Times takeover rings death knell for independent media
By Vuyisile Hlatshwayo
While many indigenous businesspeople are still finding it extremely hard to recover from the apocalyptic Covid-19-induced losses, one Zambian-born business magnate, Michello Shakantu, is surprisingly snapping up businesses left, right and centre like nobody’s business in the eSwatini’s small economy. Recently, he acquired the 128-year-old Times of Eswatini Group of Newspapers to his burgeoning empire. His business interests include construction, telecommunications, mining, manufacturing, insurance, financial services, healthcare and media. Due to the media’s pervasive nature, every change in the media industry sparks public interest, ranging from regulation, ownership, production, distribution, staffing, and content.
His latest media acquisition of the country’s oldest media house marks the completion of the era for media independence. It subsequently marks the dawn of a new era of media consolidation in the hostile media environment. The abrupt end of its 50-year-old ownership by the Loffler family in an undisclosed buyout value on March 31, 2025, surprised the readers and emaSwati. Interestingly, Karl Marx once said, “history repeats itself-first as tragedy, the second time as farce”. A British expatriate, Douglas Loffler, who had emigrated from Zambia, bought the Times from the South African Argus Group in 1975 when the government spurned the first to make a purchase offer.
The Times takeover ushers in a new chapter, which has raised many pertinent questions about whether it bodes well for the democratic function of the media in the country’s 20-year-old constitutional dispensation. According to Professor Helge Rønning of the Department of Media and Communication at the University of Oslo in Norway, the media is the cornerstone of democracy. He outlines three media functions that are critical to the democratic systems and development of citizens’ rights as follows:
Firstly, people must have access to information on their rights as citizens in order to exercise them fully. They will also need advice on how to pursue these rights effectively. In effect, the media are expected to be specialist advisors.
Secondly, citizens must have access to the broadest possible range of information, interpretation and debate on areas that involve public, socio-economic and political choices. Not only should citizens be able to hear a wide range of media voices, but the media should be their loudspeaker, allowing them to talk back. They should be able to be critical and have an opportunity to propose alternative development models. And they should be able to base these proposals on knowledge of local, national and international events.
Thirdly, people must be able to recognize themselves and their aspirations, cultures and lifestyles, in the range of representations in the media. In this respect, the media should act as a mirror. Audiences should be able to contribute to developing and expanding the reflected images.
Inhlase Centre for Investigative Journalism (ICIJ) has solicited the views and opinions of members of the media fraternity at the media’s coalface concerning this takeover and its implications. It has elicited mixed reactions from journalism lecturers, editors, and practising journalists who are well-versed in the local media landscape.
In an interview with Inhlase, University of Eswatini (UNESWA) journalism lecturer Dr. Maxwell Mthembu shares that Shakatu’s acquisition of the Times of Eswatini Group of Newspapers is likely to negatively impact competition and the diversity of media content. According to him, Shakantu’s ownership of both Rubicon Africa Media Group and the Times of Eswatini suggests a shift toward monopolistic tendencies. This consolidation, he opines, could significantly affect the diversity and quality of media content available to the public.
Dr. Mthembu further identifies a significant challenge in Shakantu’s partnership with individuals in the upper echelons of power that could compromise the integrity of the Times. Although the Times is no longer as influential as it was in the 1980s and 1990s, according to him, it still managed to hold the government accountable.
“The impact of this takeover relates to news concerning the companies owned by Shakantu in the telecommunications, construction, and meat industries. The Times will no longer fulfil its watchdog role in monitoring any questionable transactions involving these companies,” the journalism lecturer says, adding: “With the national radio and television under government control, the Eswatini Observer managed by Tibiyo, and the Times of Eswatini now under the control of Shakantu, it is evident that independent media no longer exists in the country, which is a travesty.”
His counterpart at Limkokwing University of Creative Technology (LUCT), who asked not to be named, shares the same sentiments. He states that the Times‘ change of ownership could exacerbate self-censorship and further widen the pool of the so-called untouchables, which includes royalty, political elites, and businesspeople with close ties to the monarchy.
“ Already, there were individuals and entities seemingly immune from media (Times) scrutiny. It is highly unlikely that the Times will return to its glory days of the 80s and 90s, where it held everyone to account without fear or favour,” he laments.
