the government and its officials) are suddenly nice guys.

“It is going to get better because we will keep on reminding them of the consequences of bad governance.”

Makhubu said when Ramodibedi took over the judiciary in Swaziland he gave the government 100 percent legal victories.

“All cases the government had to defend, it won.

“Nobody won against the government and I wrote about this, saying it is wrong.”

He said once judges did the government favours, then it (the government) had to reciprocate.

This was especially because the government controlled the finances.