Former MPs sentences spark outrage
By Zwelethu Dlamini
The recent sentencing of former MPs Bacede Mabuza and Mthandeni Dube to 25 and 18 years in prison has ignited a fierce debate over the integrity of the kingdom’s judicial system. What many view as a glaring miscarriage of justice is being condemned by human rights advocates and legal experts alike, who see the harsh penalties as a thinly veiled attempt to silence dissent and entrench political control.
Legal experts and human rights advocates have criticized the process as being politically motivated, suggesting it failed to meet the high standards of proof and fairness required in criminal justice. The criticism centres on the perception that the sentencing was neither impartial nor just, further casting doubt on the integrity of the judiciary.
Both MPs were arrested in 2021 for their involvement in pro-democracy protests, which erupted following the mysterious death of law student Thabani Nkomonye, allegedly at the hands of the police. The government’s subsequent ban on petitions calling for an elected prime minister and democratic reforms fuelled the unrest. The MPs faced charges, including incitement to revolt against the government, which led to widespread riots. Additionally, they were accused of two counts of murder related to deaths during the unrest.
The trial concluded in January 2023, with their conviction in June 2023 on charges of terrorism and murder. The U.S. Embassy issued a statement expressing disappointment over their arrest, prolonged detention, and eventual guilty verdict. “These elected representatives are prevented from representing the voices of their constituencies. We call on the government of Eswatini to exercise transparency in judicial processes and protect the rule of law and human rights. All emaSwati must have equal protection under the law, including those who voice dissent or nonviolent reforms,” the embassy stated.
Following the sentencing, the U.S. Embassy reiterated its stance, highlighting the widespread reports that the MPs’ detentions were arbitrary and based on groundless charges of murder and terrorism. The embassy emphasized that these actions were targeted at silencing the MPs for bravely calling for political and human rights reforms in the country. “We reiterate our prior statement that such reporting calls into question the credibility of Eswatini’s judicial system. The use of courts to suppress dissenting views erodes trust in government institutions and undermines efforts to make progress on the rule of law and improving respect for freedom of expression and opinion as enshrined in the Constitution,” the embassy’s statement read.
In delivering the sentences, Judge Mumcy Dlamini stated that the court had considered both the mitigation, and the evidence presented. She acknowledged that Mabuza and Dube were first-time offenders with no prior criminal records and had been respected members of society and parliament. However, she emphasized that their public statements had incited people to disobey a lawful ban issued by the then Acting Prime Minister, Themba Masuku leading to deaths, injuries, property damage, and other serious incidents. Judge Mumcy highlighted the seriousness of the crimes and the impact of their actions on the country, noting that 31 witnesses testified to the gravity of the offenses, with the defence not cross-examining the evidence presented.
The sentencing of Mabuza and Dube has been widely condemned as a gross miscarriage of justice. Human rights organizations, including the Eswatini Litigation Centre, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch, have called for their immediate and unconditional release, pointing to a lack of accountability and justice for the abuses committed by law enforcement during the protests. The judiciary in Eswatini faces criticism for its lack of impartiality and independence, further exacerbating concerns over the country’s deteriorating human rights situation.
Professor Anton Harber, Executive Director of the Campaign for Free Expression, strongly criticized the sentencing, describing it as “breathtakingly harsh and unjust.” Harber emphasized that the MPs were accused of no more than speaking out and encouraging citizens to demand and defend their rights. He pointed out the injustice of convicting Mabuza and Dube for the deaths of two people in a car accident, despite neither being present, driving, or owning the car involved. “It appears to be a gross injustice,” Harber stated.
Harber also criticized the application of the legal principle of “common purpose” in this case, suggesting that it was dubiously applied to pin responsibility for the deaths on Mabuza and Dube. He argued that the events surrounding their sentencing were intended to send a chilling message: “If you speak out on human rights, if you criticize the status quo, you can be the target of the most severe punishment.”