The LUCT journalism lecturer also mentions another adverse effect of the Shakantu Times takeover. His wife, Pholile Dlamini-Shakantu, is a cabinet minister with strong ties to the monarch. He points out that this further may compromise the Times and cast doubt on its categorisation as an ‘independent publication’. The editors may be hard-pressed to distinguish between the filial ties to royalty and media ethics functionality. He argues that categorising the Times as a state publication wouldn’t be off the mark because its owners significantly influence state affairs.
Reached out for comment, Bheki Makhubu, outspoken The Nation editor, echoes the lecturers’ concerns about Shakantu’s buyout of the Times. He explains that media capture in the country has come full circle. Journalists who are critical of the state of the government and who will call the government to account have been ostracised. He adds that this completes the circle, as this has happened over the years. According to him, the suppression of dissenting views and independent journalism has been going on for a long time.
“That’s why some of us went to jail for trying to achieve that. I think now this family’s takeover of the Times is just the takeover by the state. You can see this by looking at what happened in the King’s Birthday Supplement. I’m surprised and I’m sure even Paul Loffler is also surprised that government ministries are spending money congratulating the King on his birthday. That has never happened before in the history of media in the country,” he says, adding: “What we are seeing is a government now channelling funds in every way possible to the Times. The reason is that the Times now has the space to protect the government’s and the monarch’s interests from media scrutiny. We all know that Shakantu is close to the royal family, and his wife is a cabinet minister. She takes it upon herself to use her husband’s newspaper to protect the country from negative coverage.”
However, Lington Gule, Eswatini National Association of Journalists (ENAJ) deputy president, sees the light at the end of the tunnel. He says ESNAJ believes that Shakantu places a high premium on the Times brand and will not do anything to jeopardise it. Hence, ESNAJ hopes the new Times owner will stick to its raison d’être of informing, educating, and entertaining.
“Like any business, regardless of who owns it, there might be a change of editorial policies here and there, but that will not be unique to the Times of Eswatini. As a national newspaper, we must remember it is a private company, not a government entity. We hope the new owners will continue upholding journalism standards and professionalism. By this, we mean publishing ethical news, respecting media self-regulation, following all good labour practices, and ensuring the welfare of journalists to make the profession attractive to the upcoming generation,” he says.
Treading carefully, the ESNAJ deputy president, whose core responsibility is to project the membership jobs, urges the media fraternity to embrace the change in ownership and see how things will unfold as time goes on. Multiple voices in the mass media should be welcomed; however, this should not be divorced from ownership, staffing and content which trigger public interest. The media does not operate in a vacuum, untainted and impervious space, in its urge to maintain objectivity in the information ecosystem. The begging question on this ownership boils down to the insidious emergence of an oligarchy in the land.
Shakantu owes the father of modern Swazi journalism credit for transforming the weekly, spawning the media empire, including the Times of Eswatini, Eswatini News, Times of Eswatini Sunday and What’s Happening over the years. He intends to merge the established Times of Eswatini Group of Newspapers with his barely four-year-old Rubicon Africa Media Group. The latter publishes the Eswatini Daily News, Eswatini Financial Times and Eswatini Sunday. With his sights set on building his own media empire, he is determined to dominate the media sector through an oligopolistic media structure.
The Times‘ takeover by Shakantu is a stark reminder of the Italian media tycoon and three-time prime minister Silvio Berlusconi, who turned the watchdog media into the lapdog of the state and corporations. Under the Shakantu ownership, the Times‘ raison d’être will likely shift to chasing money and stroking political egos. It is a typical case of media concentration under a fledging oligarchy tendency.
Given the proximity of the Shakuntu family to the monarch and political elite, the stage is set for cheap and attention-oriented journalism at the expense of quality journalism. Despite the Times management’s assurance of unchanged editorial policies and journalistic integrity, the business mogul will wield more economic power to influence political decision-making through media editorials biased towards his multiple business interests and politically biased interests.
As Jim Morrison, the lead vocalist of the rock band ‘The Doors’, remarked, “Whoever controls the media, controls the mind.” Information is power that must be securely safeguarded for all, like liberty, equality and freedom. In her book The Elementals, Erin Forbes says, “There are times when the unseen can be even more dangerous than what our eyes behold.”
Probably, the Times takeover sounds a death knell for independent media in the country. Only time will tell.
