Swazi Secrets Leaks sent govt into panic mode
By Vuyisile Hlatshwayo
The outburst of anger against the whistleblower behind Swazi Secrets Leaks exposing grand corruption provoked inside the House of Parliament and Hospital Hill Cabinet House is seen as a microcosm of double-standards in the quest to rid eSwatini of corruption.
On July 17, the lawmakers gave finance minister Neal Rijkenberg a seven-day ultimatum to provide a detailed report on how more than 890 000 internal records from the Eswatini Financial Intelligence Unit (EFIU) got into the hands of the US-based Distributed Denial of Secrets, a nonprofit entity publishing and archiving leaks. The EFIU is an intelligence division of the Central Bank of Eswatini responsible (CBE) for anti-money laundering. He should also explain if anyone had been held accountable for the leak and what measures, if any, have been put in place to ensure that such does not happen in future.
Vocal Mbabane East Member of Parliament Welcome Dlamini, the mover of the motion, said the leak was a new form of a revolution. He recalled that people said a revolution would be digitised. But he stopped short of mentioning that group of people.
“What’s the intention of this leak while we are fresh from a civil unrest. We need to establish the motive for these leaks,” he said.
Hhukwini MP Alec Lushaba, the seconder, blamed the international financial organisations like the World Bank for the leak. He said these organisations regulated countries and monitored how they use their money.
“Why should we trust that the leak came from the country and not from the same organisations,” he wondered.
Said to be the largest leak of its kind from a financial intelligence unit in Africa, politicians, royals, and high-ranking officials with a guilty conscience spend sleepless nights worrying about being fingered in the leak.
The begging question is what does the hostile environment and tone of government spell for whistleblowers in the country.
Ironically, the MPs behind the crack down on whistleblowers are former journalists. MP Dlamini broke the story of the issuance of the Farmers Bank licence now covered in the leak while a Times of Eswatini investigative journalist in 2019. But the Central Bank of eSwatini (CBE) stopped its publication after filing an urgent interdict.
Until 2015, MP Lushaba was chairperson of the now-defunct MISA Swaziland Chapter, which advocated for media freedom and freedom of expression. He served as editor of Observer on Saturday before becoming the managing editor of Eswatini Financial Times. The pair shot to prominence through journalism which helped them win votes to land seats in the 12th Parliament.
Political Expediency
Now they are calling for the hounding of the whistleblowers involved in the leak. The Swati Newsweek online followers slammed them for running with the hare and hunting with the hounds. As former journalists, they ought to know better the sacred and contractual reporter-source relationship based on trust.
Inhlase reached out to Eswatini Editors’ Forum (EEF) chairperson Mbongeni Mbingo and Eswatini National Association of Journalists (SNAJ) secretary general Ntombi Mhlongo, but neither responded.
American media scholar Roy S. Gutterman explains that a source provides information to the reporter in exchange for confidentiality (the reporter not revealing the source’s identity). Hence, reporters have both an ethical and legal obligation to protect confidential sources who take great risks to provide information to the public through the reporters.
Says Gutterman: “Reporters have an obligation to seek and report the truth. They also have an obligation to protect their sources, especially whistleblowers.”
In the Whistleblower Project, a team of media experts cautions that when government officials attack reporters or their sources and try to control the exposure of the truth, power is taken away from the citizens and that pillar of democracy crumbles.
The lawmakers’ anti-whistleblower stance runs counter to the Royal Eswatini Police Service (REPS) maxim to emaSwati to blow the whistle when crime is observed termed ‘nawe uliphoyisa’ in siSwati. In his quest for a corruption-free eSwatini, King Mswati III has consistently declared zero-tolerance for corruption. He commanded government to spare no effort in the fight against corruption in his Speech from the Throne in February 2024.
“Corruption stands in the way of progress in the nation’s plans, programmes and projects for development. We strongly encourage government to prioritise taking on this matter. It is high time that we witness judgments passed on individuals involved in corruption, holding them accountable for their actions,” reads part of his February 2024 speech.
However, subsequent governments have not prioritised putting in place whistleblowing mechanism to fight against corruption. The treasure trove of leaked documents proves that eSwatini has become a fertile ground for grand corruption. This laundry list of graft activities demonstrates not just pilfering tactics in the abstract, but tangible, regrettable impacts on lives and prosperity. Seemingly, the act to clampdown on whistleblowers by government is a smoke and mirrors in the broader scheme of these revelations.