In Harber’s view, these actions represent “brutal acts of suppression” in an environment of widespread state repression against political activists who have exposed abuses of state power and demanded political reforms in Eswatini. He emphasized that this sentencing is a direct and brutal attack on free expression, with a chilling effect on all parts of society, including the media, civic organizations, non-governmental institutions, trade unions, and political formations—many of which are still banned in the country. “This affects the media’s capacity to do its job, as well as other democracy actors,” Harber concluded, highlighting the broader implications for freedom of expression and democratic governance in Eswatini.
Maxwell Dlamini of the Human Rights Defenders summarized four grave consequences for exercising the right to freedom of expression in Eswatini: harassment, arrest, fear, and brutal death. He said these tactics are allegedly employed by the state to silence dissent and prevent people from freely expressing their views, particularly when those views involve criticism of the royal family, government, or the Tinkhundla system of government.
“From time immemorial, human rights defenders in the country have been harassed through raids, arrests as seen by the arrests of the two MPs, torture, and intimidation. This is forcing them into self-censorship, and some are being forced into exile, as seen in the cases of former Siphofaneni MP Mduduzi ‘Gawzela’ Simelane, now the leader of Swalimo, and journalist Zweli Martin Dlamini, who has been forced into exile,” he said.
Human rights lawyer Sibusiso Nhlabatsi from the Eswatini Litigation Centre argues that the sentencing is fundamentally flawed. He contends that it was wrong for the MPs to be found guilty of both the main charge and an alternative charge. Nhlabatsi criticized the judgment as flawed both factually and legally, pointing out that convicting the MPs on both charges is contrary to the principle of double jeopardy. He further argued that the standard of proof in criminal matters has been dangerously lowered, suggesting that mere allegations now suffice for convictions. He questioned the linkage of the MPs to the alleged crimes, noting discrepancies such as the MPs being in their constituencies while the implicated driver and car were seen elsewhere.
“This was a political case from the start. The broad definition of terrorism allows the government to silence people and dissenting voices. It needs urgent amendment,” he said.
The Suppression of Terrorism (Amendment) Act, 2017, used to convict Mabuza and Dube, significantly broadens the definition of terrorism. The amended Act defines a “terrorist act” to include any action intended to cause death, bodily harm, serious property damage, or disruptions to essential services if done for political, religious, or ideological purposes. Critics argue that this broad definition can easily be exploited to target political dissenters.
While this aims to cover a wide range of potential terrorist activities, it also raises concerns about the potential for misuse. Activities such as protests or demonstrations that disrupt services could be construed as terrorism if they cause serious harm, despite protections for legitimate protests. The broad and vague definitions, especially regarding actions taken for political, religious, or ideological purposes, can be exploited to suppress dissent. Political opponents and activists could be unfairly targeted under this law, as suspected in the cases of Bacede Mabuza and Mthandeni Dube.
Nhlabatsi said the case of Bacede Mabuza and Mthandeni Dube highlights the urgent need for legal reforms to protect the rights of individuals and uphold the rule of law in Eswatini. He added that strengthening judicial independence, implementing anti-corruption measures, and redefining terrorism to prevent its misuse are critical steps to restore public trust in the government and the legal system.
Melusi Simelane, Programme Manager at the Southern Africa Litigation Centre, also condemned the sentencing, stating, “The conviction and sentencing of these elected representatives for exercising their right to voice concerns about the nation is not only unjust but a dangerous precedent. It sends a clear message that dissent will not be tolerated.”
Simelane pointed out that the charges against Mabuza and Dube were primarily based on their public statements, which the court deemed to have encouraged civil disobedience. The court’s ruling devoted extensive analysis to their speeches, signalling a clear intent to suppress free expression. He noted, “This case is not an isolated incident but part of a broader pattern of using legal mechanisms to stifle dissent and silence critics.”Simelane added that the suppression of freedom of expression extends far beyond the confines of the legislative or judicial chambers. Civil society organizations, journalists, and ordinary citizens face increasing pressure to conform. The Southern Africa Litigation Centre’s recent release stated that this sentencing is “a blow to freedom of expression in Eswatini,” highlighting the broad and dangerous implications of this verdict.