Whistleblowing
Currently, eSwatini does not have a whistleblower legislation, unlike Zambia’s Public Interest Disclosure (Protection of Whistleblowers) Act No.4 of 2010 or South Africa’s Protected Disclosures Act No.26 of 2000. But it has laws which address corruption, fraud and related misconduct. Section 10(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 3 of 2006 leaves it to the discretion of the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) and the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) investigators to decline disclosure if it is “trivial, frivolous, vexatious or not made in good faith’’.
Worse still, the ACC’s mandate clashes with that of the Commission on Human Rights & Public Administration/Integrity. Section 164(1) (b) of the Constitution only empowers the human rights body to investigate complaints of injustice, corruption and abuse of power in public office.
Phumlani Dhlamini, the Commission head of secretariat, expresses concern about the absence of whistleblower legislation as an enabling instrument. He points out that the Commission only uses the constitution provisions which need to be clothed by legislation to elaborate on the operations of the Commission.
Dlamini added “The whistleblowing mechanism does not exist in the Commission at the moment. It is our view that such mechanism should not be institution specific. It is incumbent upon government to establish a holistic whistleblower mechanism for all law enforcement agencies in particular those with corruption and public administration mandates. This model will outline and prescribe protection and incentives for whistleblowers,” he explains.
Human rights lawyer, Sibusiso Nhlabatsi echoes his words: “We don’t have whistleblower legislation. eSwatini is generally slow to legislate. The issue of protection of whistleblowers is relatively new. So it may take time for eSwatini to put it in legislation. Nawe uliphoyisa is good in reporting crime but offers no protection for the informer.”
The eSwatini anti-corruption agency missed out on the commemoration of 2024 African Anti-Corruption Day. Attempts to obtain an explanation from ACC public relations officer Jabu Phakathi were unsuccessful. The African Union adopted July 11 as a day to commemorate the adoption of the African Union Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption (AUCPCC). Forty-eight AU members have put in place measures to tackle corruption such as criminalising corruption through various legislation, establishing institutions as well as engaging in corruption prevention initiatives.
The African Anti-Corruption Day theme was Effective Whistleblowers Protection Mechanism: A Critical Tool in the Fight Against Corruption. The AU identified inadequate whistleblowing system as one of the challenges that hinders citizens to report and whistle in instances of corruption. It recognises whistleblowing as a critical tool to fight against corruption.
Despite being a member of AU, eSwatini is among 10 African countries that have not ratified the AUCPCC which promotes the protection of whistleblowers. Article 5 (5) obligates member states to adopt legislative and other measures to protect informants and witnesses in corruption and related offences, including protection of their identities. Further, Article 5 (6) obligates member states to adopt measures that ensure citizens report instances of corruption without fear of consequent reprisals.
However, eSwatini is a signatory to the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC). This binds all nations who signed the Convention to protect whistleblowers. UNCAC Article 32 obligates member states to take appropriate measures to provide effective protection from potential retaliation or intimidation for witnesses, experts, relatives and other persons close to them who give testimony concerning offences.
With freedom of the press restricted and political opposition parties banned in eSwatini, it is unlikely that whistleblowers would come forward in such a repressive environment.
Outdated Laws
Furthermore, it has also outdated laws which deter potential whistleblowers and reporters from reporting acts of improper conduct and corruption. The Official Secrets Act No. 30 of 1968 prohibits any person who has been entrusted with any information from an official source or government from disclosing such information to the prejudice of eSwatini. The culprit is liable on conviction to pay a fine or five (5) years imprisonment or both. Ordinarily, a vetted functionary in possession of State confidential information is not supposed to disclose that information, but this theory should not be used to cover crass corruption.
The Sedition and Subversive Activities Act No. 46 of 1938 curtails media freedom and freedom of expression. It states that any reports or publications critical of the King and the government are seditious, thus closing off public criticism of the government and the royal court.
The Cape Libel Act of 1882 is the masterstroke of anachronistic colonial era law which carries a two-year term of imprisonment for defamation on conviction if anyone publishes a defamatory statement or report which intended to “injure the reputation of a person and expose him or her to hatred, ridicule or contempt”. Such legislation is often activated to silence critics of government and those close to the king and the royal court.
Despite that Swazi Secrets is awash with questionable transactions uncovered by the EFIU and banks, eSwatini government continues to shield the culprits. The leak revealed that law enforcement agencies do not want to bring to book the royally connected suspects.
Political expediency aside, there is an urgent need to develop the whistleblower protection legislation to curb grand corruption rife in the public and private sector.
